robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Aug 11 06:26:00 UTC 2013
I suspect the 'problem' with Caversham (whatever) was the asymmetry.
It was believed at the time that no asymmetric method could give an
extent - in a straight forward manner. This would be 'fatal' to naming a
method on five, six or seven by the ideas of the time and so, by
extension, methods on 8 or more would be classed similarly.
We know now, however, that many asymmetric methods will give an extent -
most recently, 'Prince George Alexander Louis Slow Course Doubles'
(22.214.171.124.3126.96.36.199.3.123) which can be called PPBBx3 or PPSSx3 - with
common bobs and singles. Any method not able to produce an extent can
now be rung to a double extent for naming purposes. 'Laurance Bob Minor'
(x16x16x56x36x14x le 12 given in Annable's notebook as 'Laurance
Double') is a recent example.
More information about the ringing-theory