Noise Level Testing Procedure

[jrc]

These rules will need to change if HB-162 is passed. From Saf-C 400.23:

(c) The test site shall be located in a calm body of water that is large enough to allow full speed pass-bys, as designated by the division.

(k) The test shall consist of 4 passes along the test course of 3 buoys, at a distance of 1 to 3 feet from the buoys. The direction of travel shall be reversed between each run. The first 2 runs shall be at the boat's half throttle cruising speed, and the other 2 runs shall be at full throttle.

I'm willing to bet that many boats will exceed 45 MPH at full throttle and a few will at half throttle. So in effect HB-162 will prevent noise level testing and by extension noise level tickets.

[Fat Jack]

Actually, HB1624 proposes to change over to procedure SAE-J2005, which makes for easier testing, as follows;
"Test measurements shall be made with the sound level meter at a distance of at least 4 feet above the water at a point where the transom gunwale and port or starboard gunwale intersects. The vessel being tested shall operate its engine at low throttle setting in neutral gear."

But unfortunately, HB1624 also proposes to increase the allowed noise level from the current 82 dB at wide-open-throttle, to 88 dB at idle. For those who do not understand noise, its intensity (power per unit area) is measured logarythmically. So 88 dB is 4 times as intense and damaging on the human ear as 82 dB. How loud might a boat be at full throttle if we allow it to be 4 times as loud as now at idle?
While the measurement is taken at the transom in SAE-J2005, it is also out of the exhaust stream. I can imagine that an acceptable noise level measured at that location of an idling boat will be much much lower, not louder, than the noise measured now 50 feet behind that boat at wide open throttle.
So while HB1624 does promise to make inspections much easier, it also promises to allow boats to be much much louder.

And this was being offered by Rep Whalley as an alternative to a speed limit?

[jrc]

Without reading all of SAE-J2005, I really can't tell if it will allow louder boats. The distance from the noise source to the meter also effects the reading, so without knowing the distance 82 db vs 88 db is meaningless.

So is HB-1624 tied to HB-162, so that either both pass or both fail? Otherwise my original point is still valid.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

Unfortunately you are wrong again...Rep. Whalley's bill actually lowers overall noise output, it certainly does not increase it by a factor of four! I don't think there is anyone on the lake that would vote for an increase in noise!

What you forgot to add in your equation is that the current test is done at 50 feet on a moving boat. At 50 feet, given outside ambient background noise, a boat can can exhibit up to 9.9 db less noise than if it is measured at 4 feet as suggested by Rep. Whalley.

Also, the limits suggested by Whalley are the nationally accepted levels that are currently in place by all boat manufacturers. So in effect, it measures and confirms stock noise levels!

Once again you have ventured in to an area you have very little understanding of....

Anyway, here is some background info on noise:


The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed three methods of measuring watercraft sound, including that of PWC:

SAE J34: The most precise measurement available, taken of a boat at a distance of 50ft with wide-open throttle (the near maximum noise of the boat). Although great for engineering standards, it is difficult for enforcement purposes in the field. The Coast Guard recommends 86 decibels (dBA), which most states have adopted as law.

SAE J2005: This measures the engine sound at idle with the microphone 1.5 m away. SAE recommends a limit of 90dbA for this method, which does not account for the speed or power of the boat.

SAE J1970 In realizing the enforcement difficulties of the previous methods, SAE designed this shoreline noise test enabling regulations keeping the boat under 75 dBA at 50 ft. by operation, not mechanics. The operator is responsible for controlling the noise of the boat.

Sound energy dissipates with distance, other sound and wind. A comprehensive study on sound with motorboats (but not including PWC) found that sound dissipates up to 9.9dBA when the boat travels from 50 ft to 200 ft away (4.8 dBA reduction from 50 to 100 ft, additional 5.1 dBA reduction from 100 to 200 ft.).

Both the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) have Model Noise Acts, which our manufacturers follow as NMMA members. These requirements are in compliance with the SAE recommended dBA standards. NASBLA requires 88 dBA under SAE J2005, and 75 dBA under SAE J1970. NMMA recommends 90 dBA under SAE J2005. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that 75 dBA at 50 feet is an acceptable noise level to protect public health and welfare.

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Unfortunately you are wrong again...
Once again you have ventured in to an area you have very little understanding of.... You can't fix stupid.

Woodsy,
Again, you insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you rather than debate the facts with civility.
The degradation of sound at the rates you describe relate only to sound emitted from a point source (like fireworks in the air), not from a directed source, like a gun or an exhaust pipe. This is why megaphones are shaped to focus sound waves and eliminate that degradation. The waves propegate from the point source in a growing sphere. Sound intensity, measured in dB's, is a measurement of power per unit area. Since the sphere is growing as it leaves the source, its area increases as the square of the distance from the source, while the power remains the same (in theory), hence the exponential decrease in intensity. If you have ever heard a loud cigarette boat approaching and passing you, you have noticed how much much louder it is going away from you, because you are then in its focused exhaust stream. The current noise testing procedure looks for the highest noise intensity as the boat approaches, passes and travels away from the dB meter. During the period where the boat is traveling away is ALWAYS when the tester realizes the highest intensity...when they are in that exhaust stream. I cannot say whether a boat that produces 88 dB (4 times louder than the 82 dB limit currently allows) at idle when measured behind the exhaust stream will be louder at WOT than the current laws allow, but it certainly deserves a close look....wouldn't you agree? If this change in the law will allow louder boats, would you want to know that? And would you still support it?

Do you disagree that 88 dB is four times louder than 82 dB?

BTW, I have boated on Lake George. It was a wonderful experience, but no, I do not want to move there. Since the speed limits were enacted, property values have gone through the roof...similar to those on our Squam, which also has a speed limit.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Actually, HB1624 proposes to change over to procedure SAE-J2005, which makes for easier testing...

You need to go and re-read HB1624. It only allows the authorities to add the inspection requirements defined in SAE J2005 to supplement the existing requirement that still remains in RSA 270:37 (II). It allows the MPs to now have two testing tools in their box, with the addition of SAE-J2005 that allows easy on site verification of particularly noisy craft.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

But unfortunately, HB1624 also proposes to increase the allowed noise level from the current 82 dB at wide-open-throttle, to 88 dB at idle.

This sentence makes no sense. There is no comparison between sound emanating from an idle craft being measured near the transom at four feet to a craft operating at half and wide open throttle being measured at a distance of fifty feet. And again, the 50 foot at full throttle provision at 82/84/86 decibels (depending on year of manufacture) as defined in RSA 270:37 (II) remains in full effect.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

How loud might a boat be at full throttle if we allow it to be 4 times as loud as now at idle?

Nonsensical question. All craft must still abide by RSA 270:37 (II) at full throttle, meaning they cannot surpass 82/84/86 decibels depending on year of manufacture.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...So while HB1624 does promise to make inspections much easier, it also promises to allow boats to be much much louder...

And once again, that is a completely false statement. The proposed changes require boats to still maintain an 82/84/86 decibel output at 50 feet under full throttle as described in RSA 270:37 (II). It also establishes a new and more convenient test established under idle conditions as described in SAE J2005. It also allows, for the first time, visual inspection of the engine or mechanical systems for muffler violations, raises first conviction fine from a minimum of $100 to at least $250 and makes violations a misdemeanor offense rather than a simple violation....greatly enhancing the sting of the penalty!

A significant portion of the complaints the Marine Patrol receives about boat operation on New Hampshire waterways is in reference to noise. Representative Whalley's revisions give significant more teeth the the existing RSAs governing noise and do not, under any circumstance, allow louder boats to operate on New Hampshire waterways. A simple reading of the bill is all that was required to confirm that.

For those readers wishing to read a factual representation of what Representative Whalley is trying to accomplish, please visit the following site:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...06/HB1624.html

Skip

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

I didn't call you stupid.... as your cut and paste of my quote implies! I have not insulted your intelligence at all. I don't really care if you agree with me or not. You are the one posting the misinformation.

I agree with you that sound is directional for the most part. 88dB is 4 times louder than 82db no disputing that either.

I have said it in other posts before, I think the noise laws should be revisited. I think Rep Whalleys bill is fundamentally sound. It isn't perfect, but unless your in a room specifically built to measure sound, you cannot measure sound all that accurately. This is almost the same noise test as applied to motorcycles.

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Fat Jack]

Skip,
Are you saying that when provisions are struck through, as in your link, that means they are proposing to leave those in? I thought that meant they were proposing to eliminate them. Please go through the bill and explain one by one what each addition and deletion is intended to do to make boats quieter.
Anyway, these questions have to be researched and resolved conclusively. Don't you (of all people) agree? I don't know that these changes will allow louder boats, but am not goign to buy that they won't just because you and Woodsy say so. Insulting and saying it is "nonsensical" to question whether an increase in the noise limit by a factor of four is going to result in louder boats is not the way to approach this important issue. We all want quieter boats, no?
I just have to be skeptical as soon as I see that the Marine Trades Association is promoting this bill. They were the very reason that our existing law was so badly weakened in the first place and has been completely unenforceable. Why would they have suddenly done a complete and voluntary reversal and decided they want tougher restrictions on themselves?
And since when has our MP been in favor of having additional tools to work with? Aren't additional ways to catch offenders just more of a burden on their limited staff?
And won't we need signs? Where is the funding for that?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Skip,
Are you saying that when provisions are struck through, as in your link, that means they are proposing to leave those in? I thought that meant they were proposing to eliminate them. Please go through the bill and explain one by one what each addition and deletion is intended to do to make boats quieter...
Anyway, these questions have to be researched and resolved conclusively. Don't you (of all people) agree?...

These are the text explanations as found at the beginning of the bill I referenced:

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

If you now re-read the bill, you will find that nearly all of the existing RSA 270:25 & 270:37 remain intact. This is ascertained by the fact that all portions of the RSA(s) that will be "reenacted" appear in regular type. The key note to the legislation referencing that the 50 foot test is still in play is found under 270:37 (II) with the phrase "...any testing procedure established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39, this is the the "rulemaking" caveat that allows the Director, under the administrative rules section (RSA 541), to implement any type of testing he deems necessary, including the so-called stationary (new) rules and the previous course driven noise measurement requirement and anything new that might come down the road.

The unammended RSA only allowed for the single test, the proposed RSA allows for multiple tests under different scenarios.

The additional penalties and authorities I mentioned all appear in bold italics. Conflicting language that inhibited the stationary testing is struck.

Perhaps the language and intent are much more clear to me, given my background. However, I am sure that Representative Whalley can fully articulate the great improvements his bill will make in enforcing reasonable noise legislation.

On a sidenote, no noise regulation is 100% foolproof. However, this issue has been studied extensively by the SAE (Society of American Enginneers). The NMMA adopted these regulations to supply framework for model ordinances to be written nationwide, so boat manufacturers can build boats to a single standard accepted across the Country. And it is catching on, as more & more States accept and adopt these recommendations. One of the most strictest States in the Country (California) when it comes to environmental regulation has adopted these same standards.

Actually the concept is quite unique & quite simple. The assumption during the stationary test given at a very close range is that if a boat exceeeds the 88/90 decibel limit at idle, it will presumably exceed the 50 foot test. It allows officers in the field to perform the test instantaneously, with a minimal amount of time, equipment and training involved.

And remember, enabling legislation embedded in this ammendment still allows the director the discretion of ordering the 50 test under Administrative Rules.

Simply stated, Rep. Whalley's legislation allows the MPs to easily enforce what to now was complicated, greatly enhances the penalty for violations (both monetarily and by making the offense a misdemeanor if committed by a person, or a FELONY if committed by a corporation) while impacting the enforcing agency minimally.

In closing, I have resisted (at great temptation) to enter into this fray since I stated my opinions on the matter of some aspects of the speed limit bill several months ago. No one wins here in the battle of opinions, virtually everyone has settled in to their respective camps a long time ago. I have gritted my teeth as I have read, from both sides of the battle, what can only be described as gross intentional distortions of the nature and scope of the proposed legislation, the general laws of the State of New Hampshire, demeaning and totally unsubstantiated remarks attributed to Members of the Marine Patrol, the State Legislature, Senate and general members of the public along with well intentioned members of this website accidentally drawn into the fray.

Don has been a saint to allow this to go on as long as he has. But some people need to go back and reread their posts, accusations, counteraccusations and plain ayttempts at trolling. It is really quite embarassing to see what are actually concerned, educated and motivated citizens to act this way under the guise of anonymity!

Maybe its time that unless something new develops, everyone move on to the more positive aspects of Winni that originally brought most of us here in the first place....we could all use the break!

ENOUGH...I apologize for getting on my soapbox. Thanks for asking for the clarification. As always, I am available off-line to help explain some of the intricacies of the particular laws, regulations and legislation pertaining to these legal issues in New Hampshire.

And Don, thanks for your wisdom, patince and dedication to moderating this sometimes wayward ship! As Pepper rightfully claims, you are the greatest.....

Skip

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Do you disagree that 88 dB is four times louder than 82 dB?

I disagree. 88 dB is 6 dB louder than 82 dB, that's it. I agree that the power density of the sound is 4 times higher at +6 dB, but humans don't hear power density in a linear fashion, hence the need for dB to relate sound levels in the first place.

To a human, 102 dB is four times louder than 82 dB. It generally takes a 10 dB increase for a human to perceive something as "twice as loud".


That said, I'm all for quiet boats. Quieter the better. Same with motorcycles, cars, non-military airplanes, and neighbors; especially neighbors with a penchant for karaoke parties.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I disagree. 88 dB is 6 dB louder than 82 dB, that's it. I agree that the power density of the sound is 4 times higher at +6 dB, but humans don't hear power density in a linear fashion, hence the need for dB to relate sound levels in the first place. To a human, 102 dB is four times louder than 82 dB. It generally takes a 10 dB increase for a human to perceive something as "twice as loud".

Dave,
I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about "percieved loudness", and although there are various theories on the scaling of percieved loudness, I do agree with you that 88 dB might not seem 4X as loud to the human ear as 82 dB. But it is noise power that causes damage to our ears. 88 dB is 4 times as powerful as 82 dB, and 4 times as damaging.

Skip,
Why does HB1624 propose to change from the dbA scale when all other states, and our current law use it? This deliberate change had to have a reason.

Dave/Skip/Woodsy,
We all agree that boats are currently too loud. We all want the MP to have an easier way to test boat noise. We all know that the MTA is not interested in having to make their boats quieter. None of us are sound experts. Let's just be sure this bill does not slip through without thorough scrutiny. Enough said.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Skip,
Why does HB1624 propose to change from the dbA scale when all other states, and our current law use it? This deliberate change had to have a reason...

Again, this is not an accurate statement!

"...All other States..." is a perfect example of hyperbole, because you know that the 49 remaining States use a variety of methods...although each year more convert to what Representative Whalley is attempting, with some of those States having absolutely no decibel related requirements whatsoever!

I have said my piece on this legislation, and will not get dragged into a meaningless point-counterpoint debate.

I would only ask that you stop making these bold, innacurate and sweeping accusations that are easy to debunk. They only cheapen intelligent debate while unnecessarily damaging the credibility of the writer. You know and are better than that!

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...none of us are sound experts...

Ah, again, be careful in making generalizations. In my younger and crazier days I spent six years active duty "punching holes in the ocean" courtesy of Uncle Sam and the USN while serving as a sonar supervisor aboard several fleet ballistic missile boats (submarines)....and a like many years in the USNR as an acoustic analyst with an MIUW unit. You don't even want to get me going on decibels, SPLs, upascals, water density, absorbtion...refelction...multipathing...layer scattering ad-nauseum. I will conclude only by stating that Daver and Woodsy would make much better "junior sonarmen" with their more accurate grasp on the physics of sound...

Anyway, I've said my piece and will gracefully bow out here, with my offer of continued discussion always available off-line....

Have a good day & be safe,

Skip

[pm203]

As a performance boater/waterfront home owner on the lake, I can tell you that when ever I hear a boat that is especially loud,I take a look and it is usually a visiting boat that is just here for the weekend. Most of my friends as well as myself have had our boats seroiusly muffled so that not only are we in compliance,we can boat without the worry of a being pulled over and hassled.
I always tell incoming visiting boat owners to invest in some quiet mufflers or dont bother.
What I find most interesting is that with all the complaints we hear about boats,they are not even 10% of the noise problem that open exhaust motorcycles are. Can anyone tell me why the focus is on water when the land noise situation is much worse?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Skip

I would only ask that you stop making these bold, inaccurate and sweeping accusations that are easy to debunk. They only cheapen intelligent debate while unnecessarily damaging the credibility of the writer.

Skip,
I appreciate and respect your expertise on this subject, but insulting me and my credibility because I am asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate points and not just accepting on blind faith does not seem like something you would normally do. If you do not want to take part in this discussion, then I respect that, but please stop insulting my questions that are perfectly legitimate and insulting me for asking them. If this bill is truly all that you say it is, then you should have nothing to fear from some scrutiny, and you should welcome the opportunity to defend the bill and answer specific questions about it…like those I have been raising. If you do not wish to answer those, then perhaps someone else can, without degrading the debate into a personal attack.

I will list below the bill with my specific questions/comments/concerns interjected in blue italics. If anyone has answers that do not include insults, please provide…I really want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of this bill



HB 1624-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2006 SESSION
06-2823
03/09
HOUSE BILL 1624-FN
AN ACT relative to boat noise.
SPONSORS: Rep. Whalley, Belk 5; Rep. Currier, Merr 5; Sen. Johnson, Dist 2; Sen. Gottesman, Dist 12; Sen. Boyce, Dist 4
COMMITTEE: Transportation
ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the boat noise limits and increases the penalties for certain boat noise violations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.] (This makes it pretty clear to me that anything struck through in the bill is being proposed to be removed...not left in the existing law as an alternate or option.)
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
06-2823
03/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT relative to boat noise.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraph; Muffling Devices. Amend RSA 270:25 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. No person shall own, operate, sell, or offer for sale any boat which is capable of discharging exhaust above the water unless the boat is equipped with muffling devices. (This is clearly a narrowing of the muffling law and therefore a good thing…I have no questions about this)

2 Decibel Limits on Noise. Amend RSA 270:37 to read as follows:
270:37 Decibel Limits on Noise. (Keep in mind that this statute is the whole of our current law on boating noise limits…so changes made to this law as proposed below would change the allowed limits…Period. No alternative dB limits are available for enforcement elsewhere)
I. No person may operate any boat powered by a marine engine manufactured before January 1, 1977, in or upon the waters of this state which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds a noise level of 86 decibels on the “A” scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the boat. (Relates to 30 year old boats...who cares?)
II. No person may operate, sell, or offer for sale any marine engine [for use in or upon the waters of this state] (This clearly seems to broaden the law in that it limits baots the same way if they are sold in the state for use in the state or for use elsewhere…so a marina cannot claim they did not know where a boat was goign to be used...I see this as a good thing and have no questions about it) which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the following noise levels measured [at a distance of 50 feet from the boat with which the engine is tested] (Skip seems to be saying that this deletion is proposed becasue the MP can now use other measurement locations...I buy that until we get further down, then I start to have some doubts) under any testing procedure established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39:
(a) For a marine engine manufactured in or before [1977] 1990, (Although this clearly narrows the law, I'm not so concerned about boats made between 1977 and 1990 anyway, so I'll skip this) a noise level of [86] 90 (Although again, this relates to older boats, it raises a key point. This increases the noise limit from 86 to 90 dB…That's a HUGE increase….2.5 Times as powerful and damaging to the human ear. Skip says that the MP could still measure from the old location or may now optionally choose to measure from the new location, but there is no provision here to leave the old dB limit in when they measure from 50 feet away and only use this new limit when they measure from the transom…The old lower limit is simply struck through, gone, kaput. I see no option here for the MP to still use it if they test from 50 feet away. I know skip does not want to answer this, but can someone explain how this is a tighter restriction on boat noise?) decibels [on the “A” scale] (Legislators do not make meaningless cahnges to our laws. I do not understand their reasoning for this change and merely want to know why it is being changed…No accusations are being made. I’m not insulting the good men in Glendale or the good Rep Whalley…I just want to understand. Skip says that we are trying to conform to other states, yet www.corsaperf.com/mlaws.htm says that all other states measure on the “A” scale. Maybe that site is wrong. We always used the “A” scale. As I understand, the “A” scale is more in line with the frequencies that humans hear. Why this change?) when subjected to test SAE J2005. (Seem to be restricting MP to using SAE-J2005, but again, I'm not concerned about the older boats)
(b) [For a marine engine manufactured between January 1, 1978, and December 31, 1981, a noise level of 84 decibels on the “A” scale. (Again, I am not as concerned about older boats)
(c)] For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, [1981] 1990, a noise level of [82] 88 (Here's again the same key point, amd the most important point of the whole issue to me. This raises the limit from 82 to 88 dB for all new boats…That's a HUGE increase…4 times as powerful and damaging to the human ear. Again, Skip says that the MP could still measure from the old location or may choose to instead measure from the new location, but where does it say that? And even if they can, there is no provision here to leave the old lower dB limit in when they measure from 50 feet away and only use this new much louder limit only when they measure from the transom…the old limit is simply struck through, gone,kaput. There is apparently no “option” here for the MP to still use the old lower dB limit if they test from 50 feet away. I know Skip does not want to answer this, but can someone explain how this is a tighter restriction on boat noise? No insults please…just answer my legitimate question) decibels [on the “A” scale] (Same question…Why this change?) when subjected to test SAE J2005.
III. [Noise levels in decibels shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39. (This is a clear deletion of the statute that gave the director authority and discretion to establish testing methods. This seems to contradict Skip's statement that the old procedure is still optionally available to MP, except maybe for the old boats covered be paragraph II – But who cares about those? Can anyone tell me, without insulting me, how the MP is still going to be able to use otehr methods than those proposed by this bill if this statute is being struck from the law? Isn't this a legitimate question? Perhaps I am just reading all this wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to convert me that to insult me?)
IV.] The director or [his] the director’s agent may order the operator or owner of any boat which he [reasonably believes] (No problem here, I don't feel that 'reasonable beliefs’ are things that can be enforced anyway) or she has articulable suspicion to believe is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the decibel limits contained in this section to subject [his] the boat to one or more noise level testing procedures as provided in this subdivision or to inspection of the engine and mechanical systems for violations of this section or RSA 270:25.
[V.] IV. A boat owner or operator shall submit a boat which is the subject of an order by the director or [his] the director’s agent pursuant to RSA 270:37, [IV] III to noise level testing by the director or [his] the director’s agent [within 7 days of such an order] immediately or at the time and location designated by the director or the director’s agent. (Broadens the law…No question or problems for me) No person shall operate the boat after [this 7-day period has expired] the time designated until it is subjected to such noise level testing or engine and mechanical system inspection.
[VI.] V. The director or [his] the director’s agent may prohibit the operator or owner of any boat which fails a noise level testing procedure from operating the boat until the boat successfully passes the procedure. No person shall operate a boat contrary to such an order of the director.
[VII.] VI. Pursuant to the penalties imposed under RSA 270:41-a, any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than [$100] $250. (Good, but is $250 enough? Many of these boats spend less than that on gas per day of operation. But at least it is an increase in teh fine and not a decrease) No portion of any fine imposed under this section shall be suspended or reduced by the court.
3 Stationary Sound Level Testing Authorized. Amend RSA 270:37-a, I to read as follows:
I. The director or [his] the director’s agent may use stationary sound level testing to determine marine engine noise levels for boats. Such testing shall be conducted while boats are stationary on the water according to test SAE J2005. (This is clearly a broadening...No questions from me)
4 Motorboat Noise Levels; Penalty. Amend RSA 270:41-a to read as follows:
270:41-a Penalty.
I. Any person who violates the provisions of RSA 270:25[, 270:37, or 270:40], or any person who owns a boat which is operated with his or her permission or assent in violation of RSA 270:25, [270:37, or 270:40] shall be guilty of a violation for a first offense and guilty of a misdemeanor for a subsequent offense within a calendar year.
II. Any person who violates the provisions of RSA 270:37 or RSA 270:40, or any person who owns a boat which is operated with his or her permission or assent in violation of RSA 270:37 or RSA 270:40, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person.
(This part is clear and all sounds fine to me)
5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

I hope that someone (other than Skip if he does not care to assist or only wants to insult) can please answer these legitimate questions for me and tell me where my concerns are mistaken,
FJ

[Skip]

FJ,

If you feel I have insulted you, than my apologies....

I have PMed you with my private contact numbers, please feel free to give me a call so we can close this discussion privately and better undersatand each other's positions....

Thanks,

Skip

[Fat Jack]

Skip,
I appreciate the offer to call you, but there are two reasons I don't want to do that. I hope you can understand;

1) My goal here is to further public discussion of this bill to be sure it gets the scrutiny that such an important issue deserves. Almost nobody has your expertise in noise science, and very few people have even the inkling of understanding of noise that I do...so it is important for all to understand just how much louder a boat that produces 88 dB's at idle is from one that produces 82 dB's at full throttle, and to see discussion and debate over the true impact that this bill might have. I'd rather see explanations in writing, where I can carefully analyze each point, than to get a verbal explanation that I will probably not be able to follow or absorb.

2) You're are a ranking member of Winnilakers (an admitted GFBL association) and of NHRBA (a group that I have always felt to be another GFBL association and that was derived from Winnilakers). As you will see if you look around this forum and the others, it has been an eerie obsession of members of these groups to identify the speed limit supporters. Identities, once discovered, have been posted on the go-fast sites with full names, addresses, emails and phone numbers. HB162 supporters have received nasty emails and been the targets of threats and blackmail. I do not have my phone number blocked and really do not want to take the chance of exposing it, my last name, or my address, or my email to anyone associated with these two groups. I am not accusing you of having any nefarious intent here, but I am sure you can appreciate my abundance of caution and my reasons for wishing to remain anonymous.

I'm still hoping that someone who is not part of the go-fast crowd and can fully understand all of the issues here can address my very specific questions above...through the open forum.

[Hottrucks]

I. No person may operate any boat powered by a marine engine manufactured before January 1, 1977, in or upon the waters of this state which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds a noise level of 86 decibels on the “A” scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the boat. (RELATES TO 30 YEAR OLD BOATS...WHO CARES?)

OH BOY there goes the old woodies and gramps fish'n boat

Wait when where those mail boats and the other big boats built???

oops??

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Skip,
I appreciate the offer to call you, but there are two reasons I don't want to do that. I hope you can understand...

Yes, I am a proud member of the NHRBA, a recreational boaters group devoted to increased boater saferty through education.

I am surprised to learn I am a "ranking member" of winnilakers...whatever the heck that means? I am a subscriber to that and number of other Winni, Ossipee, snowmobile and powerboat websites. Heck, I even visit the Winnfabs site regularly, I hope you're not going to hold that against me! But you should know better than to lump people together based on what internet sites they belong to. I can think of much better ways than that to judge the character of an individual.

I enjoy participating in all different views associated with outdoor power sports in the greater New Hampshire area. I refuse to be pigeonholed into one particular group or another, preferring to draw my conclusions by borrowing from the best ideas of all differing opinions.

Its unfortunate that we won't have an opportunity to chat about these subjects as adults off-line. It is extremely difficult to form correct opinions about individuals based on internet chit chat. I found that to be extremely true when I met some of the characters lurking here at the first winnifest celebration. The folks I had chatted, and sometimes argued with on-line were the nicest bunch of people I'd met in a long time at the 'fest, and nothing like I had imagined them from my 'net exposure.

Anyway, as I promised "the Don", I'm backing on out of this boating debate here and returning to my format of providing information on general legal issues (and some electronics/radio related chit chat with DRH & the Skipper & Crew).

Anyway, my offer for you to call me (and you can do so anonymously, I promise not to trace the call....heck, I'll even send you the money for a payphone ; ) still stands, I hope that somtime you feel comfortable enough to do so....I'm really not a bad guy and I love to talk politics!

Good day to you sir,

Skip

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Dave,
I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about "percieved loudness", and although there are various theories on the scaling of percieved loudness, I do agree with you that 88 dB might not seem 4X as loud to the human ear as 82 dB. But it is noise power that causes damage to our ears. 88 dB is 4 times as powerful as 82 dB, and 4 times as damaging.

I think OSHA states 90 dB is damaging if sustained for more than 8 hours. 88 dB for the amount of time you'd typically spend behind a loud boat is no more than "annoying". Hearing damage is not going to be an issue at that sound pressure level. Wonder what my boat has for sound levels... It's stock, but kinda loud in my opinion.

Hearing damage vs. noise power (absolute) is not linear. It takes 140 dB to reach the hearing pain threshold in most humans. That's 158,489 times the noise power of 88 dB. It takes 180 dB to do instant irreversable damage and that's 15.8+ BILLION times more power than 88 dB. I think 200 dB will kill you. The Saturn V rocket supposedly made 220 dB of sound at the pad during launch.

Trust me, 6 dB of difference in sound pressure level is quite minor. Most people can barely hear a 3 dB difference.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Trust me, 6 dB of difference in sound pressure level is quite minor.

Dave,
88 dB is 4 times as intense as 82 dB. You are entitled to the opinion that this is a "minor" increase...but I don't share it, and I am entitled to my opnion too. Moreover, HB1624 proposes to allow that 88 dB from an idling boat, measured outside and foreward of the exhaust stream, whereas we had previously allowed only one-fourth as much noise intensity from a wide-open full-throttle boat, measured anywhere 50 feet away. Regardless of your opinion, mine, Woodsy's, or Skip's...this deserves a very careful investigation. There is no logic to any argument that says "just don't question this...close your eyes and swallow it". I always have to wonder about the intent of those who do not want proposed new laws to be scrutinized. You three guys, Rep Whalley, NHRBA, the MTA, Winnilakers, etc have certainly been given a chance to scrutinize HB162. We might not have agreed on the issues, but we always entertained debate about them. Why the apparent need to hush this one up and railroad it through?

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Skip,
2) You're are a ranking member of Winnilakers (an admitted GFBL association) and of NHRBA (a group that I have always felt to be another GFBL association and that was derived from Winnilakers).

Jack or whoever you are,
You may have notice I have stayed out the conversations but I will continue to defend NHRBA and Winnilakers. You have gotten mad in the past about being called a liar.

Your statement "2) You're are a ranking member of Winnilakers" implies you know something I don't. I started Winnilakers (For those who don't know, it was a way for people of common interest of the lake to share fun stories. IT IS NOT A GFBL site, even though our logo is pretty cool . Back to my point, we have no ranking members, it's me and only me. I don't have a GFBL, so how does that make me in a GFBL crowd. So in your statement, you are stating it as TRUE and I KNOW (undeniably) it is false, that makes it a lie. At least I grew up thinking that the opposite of the truth, is a lie.

So I basically wanted to set the record straight to everyone here. Fat Jack doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to NHRBA and Winnilakers. Here's my email publicly custie@winnilakers.com or custie@nhrba.com if you want the truth.

Fat Jack obviously has some bug about an organization that shares a different opinion than him and I understand that, he is entitled to his views, but everyone else is entitled to the truth.

Custie

FYI - Winnilakers raised $3400 for the March of Dimes last year and we already have $1600 so far this year. And this is not a LIE, overwhemingly the members of Winnilakers do not have A SO CALLED GFBL boat.

P.S. I do find it funny that you, Jack, have access to the emails I sent to a Winnfabs officer earlier last year, YET you claim to have no affliation to Winnfabs. I know someone who could be your twin.

[Fat Jack]

WL,

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

I won't get into the "Skip was not one of the original members" and "Winnilakers is not a go-fast group" debate...that was not my intention, and I think that everyone on this forum has already formed an opinion on just what NHRBA and Winnilakers are...we are not going to change that in this thread...either way. Skip is clearly more a part of your side of the general "go-fast be-loud" versus "quiet down-be safe" debate. Let's leave it at that.

But your participation in this discussion furthers my concern. So far, it is only the most avid HB162 opposers (who, BTW, all deny being GFBLers) that seem to want to see HB1624 pushed through under the cover of darkness. What's up with that? It would seem that the HB162 supporters would be the ones you'd expect to see pushing for HB1624 if it was truly going to result in queiter boats.

You have previously stated many times that we are all in favor of quieting down the loud boats. If HB1624 might just allow them to be louder, do you want to know that? Will you still support it? I'm not saying for sure that it would do that...but I certainly want to know...don't you? Let's discuss that instead of trying to guess how I know about your membership and questioning my identity (again with the identity thing?).
Let's get back to topic.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

If HB1624 might just allow them to be louder, do you want to know that? Will you still support it? I'm not saying for sure that it would do that...but I certainly want to know...don't you? Let's discuss that instead of trying to guess how I know about your membership and questioning my identity (again with the identity thing?).
Let's get back to topic.

OK, back on topic. Honestly, you may find this hard to believe, but I actually haven't discussed this bill yet with NHRBA members, so I'm sure NHRBA currently doesn't have a position on it. Now that this is getting some attention, I plan on doing so and seeing what the position might be with the other members. But my personal opinion would be to reduce noise as much as possible in a safe manner. I think loud boats are not needed here, I'll go the power boat races to hear loud.

[gtxrider]

Perhaps this will help.

"The decibel (abbreviated dB) must be the most misunderstood measurement since the cubit. Although the term decibel always means the same thing, decibels may be calculated in several ways, and there are many confusing explanations of what they are.

The decibel is not a unit in the sense that a foot or a dyne is. Dynes and feet are defined quantities of force and distance. (You can go to the National Bureau of Standards and look at a foot or a dyne if you want to. They never change.) A decibel is a RELATIONSHIP between two values of POWER.



The usefulness of all this becomes becomes apparent when we think about how the ear perceives loudness. First of all, the ear is very sensitive. The softest audible sound has a power of about 0.000000000001 watt/sq. meter and the threshold of pain is around 1 watt/sq. meter, giving a total range of 120dB. In the second place, our judgment of relative levels of loudness is somewhat logarithmic. If a sound has 10 times the power of a reference (10dB) we hear it as twice as loud. If we merely double the power (3dB), the difference will be just noticeable.

[The calculations for the dB relationships I just gave go like this; for a 10 to one relationship, the log of 10 is 1, and ten times 1 is 10. For the 2 to one relationship, the log of 2 is 0.3, and 10 times that is 3. Incidentally, if the ratio goes the other way, with the measured value less than the reference, we get a negative dB value, because the log of 1/10 is -1.]"

from Peter Elsea 1996

And again what may be noise to one is music to another!

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack....

It is absolutely no secret I am a Hi-Performance boater. I also belong to NHRBA, and Winnilakers and a host of other boating sites. I have made no no attempt to disguise who I am, or that I own a 26' Donzi and that it runs approximately 65MPH at top speed. I have also made my opinion known in many threads about exhaust noise. I think Rep. Whalleys bill is a great first step. I also think it should be amended to allow switchable exhaust systems such as those sold by Fay's Marina on some of thier Chapparal boats.

I think you need to do some research on SAE J2005. I think you would be pretty surprised at how the testing procedure is to be done, vs your perception of how the testing is to be done. Rep. Whalley's bill references SAE J2005 ALOT. See the link Skip provided above. It is also the standard in use by a large number of other states. It was developed specifically by SAE so Law Enforcement Agencies can easily measure sound as emitted by the exhaust of pleasure boats.

If you go to the SAE website, you can download it.

I am sorry you cannot comprehend HB-1624 as it is written. Skip (an obvious Law Enforcement Officer) offered to educate you privately and you declined. it's probably alot easier for you to think its some sort of conspiracy to make the world louder.

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am sorry you cannot comprehend HB-1624 as it is written. Skip (an obvious Law Enforcement Officer) offered to educate you privately and you declined. it's probably alot easier for you to think its some sort of conspiracy to make the world louder.

This will be my last post on this (unless something new is added). I raised very legitimate and specific questions about obvious concerns with proposed changes to our laws. I understand the language of HB1624 better than you think...apparently better than those of you arguing with me about it. And I am not challenging SAE-J2005...I have read it...I understand it...it is a good measurement technique...safer and easier for our MP. But it does not set the dB limits that are being proposed in this bill. And this bill appears to loosen the dB limits of our existing laws substantially, while doing that under the coattails of an easier/safer measuring technique. Skip's understanding of the flexibility of the bill is obviously not being reflected in the language of the bill. Those who point out obvious flaws in a proposal are not all conspiracy theorists, although calling questioners by names like that seems to be the curious MO of those supporting this bill.
Right now, I have bigger fish to fry. We can look at this again if it gets through committee.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Woodsy,
Again, you insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you rather than debate the facts with civility.
The degradation of sound at the rates you describe relate only to sound emitted from a point source (like fireworks in the air), not from a directed source, like a gun or an exhaust pipe. This is why megaphones are shaped to focus sound waves and eliminate that degradation. The waves propegate from the point source in a growing sphere. Sound intensity, measured in dB's, is a measurement of power per unit area. Since the sphere is growing as it leaves the source, its area increases as the square of the distance from the source, while the power remains the same (in theory), hence the exponential decrease in intensity. If you have ever heard a loud cigarette boat approaching and passing you, you have noticed how much much louder it is going away from you, because you are then in its focused exhaust stream. The current noise testing procedure looks for the highest noise intensity as the boat approaches, passes and travels away from the dB meter. During the period where the boat is traveling away is ALWAYS when the tester realizes the highest intensity...when they are in that exhaust stream. I cannot say whether a boat that produces 88 dB (4 times louder than the 82 dB limit currently allows) at idle when measured behind the exhaust stream will be louder at WOT than the current laws allow, but it certainly deserves a close look....wouldn't you agree? If this change in the law will allow louder boats, would you want to know that? And would you still support it?

Do you disagree that 88 dB is four times louder than 82 dB?

BTW, I have boated on Lake George. It was a wonderful experience, but no, I do not want to move there. Since the speed limits were enacted, property values have gone through the roof...similar to those on our Squam, which also has a speed limit.

While you've accurately described why the inverse square law holds true, I'd like to point out that even for megaphones or other "directed" sounds it still holds true. All a megaphone does is concentrate energy that might go out to the side and send it forward. On any radial line going out from the megaphone you will still measure a 6dB decrease in measured SPL for each doubling of distance with really just 2 caveats. First is that you need to be in the "far field" and 2'nd that you need to be in "free space". Let's take the latter first as it's the easiest to explain.

To be in "free space" means you don't have any other reflectors the will add echoes into the energy you're measuring. On the lake we have a big reflector, the lake water. When flat it can reflect a fair amount of energy that will decrease the amount of attenuation due to distance. The exact amount will depend on the sea state and sound frequency but the general rule of thumb that I've seen is a 5dB/doubling vs the 6dB above.

To be in the "far field" basically means that you can reasonably model the emitting source as a point source (more technically the phase front of the waveform should resemble that of a plane wave). Normally the distance per J2005 would be sufficient to be "far field" for any single pipe but when you add in multiple pipes and the reflections off the transom and water then I'd have to guess you're still in the "near field". Somewhere between 10 and 20 ft away I'd say you're "far feild", it'll vary a bit from boat to boat. This means that instead of the 5 db/doubling above I'd expect the attenuation to be more like 2.5 - 3.0 dB/doubling. Once in the "far field" the ~5 dB/doubling then applies.

As to when the SPLs are the loudest then as we all know it's louder at the back than at the front (megaphone effect if you will) but if you look at the levels as a boat passes by (like the NH 50' test) you'll see the inverse square law pretty much rules. The boat is loudest when it's closest. Look at these curves measured by another poster ...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...=8713#poststop

As to 88 vs 82 dB, well it's pretty much all be said. Yes it's 4X the power level but we humans hear sound logarithmically it doesn't sound 4X as loud. As for damaging ... you have to be loud enough to be damaging in the first place. As already said OSHA places a 75 dBA, averaged equivalent exposure as the limit a person should be exposed to for 8 hrs/day, 40 hrs/week. Below this value 4X or 10X doesn't matter, there's no damage. Even way above this level, for the short duration of it's passage, I don't see the vast majority of noisy boats as damaging, just unacceptably noisy.

Lastly as to Lake George, how loud did you find it there ? They have a 86 dB limit at 3500 rpm and 50' for their law.

http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/646_2.htm#646-2.8

ps - I'm no sound engineer either but I do have some background in wave propagation.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack....

For being one of the most educated people , again, you got your information wrong. HB-1624 came out of the transportation committee with 13-0 vote with a recomendation of passage. It is expected to pass the full house.

From the House Journal:

HB 1624-FN, relative to boat noise. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT

Rep. Stephen H. Nedeau for Transportation: Currently the method used for testing boat noise is at 50 feet. This is very impractical and difficult to enforce. The bill would allow a second testing procedure SAEJ2005. This test would be performed at four feet, not 50 feet, from the rear of the boat making it more practical to enforce the boat noise statute. The bill also increases the fines.

It seems to me Skip was absolutely correct in that HB-1624 allows a second form of noise testing as the background for the Bill as presented in the OFFICIAL House calendar says: The bill would allow a second testing procedure SAEJ2005

Woodsy

[ApS]

Since I've survived a career just an elbow-distance to the loudest noises that mankind can produce, I'd like to chime in here. (Skip can back me up on my career choice).

As I've previously posted, I've routinely used a Bruel & Kjaer dB meter in my employment. It was required because the sound needed to be quantified with a number—and not leaving it up to any person's opinion. At the end of the day, there was a "number" produced, but bore scant relationship to what was actually heard.

I've pondered this phenomenon, and can only conclude that sound—particularly over water—is a strange duck.

Why is it that a speedboat's exhaust on the Weirs side of Rattlesnake Island—can be heard while adrift on the Broad's side of Rattlesnake Island? That's nearly three hundred feet of soil, trees, and granite! How can exhaust noise travel through hundreds of acres of forest while still needing to travel through another 70-foot-depth of clay, rocks, forest "duff", and soil—to be heard at my dock over a ½-mile away?

I've consulted with sound engineers—who should know—and came away empty.

My guess is best expressed as this: If you pluck a guitar's steel string in the open air, you get a pleasant sound. If you attach the string to a hollow "sounding board" (like a guitar) it is the same pleasant sound, but amplified.

The noisiest boats on Winnipesaukee can be heard from miles away—even as they pass behind islands—and even when abeam and miles away. Are their hulls acting as a "sounding board" for their exhaust- and exhaust-related noises?

I think so.

The entire "noise" issue needs to be readdressed for lakes surrounded by mountains. IMO, there is a strong liklihood that a dB meter needs to be supplemented with a seismometer in such environments.

As to the new bill's "close" measure:

Everyone can recall the noise that a Harley motorcycle makes at idle in front of your favorite restaurant; however, just as he "gives it the gas", the noise increases dramatically as the "load" on the engine jumps. In the space of just ten feet, the noise can be far more deafening than it was at idle.

Now take New Jersey—please:

I regret last year's New Jersey's action of eliminating the "drive-by" noise-testing of speedboats. They cited it as "too dangerous"—and well they should. Boating speeds ratchet upwards every year. Speedboat manufacturers are tranfering their speedboat basic design and converting them to "Express Cruiser", or some other speedy "Family Boat" experience.

Within the same year, NJ politicos defeated a speed limit initiative at the same time that drive-by noise testing was defeated! New Jersey has started a demanding "Boater Education" program this year, and widely-held complaints can be read on Internet boating sites.

BTW: Maryland has a proposal for 100% PFD use on any moving boat this year.

(Seems to me that mandatory PFDs may have actually contributed to a 70-MPH double-fatality on Michigan waters last summer).

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Dave,
88 dB is 4 times as intense as 82 dB. You are entitled to the opinion that this is a "minor" increase...but I don't share it, and I am entitled to my opnion too.

Ugh, I hate to beat a dead horse but the human dynamic range of hearing is 120 to 130 dB. 6 dB is only 5% of 120 dB. Personally, I think a 5% increase in noise is pretty minor.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It seems to me Skip was absolutely correct in that HB-1624 allows a second form of noise testing as the background for the Bill as presented in the OFFICIAL House calendar says: The bill would allow a second testing procedure SAEJ2005

I hate to keep saying the same thing...and I can't find the amended version yet...perhaps that includes some options that the original bill did not for testing the old way at 82 dB/50 feet or the new way at 88 dB/0 feet. But the full text of the bill is spelled out above and there is nowhere in that for such a "second" or "alternate" limit/procedure for late model boats...regardless of what the "background" says or what Skip says. If there is such, all that I have asked (several times now) is that you show me where/how in the text of the bill it does that.

And I had obviously not seen yesterday that it was just posted that the bill had just made it out of committee, or I would have changed the language of my statement...I guess you were faster to notice that...you win that one! But that does not eliminate the questions/concerns I have, which have so far gone unanswered, despite what the "background" of the report says.

For new boats, the noise limits will now be 88 dB at a point above the transom corner, outside of the exhaust stream, while the boat is idling...as opposed to (not "or else") the previous limit of 82dB at any point 50 feet away from a boat at full throttle. If you have specific text in the amended bill that contradicts this statement, please provide it...anything else, let's not waste any more of eachother's time.

I repeat what I have said so often in this string, that I question whether HB1624, if it passes, will really result in quieter boats, as is being promised by the MTA and Rep Whalley. I just have yet to be convinced that it will do that. Up until the past few days, I had thought we all wanted tighter limits on boat noise.

Again, I don't want to keep rehashing the same points. If someone has a direct answer to my question above, I'd like to hear it...otherwise, I'd really like to head back down to Concord to continue my work on a more pressing issue.

[BroadHopper]

Some of the older boats like mine uses the water from the engine to muffle the noise. At idle the boat is pretty loud but at full throttle it is pretty quiet. Because the current testing procedure requires a full throttle pass, my boat pass the law with decibels to spare. There have been numerous times that I got stop by the MP in a NWZ because it is loud. I just showed them the slip that says I passed the test. Some of the MP's will even stick their club up my exhaust just to see if they hit something. This is something of a no brainer idea. As all boats have flaps to prevent water reversals.
With the new law a lot of the classic and antique boats may have to be modified. This is a big no no among the die-hards and the judges at the boat shows. I wonder if there will be an exception for them?
Also, since the current law and the new law states that the boat requires a full throttle pass, does that violate the new 45 mph rule? Sounds like another political no brainer.

[Hottrucks]

See my post #17

But they wave the 150 foot rule for the old way they test, why wouldn't they wave it on old boats??? I did ask them to wave the speed limit on the roads after a test since I was late for dinner???? They got a laugh out of it,.. but I still don't understand how they can wave a law put there for your and their safety?? for the sake of a Test Lucky knowone has been hurt or worsre with the old test

The new test has it's own problems as you have stated.... and I think you will find a lot of old timers still running pre 77 motors ( I for one still have and run the motor from when dad pulled me skiing ,1966 Merc) and hope to pass it on to my kids ( thanx synthetic oils) The other thing as you stated is what do we do with all those wooden boats ( That might make a good post ) ( maybe fire wood?? KIDDING) and the tour boats??

[Fat Jack]

If someone has a direct answer to my question above, I'd like to hear it.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

If someone has a direct answer to my question above, I'd like to hear it.

Shouldn't your question be "...if someone has a direct answer that I like to my question above, I'd like to hear it?

Broadhopper, the owner's of antique boats ahould have nothing to fear, afterall Fat Jack has unequivocally surmised that the new testing procedure will allow boats to be "four times louder" now. Remember, he is quoted as stating he is the most knowledgable and passionate person in the State when it comes to these affairs!

Skip

BH....when I get a chance I'll PM you offline and get you direct answers to your questions.....something FJ still declines to do....

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Skip

I'll PM you offline ...something FJ still declines to do....

Skip,
Sorry I had to resort to blocking your PM's, you were getting annoying and using up my allowance and I don't think Don's intent was to have the PM system used for one member to continually harrass another. 4 messages in two days, three after I requested that you not, was getting to be a bit much. What do you have to tell me in private that you can't say in public? That's why I don't post my email or phone number. Recall that one of the reasons I wish to keep your group in the dark (you are in fact still in the dark, BTW) about my identity is because I do not wish to be harrassed (or threatened or blackmailed). Please feel free to converse with me over the public forum any time you wish...I enjoy our little public repartees.
Again, I have asked you to show me in the text of HB1624 where it allows for the MP to continue to test new boats under the old method using the 82dB limit. I have still not seen where you or anyone else has answered that, to my liking or to my disliking. In fact, I would like it if you showed me in the text of the bill were it will still allows enforcement of the old 82 dB limit, which was one fourth as intense as the new 88 dB limit. Since it seems pretty apparent that the good Rep Whalley has succeeded in railroading this bill though under the radar, I can only hope that it will somehow result in quieter boats, as he has been telling everyone it will. I just don't see that in the text of the bill.

[ApS]

Fat Jack:

I see a double-jeopardy problem should two alternate methods be used for noise-measure.

This proposal appears to be a way to avoid the hazardous and time-consuming effort to test the boats at WOT. Speeds for these boats are ratcheting upwards every year, so it's a safety concern for the MPs, too. Why not go for the easier spot-test at docks and ramps, rather than test a boat whose muffler is restored for the WOT test the following week anyway? (With an attorney present. )

HB1624 appears to be based on noise-controls adopted in other states and are probably noisier than allowed by our present law. Seeing that present Winnipesaukee compliance and enforcement is impotent, this "in-place" testing may not be such a bad thing. At present, the MPs can't catch most noisy offenders—much less those operating recklessly.

[BroadHopper]

I dare you to block my PMs. How would YOU like it if I did the same???
I don't know what 'secret society' you are talking about. Perhaps YOU are the one that request me to be moderated. I don't know.
I respect everyone's privacy on this forum as long as everyone do the same. It is a known fact that with a little googling and hacking anyone can find out who I am and who you are. Our email, phone and address is no secret on the internet. To prove it I google myself and did a little hacking. I was able to find out a lot more about myself than I thought possible on the internet.
Skip is a very knowledgeble person and I respect what he has to say. Whether on the forum or off. He is not into the 'dirty tactics' that I see here.
I have a number of good friends from Bear Island and they hate the publicity that they are getting on the forum and elsewhere. They know who FLL is and are not please with his mentioning of the Littlefield incident. This is something that is to be left alone. My girl friend is a good friend of the widow and she is not pleased with this publicity.
Now that I have to slow down to 25 mph at night, my boat is going to sound a lot louder and for a longer time. A number of people are going to wish the 25 mph speed limit will go away.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Fat Jack:

I see a double-jeopardy problem should two alternate methods be used for noise-measure.

This proposal appears to be a way to avoid the hazardous and time-consuming effort to test the boats at WOT. Speeds for these boats are ratcheting upwards every year, so it's a safety concern for the MPs, too. Why not go for the easier spot-test at docks and ramps, rather than test a boat whose muffler is restored for the WOT test the following week anyway? (With an attorney present. )

HB1624 appears to be based on noise-controls adopted in other states and are probably noisier than allowed by our present law. Seeing that present Winnipesaukee compliance and enforcement is impotent, this "in-place" testing may not be such a bad thing. At present, the MPs can't catch most noisy offenders—much less those operating recklessly.

APS,

I have to disagree with this statement of yours. I think the MP's are quite capable of catching noisy offenders and are certainly capable of catching those boater who choose to operate recklessly. The flaw is with the current testing procedure, which is difficult to administer, and is a "scheduled" test. Allowing time for the offending boat to "fix" the problem in time for the test.

As far as people who are operating thier boat recklessly, the only solution to that problem is to educate the boat operator (we are implementing that now), and increase the MP presence on the Lake. (not in the plans). Everybody tends to drive alot better when there is a police cruiser on the side of the road, the same goes for boats.

Fat Jack...

I am sorry you cannot comprehend the "legalese" in the way this bill was written. Your trying to invoke a "sky is falling" campaign. It just isn't working.

HB-1624 allows the MP to conduct what is essentially an instant test, an unscheduled test. Drive your boat to the dock or Glendale, and we are going to test it right now, Pass/Fail! I guess you know more than the SAE guys & gals, no doubt your probably more educated than they are! SAEJ2005 was developed SPECIFICALLY as a repeateable noise test for law enforcement agencies. It is a noise testing procedure that has been upheld in courts all across the country. If you are at louder 88dB at idle, with minimal ambient noise cancellation and minimal noise reflective surfaces, then you are going to be a lot louder at higher engine RPM. Its really pretty simple.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

APS,

I have to disagree with this statement of yours. I think the MP's are quite capable of catching noisy offenders and are certainly capable of catching those boater who choose to operate recklessly.

They weren't doing so well with Donzis.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The flaw is with the current testing procedure, which is difficult to administer, and is a "scheduled" test. Allowing time for the offending boat to "fix" the problem in time for the test.

Now, you've agreed with me; however, you're not in agreement with NHMP Lt. Mark K. Gallagher:

"The Bureau of Marine Patrol's acting bureau chief, Lt. Mark K. Gallagher, agreed education isn't enough.

"'If greater knowledge transferred into compliance then that would be wonderful, but there isn't much lack of knowledge of what the speed limit is on every stretch of road and that doesn't transfer into compliance,' he said."

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...As far as people who are operating thier boat recklessly, the only solution to that problem is to educate the boat operator (we are implementing that now)..." Woodsy

See above quote.

Say, where is Lt. Gallagher now?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I dare you to block my PMs.

Done.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am sorry you cannot comprehend the "legalese" in the way this bill was written.

Woodsy, I understand the "legalese" just fine. And I understand HB1624 and SAE-J2005 just fine. And I have a reasonable understanding of noise quantification. And as I have said several times, I agree that SAE-J2005 is a great testing procedure that should be added (not substituted) into our noise law. And I think HB1624 could be amended into a good bill, by changing it so it will not allow boats to be louder.
But SAE-J2005 does not set the increased dB limits that Rep Whalley has snuck into HB1624, and HB1624 leaves no "option" to the MP to continue with the status quo when they see fit. Right now, as it is written, HB1624 is a Trojan horse, and it is apparently you and Skip who fail to understand that (or perhaps you just want louder boats).

I'll repeat my question one more time;
Please show me where in the text of the bill (in "legalese" or otherwise), it still allows the MP the option of testing new boats by the old method at 82dB? If you cannot answer that, please stop responding to my question with irrelevant jib-jab about my ability to comprehend legalese.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Fat Jack]

Did HB1624 go through with the consent bills today? I'm not seeing it listed.