[r-t] 5040 Surprise Minor by Roger Bailey

[Graham John]

Simon wrote:

> Is it generally realised that  it [R.Bailey's 5040] is not true to methods
such as Gangnam
> Surprise Minor (x3x4x2x3x34.2.3 le 2) which don't have the "usual" pattern
of positive
> and negative rows in a lead?
> When I say "generally realised", I don't just mean whether subscribers to
ringing-theory
> would know. I am wondering about the interpretation of "any method" by a
typical conductor.

I think you are right, Simon. It is not immediately obvious, given that
Gangnam has Plain Bob leadheads and no single changes. It would be helpful
coin a name for the property of a method that does not have an equal number
of positive and negative rows in its plain course. The property could then
be included in collections to help highlight this. Any suggestions for an
appropriate name? "Charged" perhaps, or is that not obvious enough?

Of course, a peal would be fine if it contained an equal number of 3(WHW)
type callings starting with a positive and negative row. You would have to
ring 8 extents though.

Graham