[r-t] Extension

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Mon Mar 20 14:22:11 UTC 2017

Hi All,

Firstly, (i) and (ii) are not my rules, they are, to coin a phrase, 
axioms laid down (semi-explicitly) in the original extension documents. 
I use the words 'semi-explicitly' as this was the fashion of the time - 
not to enumerate things.

I hope no one take Robert Bennett seriously - inventing new cognomenes 
sounds a bit too much like the more extreme forms of train-spotting.

I am not sure I see Roddy's point about Beverley, although I was not on 
the CC at the time so may have missed something.

Beverley S Minor was extended to eight in 1991. As far as I remember, 
the band 'ran this past' MethCom and there was no problem with the 
method *at that time*.

The 5-6 section of the Minor is 36.14x34.56. The Major has the 5-6-7-8 
sections as 36.14-34.38.14-34.78

As will be easily seen, the major has introduced three blows at the 
treble transiting from 5-6 to 7-8, but, as I have just said, the 
Extension Decision said nothing about this.

In fairness, not much had been done on Extension since the original in 
1953, except for some tweaking in 1971. Also, at the time, very few 
ringers would have had anything to do with more than two blows in one 
place so the idea that someone would do it never occurred to them. The 
Decisions now do not allow this to happen - (G)B6.

I have a vague recollection (but I may be wrong) that the band were 
advised at the time that changes were in the pipeline to make more 
extension paths available which, in this case, would have solved this 
problem, but the band declined to delay although looking at the 
currently available paths, my recollection is probably wrong on this.

It is worth pointing out that there is no compliant extension of 
Beverley to eight bells, and the only ones available at that time go to 
12, 18, 24,...

In answer to MBD, I rather like the idea of 'zero times'. This is a 
possibility as it is a requirement for all new extensions to be 
indefinite so I'm happy with a piece of work occurring, say zero, one, 
two, etc times on say 6,8,10, etc bells. After all, it is only children 
who start counting at one. In some way, this concept of 'zero-times' is 
a consequence of the mathematics supporting the whole edifice of 
change-ringing - tho' there are some who think it's a branch of music, 
of course.

I do take his point about the 'work' being referred to is place making - 
which can cause dodging.

Alan Reading makes a point which has been heard before that there is no 
such thing as Extension - but lots of people out there think there 
is/should be. This is just a value judgement. This is OK, but think the 
number of rows which would break out over whether one particular method 
is or is not a better extension without an objective approach.

I don't see how an app differs in any real sense in asking MethCom for 
an extension. All an app would do is to encapsulate the current 
Decision. If PJE wants one, why doesn't he write one? He also proves my 
point that is is extremely difficult to write down the rules for 
something so easy. Helps to think in pictures! (It's a shame RAS has 
lost his prog. - fortunately I've got my copy of the output).

I agree with PJE about, and have argued previously in public and private 
against, certain restrictions - fixed-lead length for Little methods, 
for example and indefinacy of extensions, but there has not seemed any 
appetite until recently for change in these areas. He's arguing against 
history with Grandsire/Plain Bob, however. The exception which proves 
the rule!

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list