Ringing Forums

... figure [10792 Minimus extents] from the article on the web by Polster & Ross — John Harrison

Yes, thay have the same count (website dated 1Dec2009) as from my 1990-dated computer program. I had the number written in my Ringers' Diary for many years and was reassured by another independent analysis referenced in a Ringing Theory discussion in 2004.

A lot of those Hamiltonian paths are likely to be not asymmetric single lead methods... — John Harrison

Yes, having blown the cobwebs off my 1990-printout, I had the same classification of them as AlexanderHolroyd used in 2004 here

If rotations, reversals and mirror images are discounted, the number drops to 162 — Holroyd

Of those 162, there are 75 one-part extents with no symmetry, hence 7200 of the 10792 have four separate blue lines (example as above Crossbank Minimus): and of those, 288 do have a hunt bell.

I enjoyed the Ringing Shapes, thanks

Minimus ringers ran out of new methods to ring for which a single extent was possible. — Graham John

They may have run out of methods that to which they were allowed to give a name :angry:, but ...

(from a dusty folder of computery dated 1990 ...), there are over ten thousand (10,792) different Minimus extents, in which the twentyfour rows are connect by the traditional changes (x 12 14 34). Some are familiar - Plain Bob Minimus for example, and its reverse Reverse Bob Minimus, while both place notations can be rotated for any of the other three bells to be in the hunt; there are 10,784 more to find, and they are all summarised on this Join-The-Dots diagram:

For an example set of extents, draw a circuit which visits each of the twenty-four nodes (blobs) exactly once: each node uses one of its four connecting lines on the way in, and a different one on the way out. To convert to place notation, follow the circuit from any node, interpreting each double-line as X; each thin line as 14; each thick line as 12 and each dotted line as 34. In most cases that will give twentyfour different extents by rotation (starting at a different node in the diagram). There are another twentyfour by traversing the circuit in the opposite direction. By swapping the interpretations of the thick and dotted lines (swapping the 34s with the 12s - in ringing terms, the Reverse methods), gives another fortyeight extents for a total of ninetysix.

For a completed example ciruit click and starting from the top node with the blue line (colours for clarity only) gives the place notation
x14x14.12x12.14x12x14.34x34.14x14x34x14x34 Crossbank Minimus
which we rang and named here, for fun. Ringing the place notation backwards and rotating would give Bankcross Minimus and their reverses are Reverse Crossbank Minimus and Reverse Bankcross Minimus

Sadly I could carry on with the relationship of circuits to extents and counts of both, the history of method naming and its rules, method symmetry, their reversals and ringing them backwards ...

...Think from a practical perspective: "Go Great Massingham"... — John Harrison

Yes, quite so. Conductors and their bands need to know what they are ringing before they start, and which calls there are likely to be. For example, in my experience, handbell performances are usually up-down-and-off without anyone saying "Go".

My point is different to that (lots of head-of-pin-dancing, maybe, but lots of ringing is like that) :-)

Framework for Method Ringing ... provides the tools to describe what people choose to ring, rather than to determine that some things are legitimate, and by implication others are not. — ibid

The Framework is indeed permissive and wide-ranging in defining what a ringing Performance can contain...
... while still defining restrictive rules about how methods may be named and added to the
Methods Library.

An innovative idea in a Performance is something we all support/encourage...

There is indeed nothing wrong with ringing it, so if someone does ring it how should they describe it? — ibid

but there some new methods which are impossible to use the Methods Library to describe. ...

... hence my earlier suggestion that a list of the rows does at least give a definitive account of what was rung.

I'll do some examples ... later ... :-)

But which could you remember a month later? — Graham John

I would probably need both, so that when the tower captain says "Catch hold for this brilliant new method I've found - Great Massingham Treble Place Minimus", then I could work out the line from the place notation ...

Hmmmm, both events are, imho, unlikely. I might do better converting the place notation to some practical ringing with a pair-of-handbells ...

The aim of the Framework, or any naming system, is to enable more compact description without loss of accuracy. — John Harrison

The most compact description of the ringing would seem to be within the performance report
-1234-1234-14.34.14-1234-12,34 (30 characters)

compared with
Great Massingham Treble Place Minimus (37 characters)
:-)

...so if someone does ring it how should they describe it? — John Harrison

With Bellboard and a laptop, they could just provide a list of the rows that were rung.

It's not a new problem, of course. Organising tours fifty years ago, usually for visits from a canal boat, needed a first-draft timetable of towers within walking distance of the canal, then a visit to the library to consult Crockford's (Clerical directory) for the name and address of the vicar, then a polite handwritten letter enclosing a stamped-addressed envelope. It was usually an efficient system. I remember replanning one day to cope with a non-existent response, and two months later receiving a reply from South Africa to where the vicar had retired a couple of years before. Amendment to system: add "or incumbent" to the vicar's name on the envelope ...

Another efficient system was to telephone the tower contact mentioned in the Guild report, avoiding practice night for the call: that gave an good indication on whether the request would be looked-on favourably, and then promising to call-back a week later when all the necessary people had been consulted. If the tower-contact had changed, then there was probably a warm trail to the current officer. I suspect this system of speaking-with-real-people, rather than messaging them, is still the best bet ...

... but if we want to make the best of smartphones I suspect that WhatsApp is the best modern method, with integrated textmessages, photos of participants and voice calls.

Otoh, we recently had a Tower Correspondent who declined to have their postal or email address or landline or mobile number published anywhere, for fear of online nastiness ... Hmmmm ....

The force required to pull off (any) bell is determined by the steeplekeeper, and their positioning of the end-stops on the slider's track and hence where the slider hits them. Many tracks are the same effective length as they were when delivered by the bellfounders, and could be improved with some small blocks of wood and a few nails.

Too lightly set, and the bell may accidentally be pulled off, and need more pulling-accuracy to stand. Too heavily set and only hefty ringers will try ringing the bell. Leaving a heavily-set bell up can bend the stay and make it even harder to pull off. ...

Useful articles in Tower Handbook

Two of my new ringers attended the recent NW course. Both were working at the same level but they were split into different groups with different tutors .... — Peter Sotheran

which is good, because one benefit of the course is to ring with new people...

...One has returned with renewed confidence and a sense of achievement. ...

which is also good,

...The other is disappointed and somewhat unsettled. ...

... which is a pity. After the course, there's an opportunity to provide feedback to the organisers, and it would be useful to debate what they wrote, if they care to share their thoughts with us here. Even better is to use the opportunities for feedback during the couse. For example, there was a hour on each of the four days, in a large meeting room together, for all the students and tutors on the Learn It, Ring It topic to informally exchange ideas, compare progress and to prepare for the forthcoming practical sessions.

...Both tutors required an acceptable standard of bell handling and striking....

which is also good, and one of the aims of the course. The course emphasis was basic skills, rather than specifically 'Plain Hunt' or 'Plain Bob' in order to tailor the sessions to the needs of each student individually.

...One [tutor] was willing to compromise somewhat in order that the pupils could make progress with PH and PB. The other appears to have insisted in perfection before moving to the next stage.

Well, I don't think we ought to turn perfection into a perjorative term, but neither of us was there to view the interactions and the progress over the four days.

A few thoughts, then:
Having attended weekend courses for thirty years as tutor or helper, students' expectations of achieving, say, a touch of PBDoubles inside, is affected by all manner of variables - the long draft, unfamiliar weight of bells, lengths of rope, size of circle, lighting, being young and having blasted ahead to achieve this at home between course application and the course weekend, ... Hence the less-specific course-topic title Learn It, Ring It allows tutors and students to review together all progress and challenges, and finish the course concentrating on the individual positive outcomes.

One of our Learn It, Ring It students was doing well in rounds on a long draft with an excellent long straight pull. The hand-transfer looked good: while the hand was in the correct position it was not gripping the rope until well-after the hand was above head-high on the tensioned backstroke, so there was no chance of adjusting the rope-length for a change of hunting-speed, such as a dodge. We suggested working on this when ringing-easily and without pressure, and that they would find it a worthwhile investment of concentration. Hopefully this was a useful outcome for this student, even without having listed it before the course, or to have achieved this completely during the weekend

neat trick ... is to pull off the handstroke, do the hand transfer and then take the left hand away, so the backstroke is only done with the right hand. — Simon Linford

I tried that this morning, and it's really hard. I need more practice to add it to other party-tricks (one-handed-ringing, wrong-handed ringing down, dropping the backstroke each stroke, the £x-note, etc). The hard bit for me was when to reunite the left hand with the rope: just ringing both strokes right-handed is easier, but presumably not the point of the exercise.

Early exercise is: learner pulls-off first handstroke, and then just does backstrokes while teacher catches other handstrokes: this (let-go with left hand) might work as a reinforcement to the hand-transfer, with the teacher standing the next handstroke and repeating the whole process ...

Even-earlier exercise is: learner pulls-off with dummy tailend, completes hand-transfer while teacher does everything else and stands. Learner letting-go with left hand might work as reinforcement, with less effect on the moving bell.

..one can always revert to asking WWJD... — John Harrison

What Would John Do ?? :-)

Organise your own peals

We had a local ringer, he died some years ago, and he was a proficient tenor-behind ringer. He would attend our local practice and ask if the winter slot was available for a peal; it was a hesitant 'yes' in anticipation of the next question: ”can you find the band with a good conductor and I'll ring the tenor behind”.

So it can work as a peal-organising strategy ...

Yes, it's the difference between pulling and checking, and to quote an Authoratitive Source :-) :

What is the difference between pulling and checking?
This is one of the most important questions in ringing. You must know when to do which, and train your arms to be able to do one without the other.
- Pulling is applying force as the rope comes down. It makes the bell swing higher and more slowly.
- Checking is the opposite, ie applying force as the rope rises. It makes the bell swing less high and more quickly.

If you pull when you ought to check, or vice versa, you will make the problem worse. If you pull and check all the time, you will rapidly tire yourself but still not be able to control the bell very well.
Separating pulling from checking means you must be able to turn on or turn off the force in your arms between the rope rising and falling. This takes some practice, especially when you want to exert more effort. It is easier just to heave for the whole way up and down, but you must resist the temptation. — The Tower Handbook 13.1d

and the advice applies when the bell is almost-up as well as when ringing full-circle.

I have been scribbling a diagram on our whiteboard to help explain all this. I haven't found a similar diagram published? Have I missed one anywhere?



Ideally it's intended to show

• Check will advance the Bong: Pull has nil/minimal effect on the current stroke (yet to be heard) and influences the next stroke
• Absence of Check may allow more Float, and so a delay to the Bong
• The squiggly-bit between strokes is when there is no effective rope tension and the bell is doing its own thing.
• There are other bells slightly out-of-phase with ours, causing bongs between ours ...
• ... and if we can superimpose their pull-cycle on the diagram, we can show where the conductor says "Three to Four" and what effect this ought to have on Checking Floating and Pulling, and on the order of the bells' Bongs, and why the tradition is "two blows' warning"

We teach ringing up first, before the learner can ring. This gives them a feel for the bell and managing the rope ... they must know how to take coils and manage the bell safely — Phillip George

The main learner-outcomes from one of my first-sessions:

• Enthusiasm to return for another session
• tell the family it's "More Complicated Than It Looks" ...
• Nothing Scary happened
• How a Bell Works ... understanding of Scary Things That We Will Avoid ...
• Working 1to1 with teacher feels safe, relaxing, and will need approx another [n] sessions ...
• ... (etc)

Learner will have repeated ringing a backstroke maybe fifty to a hundred times, a dozen or two pulling-off at handstroke, and at least a dozen

• pull-off the handstroke
• successful hand-transfer
• backstrokes-only for a few more pulls

Ringing-up requires lots of different interactions with the rope, is not easily reproducible, and is less likely to have the learner leave with an understanding of the essential arms-moving-up-and-down repeatability of ringing strokes.

I introduce lowering without making coils at the end of the first lesson, ... I look after the sally — Phil Gay

Yes I do this with learners doing well, also as an example of explaining the process while they are doing backstrokes, and testing if they can listen-and-understand while ringing, and then do as suggested ...

I have always taught learners to release the last coil when raising a bell by gripping with the fingers and opening the thumb,... — Richard Pargeter

Releasing the coil in the way described already is essential if slack rope is to be avoided — Phil Gay

Yes: it needs to be laid across the hand properly before starting, and just releasing the thumb-grip at the desired moment.

I struggled to learn to ring up, ... the longer I spent trying to get the flippin' bell up ... the more conscious I became of the rest of the band waiting to start their practice,...I [now] realise the rest of the band were completely ... empathetic — Steve Pilfold

... and were all nodding their heads as you were pulling, in the hope that this energy somehow transferred to just-a-little-more pull :-)

what ... interview questions do you think we should ask? — Vicki Chapman

In ascending geekiness:

"How many hours each week do you spend ringing ? "(including travelling to ringing, maybe learning ringing, maybe admin/organising ringing etc)

"What ringing-apps do you have on your phone, and can you explain one to us ?"

Does your Spouse/Partner/SignificantOther ring, and were they a ringer when you first met ? How many generations of your family ring ?" (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents ..., children, grandchilden, great-grandchildren)

"How do you keep your personal ringing records (towers, peals, quarters, compositions, squared-paper-scribbles ? And have you converted to an online version ?

"How many other ringers have you rung peals with ? and on how many different days of the year ? and how many different ringers have they rung peals with, in total ?" (Refer to Pealbase) "and what is your Erdős number to [insert any famous, prolific ringer] ?"

"Do you think ringing-teachers should charge real money to those whom they teach ?"

"Do you worry about truth in ringing, and is it important ? Do you always blame the conductor for a false peal ? Should Bob Minor come round at hand ?"

"Will the Standard Eight succumb to Pickled Egg ? Do you believe in the Black Zone"

"How best to arrange that ring of eight in your bedroom ?"

From the CCCBR point-of-view, we have the earlier advice in The Tower Handbook which is comprehensive, readable and brilliant.

Safeguarding and other significant developments since Handbook's first publication in 1997 can be usefully referenced: howerver, I see no reason why we (we the Council) had any need of reinventing this particular wheel.

By way of example of a considered, balanced, softer view of one of the many elements in running a successful practice:

Should I place the band?
Some people get very heated about this. They resent not being free to choose which bell they will ring (or whether they will ring). The pros and cons are:

Pro
- Ringing master can ensure optimum support for learners.
- Ringing master can balance risk in terms of who rings.
- Ringing master can moderate enthusiasm that exceeds competence.
- Shy types get a fair share of the ringing.
- It is often quicker than waiting for volunteers.
Con
- It is more work.
- Ringing master has more responsibility (The ringing master is responsible for the overall conduct of the practice anyway, and cannot shed this responsibility by allowing a free-for-all. If an unsuitable band fires out a touch, he or she is still responsible.)
- Ringing master must know the ability of all ringers.
- Ringing master may make arbitrary allocations when personal preference could just as well have been served.

In most cases where training is the main theme of a practice, it is better to place the band. You do not have to place every rope individually. You could place some and then ask three people to fill in the remainder, leaving them to choose which they want. As a precaution, ask your ringers to let you know (quietly) during a practice if they feel they are getting left out, so you can do something about it before the end of the practice.

The case for placing the band is least in more advanced practices or where people are of similar ability.

If bands have not been traditionally placed in your tower, consider whether it would enable you to make better use of the time you spend practising. If not then don't worry. If it would, then consider introducing it, after explaining your reasons and seeking the support of the rest of the band.

And don't forget the minders. Placing the right person to stand behind someone in a touch could be as critical to its success as placing the ringers. — The Tower Handbook section 9.3 f:

Ah, but where is the joy in it all ?

I read it through in the menu's order, and here are some thoughts:

• It emphasises, and has many words, on the administrative and controlling elements of the task.
  
• An aspiring volunteer as the next Tower Captain, would be more daunted at the end than at the beginning. Is that the intention of the document ?
  
• Towards the end, the item "Building a Team" looked as if it might be offering some important advice ... disappointingly it begins with organising an Annual Meeting _sigh_
  
• "Ringers Know Their Place" is a ringer's duty in the middle of a method: it is also more generally true of the ringer's contribution to the team. In a tower band which meets regularly, we all know which of our colleagues aspire to achieve what, and where we should catch hold, or not catch hold, to best achieve that aim. The Tower Captain as team leader needs the skills and knowledge of their team to make this all work smoothly: a good team will hear what is to be rung, and the right ringers will ring the right bells as the team leader genially looks on ...
  
• ...while the document tells us 'Example announcement of next piece of ringing: “Rounds and Call changes next. “Target ringer A” please ring the 3rd and “Target ringer B” please ring the 5th. Fred, please call from the 4th. Ann ring the tenor, Bill the treble and Cath the 2nd please. After this we will ring Plain Bob Doubles for “Target ringer C” and I will call it.”' Oh dear. ...
  
• ... just by way of example, poor old Fred might well have had a whole week of rehearsing his callchanges from the 3rd. There are as many styles of Tower Captaincy as there are tower captains, and this document supports a very controlling style, which is not only hard work but misses ...
  
• ... the social element of a ringing band and their practices. The document tells us "In many groups of ringers there is a social side to the ringing" and then limits itself to social interaction outside the practice. It misses the point. Ringers attend the next practice because they enjoyed being at the last one, and enjoyed being with their fellow ringers.
  
• I see nothing about feedback - finding out how the band felt about the pactice and whether they enjoyed it - and whether they will return for more net week
  
• The document would be much improved with a softer style: useful resources for ringing first and foremost, with less prominence on control, on administration on outside liaison, and on the exceptional, which might be useful background to know but might also never occur in a five-year term as team leader.
  

I'd love to hear what the benefits [of peal ringing] are, other than bragging rights and masochism? — John de Overa

... which can be rephrased less perjoratively as

• the challenge of the performance
• the teamwork to achieve it
• the reporting of the performance for contemporaries and for future generations.

My progress through the peal ringing labrynth is in my profile from which it's clear I'm not a massive fan of the tradition. However to these benefits of pealringing, I would add

• the mathematical elegance of composing and then ringing each and every possible Triples row exactly once.
• Matching the heritage and tradition that used to justify all that expense of gold leaf on ringing-chamber peal boards.
• Giving a name to something new, as part of a commemorative performance

And, just for the record, the mathematical elegance of the challenge of Triples is one thing that the Framework did abandon in changing the rules: it allowed a band to miss out forty changes (3.I.6) and still be a peal, or indeed add on forty changes (or a hundred and forty ...) (3.J.5) and it still be a true peal. (_sigh_)

Linear extrapolation to zero is unlikely to be reliable — John Harrison

Yes, that last year with just the three peal ringers could be a bit dull ...

Year PealRingers
2013 2,723
2014 2,529
2015 2,925
2016 2,497
2017 2,404
2018 2,363
2019 2,273
...
2022 1,958 — AndrewCraddock RW p100 3Feb2023

Yes, the Number of Tower-bell peal ringers has had a constant decline since a peak of about 5,000 in the exceptional year of 1977. Continuing the rate of decline of 2013-19 to 2022 would, without the AccursedVirus, have reached 2,075 The recorded number was 117 fewer. Resuming the trend to 2030 would leave about 1,550 peal ringers by that date.

...does it matter? — Simon Linford

To help answer that, it would be fascinating to have a 'level of complexity' axis to the analysis ...