robin at robinw.org.uk
Mon Mar 20 14:22:11 UTC 2017
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,
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
More information about the ringing-theory