[r-t] "Extent" of Kent Major

[Richard Pullin]

DFM wrote:

>What does "extent" mean in this case? If it means "maximum possible true
>length", then I don't believe this is correct. For example,

>8,544 Kent Treble Bob Major
23456  M  B  W  H
_________________
25634  2     1  1
26354        1  2
23564     5  1  2
36524        2
34625  2        1
42356  2     2
_________________
Repeat twice.
>Contains all 24 each 56s and 65s, 86 little bell rollups at the back, and
>tittums.


Yes, I meant "maximum possible true length", in the same sense that a
tenors together 13440 of Bob Major is often referred to as "the extent
with the tenors together".

The 8544 is an interesting discovery, as 8448 was at one time
considered to be the maximum possible true length three-part with the
tenors together. The 8448 I came up with a few years ago was very easy
to put together, so perhaps it is just easier to get 88 leads per part
than 89 leads. I wonder if the 8544 has been devised previously.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20150715/52cfab0c/attachment-0003.html>