[r-t] method extension

[Alan Reading]

Perhaps I phrased it badly; I meant that for any place adjacent to the path
of the treble at least one instance of it must so remain in an extension.

The first 14-14 remains below the treble in the extension of York; in your
example there is no equivalent of 34-34 that does.

I believe this used to be the case but I could be mistaken. Anyone have
anything more definitive to offer?

Rgds,
Alan

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, 11:39 Simon Humphrey, <sh53246 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >Isn't there an additional rule about places adjacent to the path of the
> treble in the parent having to remain adjacent in the extension? Pretty
> >certain there used to be some such rule, although not sure I really see
> why it's needed.
> > Alan R
>
> Don't think that's so, not for static extensions anyway.  Take York, for
> instance : extends to successive stages by adding the section 14x14.3n
>
> SH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180724/87720490/attachment.html>