[r-t] Jump change notation
Glenn Taylor
gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon May 18 07:04:03 UTC 2015
---Don---
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Glenn Taylor <gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> FWIW, when Cambridge Jump was first published in the RW in about 1979
> the notation used was along the lines of:
>
> -3-(4.2)-2 etc.
Does this not have to be
-3-(4.25)-2 etc.
or
-3-(45.2)-2 etc.
?
If not, I'm afraid I don't understand the notation.
-------
Sorry. You are quite correct: my sloppiness! I had my eye on the jump
component and ignored the rest of the row. Philip's observation about the
clumsiness of this notation as the number of jumped placed and/or the number
of bells simultaneously jumping increases is a very good point, but prompts
the question as to what is the realistic practical limit for the extent of a
jump (on tower bells of typical weight) by a working bell.
It must have been at a similar time (i.e. early 1980s) that I came up with:
-36-(34.1456)-12-(1236.34)-14-56, le 2nds, 526341
which is also based on Cambridge but with the 2nd as the fixed, and jumping,
bell. I think we might have rung a couple of courses of it but I couldn't
see a way of obtaining a 720 (although a 1440 is trivial). A related
non-jumping variant ("Not Quite Cambridge") is:
-1236-14-12-36-14-56, le 2nds, 526341
but was never rung.
Glenn
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list