[r-t] The null change

[Graham John]

Given the de facto use of the null change, and its practical purpose in
completing some MEBs, we should determine how its use should be recorded
(description, not prescription). However, as we count changes, not rows, I
feel that many might argue that when no bells change position, you have not
rung a change. 

A compromise, therefore,  is to accept the use of the null change to
generate another row, but not count it in the number of changes rung. This
would mean that a double extent of Minor with one null change would be
described as 1439 changes and 1440 rows, and both the number of changes and
the number of rows could be listed in performances where they differ.
Equally ringing in whole pulls would result in twice the number of rows as
changes, and still meet the requirement of truth (which counts rows).

Consequently, if a band rang a 720 where every row was rung 7 times before
changing to the next row, this would be 720 changes and 5040 rows. This way
of recording makes the use of the null change very clear. It is only then
necessary to decide whether that performance is counted as a peal (i.e. a
peal = 5000 rows), or a miscellaneous performance (i.e. a peal = 5000
changes).

Graham