[r-t] Hubbard, etc

Robert Bennett rbennett at woosh.co.nz
Tue Jun 19 11:07:44 UTC 2012


 On Tue 19/06/12 7:31 PM , edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com sent:

On 17 June 2012 15:33, Matthew Frye  wrote:

 > RE your second paragraph (saying just bob the same set of leads), I
pointed out that this will work in more cases but still certainly not
universally. The result will be true, but isn't guaranteed to have the
right number of leads as some may separate themselves off into their own
round blocks.

 My theory is that if there are no more than two interuptions to an
 initially plain course then you'd be ok, more than that causes

I think that is getting close to it. 

I think that: 

 (1) any touch which uses complete courses is adaptable between Plain
Bob and St.Simons. 

(2) any touch which uses calls at W,M and H only is adaptable. 

(3)most peals based on bob courses of St.Simons cannot be converted, since
peals of Plain Bob Triples can't have more than 240 bobs (???).  

(4) touches where the same course is cut into 2 parts,with the
parts rung backward and forward can be adapted. e.g Hubbard's 10-part. 

(5)long touches or peals where the same course is cut into 4 or 6 parts
with the bits being rung alternately forward and backward may not be

Robert Bennett
 ringing-theory mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20120619/f156a45a/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list