[r-t] Adjacency in Extension

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Fri Jul 27 14:16:49 UTC 2018

Don; "I am really confused, now."

Yes, you quite clearly are. At no point did I explicitly say that Twatt 
was an extension of Kent. I did start with the word 'above' and these 
may be regarded as a complete set of possible extensions of the Kent TB6 
work 'above the treble'.

Did you notice that the Twatt extension is the same way as extending 

It seems that there is an unrung TB method which has the Twatt work 
above and the Kent work below, as there is for Obnoxious above.

There are, obviously, a set of possible extensions below the treble 
which I will leave as an exercise for the reader. Put them together and 
you would have a set of formulaically correct extensions of Kent TB6.

f.w.i.w., RAS found these compliant extensions of Kent:

5BC/5FG &56-,1 (8 [2] 60)
2DE/5FG &34-34.1-2-1-2-1-2-1,1 (8 [2] 60)
2BC/5FG &34-,1 (8 [2] 60)


"Are we on different planets?"

Same planet - divided by a common language.

I think Mark is wrong to worry about even smaller numbers than 6. He 
says they are degenerate - let's use this in its ordinary English 
meaning, and ignore <5. There are, after all, only 11 plain minimus methods.

The question is as to whether the Exercise at large believes in the 
benefits of adjacency. In its simplest form, it can preserve method 
class. In a more advanced form, it is there to try to preserve 
characteristics of the parent. Think about an extension of Cambridge 
which didn't have the characteristic front work, for example. This 
preservation is a consequence of adjacency ond/or contiguousness.

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list