Boat noise laws thrown out?

[Biggus]

My question has been answered. I'm not pleased with the direction this thread has taken.

[Skip]

Nope,

No truth to those rumors whatsoever.

There was some confusion over the administrative rule section of the marine code several month's ago (where the procedure for measuring & enforcing decibel violations exists), but that situation has been rectified and the code and applicable RSA's remain in full force.

As always, a quick call to the Marine Patrol HQ in Gilford, NH (603-293-2037)should quickly confirm that the aforementioned rumors are not true.

Skip

[Outlaw]

Skip -

Curious if nothing else, but after reading your post, I sit here wondering what the RSA's are for this (as I am sure others are). Is there a web site you can direct me to that would explain this?

In advance, thanks so much for your help.

[Skip]

Hi Outlaw,

Attached below is the RSA governing noise & below that the administrative rule section defining the testing procedure;

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Motorboat Noise Levels
Section 270:37
270:37 Decibel Limits on Noise. –
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.
II. No person may operate, sell, or offer for sale any marine engine for use in or upon the waters of this state 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 under RSA 270:39:
(a) For a marine engine manufactured in or before 1977, a noise level of 86 decibels on the "A' scale.
(b) For a marine engine manufactured between January 1, 1978, and December 31, 1981, a noise level of 84 decibels on the "A' scale.
(c) For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, 1981, a noise level of 82 decibels on the "A' scale.
III. Noise levels in decibels shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
IV. The director or his agent may order the operator or owner of any boat which he reasonably believes is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the decibel limits contained in this section to subject his boat to noise level testing procedures as provided in this subdivision.
V. A boat owner or operator shall submit a boat which is the subject of an order by the director or his agent pursuant to RSA 270:37, IV to noise level testing by the director or his agent within 7 days of such an order. No person shall operate the boat after this 7-day period has expired until it is subjected to such noise level testing.
VI. The director or his 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. Pursuant to the penalties imposed under RSA 270:41-a, any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than $100. No portion of any fine imposed under this section shall be suspended or reduced by the court.

Noise Testing Procedures;

Saf-C 403.22 Noise Level Testing Procedure.

(a) This section shall set forth the procedure to be used to measure marine engine noise levels, pursuant to RSA 270:36-40.

(b) The following instruments shall be used to measure decibel levels of marine engines and motors:

(1) A precision sound level meter that conforms to the specifications of ANSI S1.4-1983; and

(2) An external field test, such as a sound level calibrator.

(c) The test site shall be located in a calm body of water that is large enough to allow full speed pass-bys, such as Paugus Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee.

(d) The area around the test site, for a minimum distance of 100 feet, shall be free of large obstructions, such as buildings, boats, hills, large piers, and breakwater walls.

(e) The test course shall consist of 3 small buoys, in a straight line.

(f) The test boat shall be positioned parallel to the test course, at a distance of 50 feet from the center buoy of the course. The bow and stern of a test boat shall be secured to moorings.

(g) There shall be a marine patrol officer on board each boat tested. The marine patrol officer shall stay on board each boat tested to verify that the boat was operated at maximum speed, pursuant to (k) below, for 2 of the pass-bys, during the noise level test.

(h) Calibration shall be as follows:

(1) The sound level meter used for the purpose of making measurements under this section shall be calibrated using an external field test;

(2) Field calibration of the sound level meter shall be made immediately before and after each test sequence;

(3) A notation of successful completion of the field calibration shall be made, by the person performing the calibration, on a noise test report form;

(4) An external standard calibration test shall be conducted annually on the sound level meter, and the external field test; and

(5) A copy of the external calibration test forms, filled out by the person(s) who performed the last external standard calibration, shall be evidence that the sound level meter and external field test were properly calibrated at the time of the noise level test.

(i) The ambient sound level, including wind effects, due to noise sources other than the vessel being tested, shall be measured immediately prior to the test sequence of the vessel to be tested. The value shall be recorded.

(j) The temperature, humidity, and windspeed shall be recorded. They shall be the current values available and reported by the National Weather Service at the nearest observation station to the site.

(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.

(l) During each test, all radio equipment shall be switched off. An officer shall hold the sound level meter 5 to 6 feet above the water with the microphone inclined approximately 70 degrees off horizontal, facing the center buoy of the test course. The results of each run shall be recorded by a marine patrol officer in the test boat.

(m) Each meter reading shall be obtained as the boat is within the boundaries of the test course, at the highest sound level for each speed.

(n) All values for (m) above shall be recorded, however, the sound level shall be the average of the 2 readings, rounded down to the nearest whole number.

(o) The officers conducting the noise level tests shall maintain a log sheet that records the following information:

(1) Name and address of owner of the boat;

(2) Date of birth of boat owner;

(3) The document that the officer checked for proof of identification of the boat operator;

(4) Names of officers conducting the test;

(5) Date and time of test;

(6) Location of test site;

(7) Weather conditions;

(8) Water conditions;

(9) Color of the boat being tested;

(10) Make and model number of boat being tested;

(11) Length of boat;

(12) Boat registration number;

(13) Hull number;

(14) Names or distinguishing marking on the boat;

(15) The result of the field test of the sound level meter;

(16) Direction of the test pass; either left or right; and

(17) Results of each test.

[madrasahs]

There are at least six stealthy techniques to satisfy your need to draw attention to yourself -- using your through-hull exhausts.

The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.

Another site says "Snatch your registration back from the [Winnipesaukee] Marine Patrol Officer and take off. They'll never catch an 80 MPH boat."

'Course, at night, you can always turn off your lights, open your pipes, make lots of extra noise -- and never get caught.

NH's "Benign by Design" laws favor "Noise and Action" boating...among other things.

[Outlaw]

Skip - you kill me .....thank you FOR the RSA, so much more than I was expecting. Good Reading though. Appreciate your time and help on this... Thanks so much.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.

The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.

Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.

[NightWing]

Thank you. I have read so many of his posts I felt it was time to play once more. I just registered in this new format and I am getting used to it all over again. I used to post quite often in the old forum. I was a little disapointed that the "new" didn't recognize the "old" and I had to start from scratch again.

( Wait a minute, where did the post go that I replied to with this one? I thanked someone for their positive response to my post.)

[Outlaw]

NightWing welcome back !


Let the GAMES begin ....

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system

The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
.

Originally Posted by NightWing

...and would melt any rubber connections or hoses.

If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.
.

Originally Posted by NightWing

The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.

NOT LEGAL? Really?

Take note of my previous title: Why worry about the law?

On Winnipesaukee, start with a boat named "A-- M---", and I'll get a few more boat names in the meantime. (That is, if you're even from within 1000 miles of Lake WInnipesaukee).

A lot of these "annoyed" responses come from other states, always on the lookout for lakes with naïve state laws -- and inadequate enforcement -- to put in their noisy boats.

Try to see the incentive in the original post:

Originally Posted by Biggus

"I'm a Sebago Lake boater and we have heard from several people that the boat noise laws (in NH) have been thrown off the books. Any truth to this rumor?".

(Biggus didn't mention that there is a citizen's initiative underway to kick Big Noisy Boats out of the State of Maine).

With other states' lawmakers cracking down on such abuses on lakes and coves nationwide, this lake could sound like Lake Interstate.

[Cal]

[QUOTE=madrasahs]The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
.
If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.

Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.

Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine
.

[CMG]

while the exhaust may not melt, don't think the heat generated in the engine compartment would be benificial. water always flows throught the exhaust, the only difference is under water ot below.

[Blue Thunder]

Hey Mad,

Just for your information, the Sebago Lake Safety Watch is not attempting to ban big boats from Sebago Lake (Maine's 2nd largest lake, 50 square miles of water). They have recently formed to try and get a handle on unsafe operation of all types of water craft on the lake. The plan is to have as many eyes as possible out there to report unsafe boat operators to the Maine Warden's Service and the local town's Marine Patrol.
As far as I know, switchable exhaust is not legal in NH, however it is in Maine. Having said that, Maine enforces a certain decibel level at a certain distance from the measuring device.

Hey Biggus, I've heard the Marine Patrol now has the measuring device on Sebago and are writing tickets. BTW, your boat is beautiful!

Blue Thunder

[madrasahs]

Seems like Big Boaters have caused an on-going disagreement among themselves:

Originally Posted by NightWing

The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It switches the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe.

Originally Posted by Cal

Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.

Originally Posted by NightWing

Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.

Originally Posted by DistantThunder

As far as I know, switchable exhaust is legal in Maine.

It's legal to burn and/or sink your boat in Maine? Boy, this "ignorance of the law is no excuse" business is confusing.

Originally Posted by Cal

Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine

Somehow I'm less entitled? Here's what you wrote last month:
.

Originally Posted by Cal

I usually stay at the NASWA so there aren't many High Performance boats screaming by at 2 am , but I do get my share of bikes on that road. I don't like it...

Sounds like wine + whine to me.

Originally Posted by Cal

More wonderful words of wisdom from our resident "whatchamacallit" boat lover

Yes, I am a Winnipesaukee shorefront resident: and that makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by DistantThunder

Just for your information, the Sebago Lake Safety Watch is not attempting to ban big boats from Sebago Lake...

Sorry, I've never heard of "Sebago Lake Safety Watch".

The citizen's group in Maine I read of began with "Lakes Region Something-or-other"

I have a question about Maine regulations: Are their registration numbers on their boats larger than NH's? (That may get on my list of improvements to Winnipesaukee's boating environment).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

Seems like Big Boaters have caused an on-going disagreement among themselves:

It's legal to burn and/or sink your boat in Maine? Boy, this "ignorance of the law is no excuse" business is confusing.

Let me step infor just a moment and try to clear up your misunderstanding because I don't see any disagreement. Are you trying to create one or really didn't follow the below ...

On 8/20 @ 9:12 pm

Originally Posted by madrasahs

There are at least six stealthy techniques to satisfy your need to draw attention to yourself -- using your through-hull exhausts.
The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.

which drew this response on 8/24 @ 10:02 pm

Originally Posted by NightWing

The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.
Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.

Seems to me NightWing is saying madrasahs is wrong re: turning off water and trying to tell him about "Captains Call" exhaust, a switchable system that either directs exhaust out under the water or straight out the transom, and is not legal in NH. (Blue Thunder later added such exhaust is legal in Maine). I'll add that I've seen new Chris-Crafts w/Captains Call (or similar type) exhaust, unexpected since at 23' it's neither an "offshore" nor a dedicated performance boat. Go figure....

which got this response on 8/25 @ 8:35 pm

Originally Posted by madrasahs

The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.

which prompted this on 8/25 @ 9:59 pm

Originally Posted by Cal

Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.
Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine

So putting aside the actual topic, seems that nobody in this thread is promoting "shutting off the water". Capt's Call exhaust won't cause fires and sink your boat, is legal in ME but not in NH.

You all may return to the actual debate now

[NightWing]

Thank you Mee-n-Mac for helping clarify my statement. I was trying to explain to Madrasahs that he was not clear how an adjustable exhaust system operates. Cooling water is introduced into the exhaust stream, regardless if the exit point is above or below the water line. Notice I didn't say "muffling water" because water alone does not meet the state definition of a muffler.

Now, to shut that water flow off, even for a short time, would seriously overheat the exhaust system from the risers on back to the exit point. Most through hull exhaust systems have some type of rubber connection, sometimes a length of hose or a small "hump hose" which allows for slight movement and misalignment. True, some of the faster, high performance boats have solid systems with nothing but stainless steel piping. Still, those systems require cooling water to keep exhaust temperature under control.

As far as being a fire hazard, consider that the exhaust system on a boat is not out in the airflow, like an automobile. The entire powerplant is under cover in a compartment with marginal ventilation, and that compartment is of fiberglass or wooden construction, both items well suited for a nice, hot fire.


That being said, adjustable exhaust systems, whether named Captain's Call, Silent Choice, or Quick and Quiet II Plus, all share a similar method of allowing the exhaust to exit, un-muffled, through the hull or transom, instead of through the lower unit under water. That similarity is a diverter plate in each exhaust pipe and they are operated with various types of solenoids or cylinders and are controlled either by the operator or by some type of basic engine management system. Again, those adjustable devices are not legal in New Hampshire waters.


Finally, I would like to point out that I am not a "Big Boater".

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me step in for just a moment and try to clear up your misunderstanding because I don't see any disagreement. Are you trying to create one...

Moi?

It's true, as a long-time Winnipesaukee boater, I had never heard of Captain's Call, Silent Choice, or Quick and Quiet II Plus -- only the phrase, "shutting off the water". (NightWing: "all share a similar method of allowing the exhaust to exit, un-muffled, through the hull or transom").

What I thought I was hearing while quietly sailing on Winnipesaukee was this: http://www.jetworks.net/fcar2.htm

I searched Captain's Call, and found this:

http://boards.trailerboats.com/cgi-b...c;f=2;t=001811

"Help, pleez......my main concern is that it is so loud even with the Captain's Call diverter closed...and just unbearable with the Captain's Call on. This is not what I expected."

In addition to the "helpful" posts that state, "You bought it...You own it", and "You didn't try it first?" There was this:

"I have a Captain’s Call on a four winns 23 horizon and the exhausts is louder than the other boats I have owned in the past. You get a good little rumble with the valves closed due to the exhaust not being under water. I was lucky I was able to test drive my new boat last fall so I knew what to expect. I also used a GPS and did several runs with the flappers opened and closed and found a difference of about 2 MPH."

And the submitter of that last posted remark was...?

"NH BOATER".

"Illegal in New Hampshire", huh? This is a Vast NightWing Conspiracy.

My ears do not deceive me.

[NightWing]

Conspiracy? Are you for real?

So, someone named NH Boater admits to having an illegal system and you cry conspiracy. By your own admission, you are not familiar with exhaust systems.

Some people speed, rape, rob, murder, cheat on their taxes, beat their spouses etc, ad nauseum. All of those acts are against the law, but they happen. There is no conspiracy. Laws help keep the honest people honest. There will always be people who break the law.

In a perfect world.......................

[Blue Thunder]

How is it that you can use other screen names properly and not mine?

What did I do to deserve that?

Nevermind....I think I figured it out for myself...I made the mistake of trying to clarify some of the information in your post.

Blue Thunder

[HUH]

Why do sailboats usually have the little infernal combustion engine running ..And do they feel since they are so inadiquately powered that the can skirt the ROW laws..
Also seems alot of them are driving large SUV's most of the time so there goes the environment.. I believe my diaper is full

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Conspiracy? Are you for real?

There's no such thing as a Vast Night Wing Conspiracy. (It rhymes, you may have noticed, with another "conspiracy").

Originally Posted by HUH

Why do sailboats usually have the little infernal combustion engine running ..And do they feel since they are so inadiquately powered that the can skirt the ROW laws..

I can't speak for all powered sailboats, as I don't have one. They do have one collision-avoidance advantage, though, in that they can turn on a dime regardless of speed -- something your boat can't do.

Originally Posted by Blue Thunder

How is it that you can use other screen names properly and not mine?

Nothing personal...It's just that "Product Identification" offshore thing.

But I had just read of 24-year-old, 5' 2", Ellen MacArthur's offshore sailing, where she raced around the world non-stop ALONE -- finishing second in 79 days -- and had to climb an 80-foot mast to fix an antenna in the effort.

Think of all the males with boat names associated with "Thunder" (Black Thunder, Thunder-Struck, EMI Thunder, Active Thunder, Distant Thunder, and the oxymoronic Silent Thunder.

All that these "thunder men" have in common is an ignition key, machismo, noise -- and maybe just a little arrogance. Nothing personal, but it "steals the thunder" from Ellen MacArthur's offshore exploits, if you know what I mean. Ellen makes them "Girlie-Men" by comparison.

Her book, Taking on the World is available on-line, and will help support this forum if purchased through the book store at http://www.winnipesaukee.com/howtohelp.html.

[NightWing]

"There's no such thing as a Vast Night Wing Conspiracy. (It rhymes, you may have noticed, with another "conspiracy")."

????????????????// Well, I am totally lost on your analogy, unless you are referring to our former First Lady when she said there was a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" going on against her husband. Certainly, politics haven't entered into the discussion about loud boats, have they?

On another note, Former President Clinton will be undergoing emergency quadruple bypass surgery in the next day or so. Let's put our differences aside and have a good thought for him.

[Zeke]

HUH,
The small motors on sailboats are almost always adequate, The reason for the small size is due to the fact a sailboat will only be pushed to it's theoretical hull speed, which is not a planning speed. Any horses after that are wasted. Regarding all these sailors who do not watch ROW rules, my expierience is they tend to be considerably better at this than most, mainly out of necessity. They don't really have the ability to jump on the throttle to "get by" in front of you. It's some what like my driving down the road at 80, and wondering why I always have these slow cars in front of me. I get the sense your one of the powerboaters who call sail boats rag baggers, or the like. Yes, no?

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Zeke

"The small motors on sailboats are almost always adequate..."

When the weather gets really rough, even these small motors become useless. (The propeller leaves the water between wave troughs). Then it's time to put up the storm trysail and "reef" the mainsail (reduce the surface area).

It's always a treat to read magazine photo-op accounts turning into races -- when sailboats arrive hours ahead of the photographers' powerboats.

BTW, the citizens' action against disruptive boaters on Sebago Lake is called "Lakes Region Safe Boating Assocation".

Now "Disruptive Boaters" want to grace Lake Winnipesaukee with their Great Beneficence. (Bad press from Sebago is responsible perhaps?)

[Blue Thunder]

"BTW, the citizens' action against disruptive boaters on Sebago Lake is called "Lakes Region Safe Boating Assocation"."

The group that I referred to is the Sebago Water Safety Watch. Some of their info is available at this link:

http://www.fryeisland.com/watch/index.htm

Blue Thunder

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Biggus

I think we will head over to Winni next weekend.

If you see a 38 Cigarette with red transom, wave and say hello.

Good. You should come to the forum gathering, then we can check out the Konrads.

Rob

[NightWing]

Actually, the Clinton thing started with the "it rhymes with another conspiracy" comment by our sailboating friend. Once that small connection was made, I just expanded on it and one thing led to another. I never intended for it to be a bone of contention and it wasn't worthy of its own thread. I just made a comment about the man's condition. I would have suggested the same thoughts for most anyone. Quadruple bypass is not a walk in the park.

[Will]

Ok I've been lurking around here for a while and have continuously seen posts by madrasahs totally bashing the offshore boaters on this forum. You (Madrasahs) have said yourself that you do not own a Offshore machine so nor do you know how they work.(as seen forehand.). So my question stands, how can you draw a conclusion to which you don't know. It seems as though you almost post for attention?

My suggestion to you, since you seem to be always correcting all of the other forum members is this: You act, or try to act, at least, like you know what your talking about, but you don't, especially on this thread. Now your probably going to comeback and make a post and try to make me look stupid, dwelling on little things such as spelling or grammatical errors. But you will still be wrong. I honestly and truly suggest next time before trying to "sting" your fellow man that you carefully research your topic. Remember research is the key to knowledge, cause as the NBC commercial says, "The More Ya Know!"

Mad, Were all in this together, its a big lake and unless you have enough money to buy all the land around it, people are still going to boat on it. Marinas and the people at them make their living from it, others vacation on it ( those would be the "Yuppies" you speak of". So my last piece of knowledge for you is to enjoy it, enjoy your home, enjoy the lake. No matter what you do, no matter who you try to write to, its not going to change. So just enojoy it. People will always boat here and boats will continue to be loud.

Maybe you should look into the "If you can't beat them join them" idea.

Just a thought but Silver Sands Marina has a beautiful 38 Fountain Lightning that you'd look good in.

Good Luck
We're all in this together.,
Will

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Will

Just a thought but Silver Sands Marina has a beautiful 38 Fountain Lightning that you'd look good in.

That's a very funny thought...

Fountains seem to have a negative reaction to the Lake.

Do they not like fresh water?

[NightWing]

"its a big lake and unless you have enough money to buy all the land around it, people are still going to boat on it."

Will, good post with good arguments. Point of order though is the above statement from your post.

Even if Mr. Mad owned every bit of land around the lake, it would still be a public lake.

True, he probably wouldn't allow people to cross the line to launch, but a new cottage industry could spring up on Weirs Blvd called something like "Formula Airlift" or "Offshores And More, Delivered To Your Moor", or "Donzis From Heaven".

Surplus military equipment helicopters could be used for Valet Service airdrops on the Broads, or better yet, in front of Mad's digs.

That way, he could record bow numbers and videotape the noisy, polluting vessels that are powered by big blocks instead of bedsheets. LOL!

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Will

Ok I've been lurking around here for a while and have continuously seen posts by madrasahs totally bashing the offshore boaters on this forum. You (Madrasahs) have said yourself that you do not own a Offshore machine so nor do you know how they work.(as seen forehand.). So my question stands, how can you draw a conclusion to which you don't know. It seems as though you almost post for attention?

This isn't just aimed at you Will but is it so hard to believe that someone may see an issue differently than you? And since when do you have to be an expert on something to have an opinion?

I'm a lurker too and what I mostly see is Madrasahs giving his opinions without getting nasty and with a sense of humor. He also tries to back up his comments with links to articles about similar topics or incidents. That is very much unlike most of his detractors who are frequently rude and irrational (IMHO). I thought only politicians just smear anyone they disagree with. Except for Skip (a notable exception), they rarely back up their opinions and just have hissy fits every time Madrasahs posts anything.

It's really too bad since I think it intimidates other people who may share some of his opinions but don't want to get attacked. Certainly he and I are not the only ones concerned about the excessively large, powerful and noisy boats that are growing in numbers every year on the lake. It seems to me that this is a suitable topic for this forum and everyone should be able to give their opinion without being ripped apart.

I personally like to read both sides of issues. If the anti-Madrasahs crowd would respond in a more thoughtful and less emotional way I would give their opinion more weight.

[Will]

Never in my article did I say his opinions were wrong, it was however clearly stated throughout the thread that his suggestions would surely smoke a motor. In your boat, you are totally free to read the everything guide to boating, by madrasahs. However in mine, id like to keep my motors, 12k A PIECE!, in tact. SOOOOOO, I do believe that the idea of shutting off water to a WATER COOLED motor, would overheat it and do some serious damage, if not start a fire. (Just a little fact, I figured id throw out there). Now there is a list as long as my arm and im sure plenty of people can support me that posts made have been more that coincedently bashing to most of us. Jan I totally agree with you that the forum is a place for self expression, but if I express myself by having an offshore boat, I do not expect nor do i deserve to be bashed for that simple fact.

Sincerely,
Water Cooled
Will

[Mee-n-Mac]

No doubt I'll live and regret this but the question remains. Yes the original question was whether the noise laws had expired (no) but the resulting topic seemed to be whether (some) boats are too loud and whether they're doing it by unlawful means. Everyone is going to have their own definition of too loud so I'll ask whether illegal exhaust systems are the major problem or whether the dB limits stated above are too high ?

[Cal]

Jan,
You're pretty much correct...everyone is entitled to there own opinion
There are thing I don't like too , but I don't use the forum for my own personal soap box over and over again.
I have also been "quoted" by "someone" who only used part of what I said and then turned it around to use it against me to make me look like a fool This person would make one GREAT politician .
I think this person may just be sitting back laughing at us behind their anonimnity(sp).
So if I and other performance boats ignore partial truths and misquotes and don't "play " with this person...maybe that will take the fun out of it for them. In hind sight , many of their statements seemed to invite counter attacks which I feel I may have been suckered into.
I've tried to state this tactfully and politically correctly with no personal attacks.
Have a wonderful day

[Coastal Laker]

Regarding the original question on laws being thrown out: I know folks on both sides of the issue on noise and high performance boats.



There is activity in progress to pursue a change in the law regarding switchable exhaust which is presently illegal in NH. In simple terms: under the existing law, your boat can be loud (but under the decibel limit) or quiet, but not both. The changes being pursued would allow the ability to switch between the two. There are a lot of boats with the capability but were required to disable the muffling device under the law… go figure.



So why would anyone want to switch back and forth? Well, contrary to belief, some of the performance boat crowd I am familiar with would actually desire having the ability to switch from loud to quiet when it’s appropriate. They could muffle the noise to a quiet level when in an area that is sensitive to it – like gas docks, coves, houses, marinas, etc and go back to the classic high performance rumble elsewhere.



Right now NH says be loud, be quiet, but you can’t have it both ways. The new law, if it ever comes to pass, would at the very least give boaters an option to muffle the rumble in their high performance boats. With that option available, I don’t expect the anti-noise crowd to be satisfied with the change; I don't think it meets their goals. I do believe that at least a small percentage of people would use the switchable feature for the reasons I just mentioned. A small number is better than none, right?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Biggus

LRSLA,
I don't believe the problem is even a fifth of what you are making it out to be...
Kurt

Ya know Kurt , I think you're right. I was sitting in my second favorite cove last Sunday with my wife , radio on at a level that we could talk at a normal tone of voice and I was listening to passing boats(both loud and quiet).
At no point did we have to raise our voices to be heard....at no point could I not heard the radio. Airplanes at a nearby airport were making as much or more than the marine traffic. Go figure
I think some of these "noise" people should be a victims of their own noise if they really want to complain about something

Cal

[LRSLA]

I thought that it might be interesting for others to understand the effects of
noise. It is important to understand that the normal background noise level
along the lake is about 55>60db during a normal weekend with out
illegal noise present. Illegal noise increase the level to 75>85db.
This increase is a 250%>525% increase in noise intensity.

These measurements are based upon the A-scale. The A-scale does not
fully take into account the effects and impact of Low Frequency noise.
Illegal boat operation predominantly emits low frequency noise.

I have pasted information located on the OSH web site. It's a good
primer on the effects of noise.



What are non-auditory effects?



Hearing loss from long term exposure to noise has been recognized as a hazard for a long time. However, what the non-auditory effects of noise are is still not certain. In general, the suspected effects include cardiovascular function (hypertension, changes to blood pressure and/or heart rate), and changes in breathing, annoyance, sleep, physical health and mental health. This wide range of effects has led researchers to believe that noise has the ability to act as a general, non-specific stressor. Evidence suggests that the stress reaction produced by noise is not unlike that produced by other stressors. The major research problem is that since noise may act as a general stressor, it is very difficult to pin point what the effects of noise are versus the effects of other general stressors.


In the workplace, non-auditory effects of noise include problems with oral communications. It has also been shown that absenteeism appears to be higher among workers in noisy industries. It has not been concluded whether this is from psychological aversion to noise or from physiological consequences of noise stress.


What types of non-auditory effects are there?



Non-auditory effects can be divided into two categories - physiological effects and performance effects.


What are some examples of physiological effects?



The physiological effects can be temporary or permanent.

Examples of temporary physiological effects are:


the startling response to loud noise, where muscles burst into activities, generally, with the intention to protect

the muscle tension response, where muscles tend to contract in the presence of loud noise

the respiratory reflexes, where the respiratory rhythm tends to change when noise is present

changes in the heart beat pattern

changes in the diameter of the blood vessels, particularly in the skin



All those effects are similar to the response of the body to other stressors.


As for the permanent effects, there is no consensus on the issue: some researchers tend to favour the theory that there are permanent effects, while others are skeptical on the issue.


How can noise affect performance?



Noise can interfere with verbal communications and can be distracting and annoying. Below are some examples of how these factors can affect work performance.


Speech intelligibility


Speech intelligibility is the ability to understand spoken words. The presence of noise interferes with the understanding of what other people say. This includes face-to-face talks, telephone conversations, and speech over a public address system.


In order to be intelligible the sound level of speech must be greater than the background noise at the ear of the listener. People with otherwise unnoticeable hearing loss find it difficult to understand spoken words in noisy surroundings.


In noisy work situations, people are able to converse with difficulty at a distance of one meter for a short time in the presence of noise as high as 78 dB(A). For prolonged conversations, the background noise level must be lower than 78 dB(A).


In social situations people often talk at distances of 2 to 4 meters. In such cases noise level should not exceed 55 to 60 dB(A). In outdoor play and recreational areas, people communicate at distances of 5 to 10 meters. In such cases background noise should not exceed 45 to 55 dB(A).

Source: C.M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.


Annoyance


Noise is annoying. If exposed to noisy environments, people generally prefer to reduce the noise loudness, avoid it, or leave the noisy area if possible. The same noise could be annoying to some people but acceptable to others. There is no definite relationship between the degree of annoyance or unpleasantness of noise and the risk of adverse health effects. For example, very loud music may be pleasant to one group of people and annoying to another group. Both groups will be equally at risk of hearing loss.


Besides loudness of sound, several other factors contribute to annoyance. The following table lists examples of such factors:



Factors that affect Individual Annoyance to Noise

Primary acoustic factors
Sound level
Frequency
Duration

Secondary acoustic factors
Spectral complexity
Fluctuations in sound level
Fluctuations in frequency
Rise-time of the noise
Localization of noise source
Physiology

Nonacoustic factors
Adaptation and past experience
How the listener's activity affects annoyance
Predictability of when a noise will occur
Is the noise necessary?
Individual differences and personality

Source: C.M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.


Job interference


Depending of the type of activity, noise can severely affect efficiency of a task performance. The following examples will illustrate this point:

a conversation nearby will distract a person and affect his or her concentration, hence reducing the employee's his efficiency

a noisy environment could create an additional hazard, since audible alarms might not be heard

a noisy environment interferes with oral communication and thus, interferes with the activity

[Cal]

Incredibly informative , BUT...

[Quote]"These measurements are based upon the A-scale. The A-scale does not fully take into account the effects and impact of Low Frequency noise. Illegal boat operation predominantly emits low frequency noise.".[Quote]
Not to mention [Quote] "As for the permanent effects, there is no concensus on the issue".[Quote]
And [Quote]" The same noise could be annoying to some people but acceptable to others. "[Quote]
So who gives anyone the right to decide what noise is annoying and what isn't with out stepping on someone else rights?

Pehaps you could ask a deaf or hearing impaired person if they would like to hear some "noise"

And like I said [Quote]"At no point did we have to raise our voices to be heard....at no point could I not heard the radio. Airplanes at a nearby airport were making as much or more than the marine traffic."[Quote]
Now since "I" was the one who elected to anchor near an airport I guess "I" would have to accept the noise or move . Because I am not about to move the airport
The entire issue seems rather subjective , much like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". By those standards do you suggest we ban ugly or fat people or people we just don't care to look at. And who is to decide what fat or ugly really is. Laugh at this if you will , but the issues are a lot closer than you may realize.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

LRSLA, what did you think about Coastal Lakers interesting post on switchable exhausts? There were good questions that were left unanswered here and I for one would like to know your opinion. Thanks. (I am not trying to come across as antagonistic here. Just looking for more information on the issue.)

[LRSLA]

I am not familiar with the specifics of that part of the
NH exhaust regs.

I will forward that switched mufflers work well in areas that
have large bodies of open water to run in. Quiet the exhaust
in proximity to land and then open up two to three miles out.

Switchable exhaust have been in effect outlawed.
Boats in the past would pass the noise tests done by the
Wardens and then run the rest of the day with cutouts engaged.
In the end boats running on inland lakes will have to muffle their
craft to legal levels.

In Maine there isn't such a thing as a legal switchable exhaust any more.
Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits with and with out
cutouts in place. Since there is no way for a water craft to meet the regs
with the exhaust bypassed, cutouts are in essence now illegal in Maine.

Noise is subjective to a point. That point is when it impacts another
person. At that point of impact noise becomes an irritant and a health
issue. There really is no debate about the effects of noise on health.
Noise , sound is now being utilized by the armed forces as a method of
disabling combatants.

During the last three years I have studied sound dynamics and noise
measurement extensively. Our world becomes noisier every year.

I will not be posting for three days.

[Rob]

Thanks to LRSLA for so many detailed and informative posts. Your lack of hyperbole and rhetoric coupled with your neutral tone and calm responses are appreciated.

Let me clarify some comments I made earlier. The first post of this thread was a simple question, which was quickly answered by our de facto legal counsel. (Thanks Skip). After another round of question and answer, this thread would have concluded, barely 90 minutes after it started.

Instead it metastasized into something that I doubt the initiating poster ever intended. Personally, I felt that the accusations regarding allegations of the initiating poster's behavior elsewhere, coupled with claims regarding his intentions in visiting Winnipesaukee were a bit much, to say the least, and I was attempting to lighten the situation with humor, not to attack the LRSLA.

I'm happy to hear that your decision to pull the videos was a voluntary one. I hope that it goes without saying that I was neither aware nor involved in any sort of hostile activity regarding your web server, as has been alleged. In the event that you continue to have questions regarding my conduct in this matter, feel free to contact me via private message or email.

I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

The green scarab was tested at 1/2 mile at 72db, this would mean that he
would have to be at least 95 dB operational at 50 feet

How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits

I thought Maine's was 75/90? (there is a link further down this post with a chart)

NH has a mandatory operator certification program.
Maine does not and probably should, but these programs are
hard to pass into law.

According to US Coast Guard Statistics, in 2002, 80% percent of fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not taken a boater education course. In other years, the number has been even higher. http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2002.pdf

In light of that one statistic, I would think that working toward mandatory boater education in Maine would(and I submit, should) be the primary(if not the only) item on your organization's agenda, particularly if you've now managed to get the noise laws enforced.

Just for comparison(we should realize how complete New Hampshire’s boater education law is), here is a link to a table showing boater education requirements by state. http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/stateregs.htm

18 states have no boater education law whatsoever. 7 require boater education for PWCs only(not boats), and some of those only require education for PWC operators of a certain age. Many states do have a mandatory education requirement, but it is only for say, people born in 1989 or later(Kansas), with no phase in at all, i.e., people in Kansas born before 1989 will never have to take boater education. Many of the states that require boater education only require it for those operators who are 12 to 18 years of age (Illinois, Kentucky), so you could buy a boat at 19 with no education whatsoever. In Idaho, boater education is required only for (get this) ‘Repeat marine offenders, those convicted of OUI or aggravated BUI’. Only a few states currently mandate education for all ages, or (like New Hampshire) are phasing it in.

Personally, I had no idea that New Hampshire was so strict with regard to boating safety. Why, I keep hearing that New Hampshire's laws are benign. (By design, I'm told.)

By the way, another state that has a mandatory boater education law is Florida. Apparently the pop singer Gloria Estefan was instrumental in getting legislation passed there. Yup, thats right. She was involved in a well known fatal accident in which an inexperienced jet skier came too close to her boat, lost control, and slammed into the side. All sources reported the Estefan's boat was traveling in a straight line, at barely 20 miles per hour. After the accident, Ms. Estefan, (who herself had already taken three different boating training classes,) paid her own way to testify before the Florida Legislature. (Well, there's so much information about this hard working advocate for safe boating laws in Florida that I'll just let you all read for yourselves- google "gloria estefan" and "boating accident")

In conversations that I have had with owners of boats of all sizes, the number one comment I hear is not about noise, size, speed, or lack of law enforcement, its about people who don't know the basic rules regarding right of way, safe distances and when to use headway speed.

I also recently read the results of a survey conducted on an offshore powerboat enthusiast site that indicated that the majority supported mandatory boater education. I would like to respectfully point out that if offshore boaters support boater education, and the LRSLA’s efforts at boater safety are not just focused on noise reduction, then the offshore boaters and the LRSLA can find common ground by helping to pass legislation in areas related to boating education and safety.


I want to ask the LRSLA if, in hindsight, there are things that you would do differently in terms of how you approached boaters, marinas, and local law enforcement regarding the LRSLA's concerns. I'm not looking to trip you up here, but rather to learn from your experience as to what we on Lake Winnipesaukee can do to make progress in boating safety without putting people on the defensive.

For example, new boat sales- I think it is only fair to acknowledge that barely 50% of the states have an enforceable boat noise law on the books.(see link further down this post) Because of this, boat manufacturers treat exhaust systems as an a la carte option. The cost of marine exhaust systems is by no means insignificant, and I am certain that in many cases, those who decline the exhaust options do so because of price, combined with a lack of understanding of what the law requires. I was wondering to what extent your efforts at noise reduction include making sure that marinas and boat retailers are aware of the fact that they may be selling boats that, from day one, do not meet the dB requirements of your state?

Also, you mentioned that:

LRSLA made many attempts to warn High performance boaters that enforcement was going to ramp up this year.

How exactly did you warn these boaters? To what extent did the warnings come from an 'official' (non-private, or non-LRSLA) source? Do you feel that the warnings would have had a different impact depending on the source? In other words, a private citizens group saying 'your boat is too loud' as opposed to the Marine Patrol saying 'Next year, if your boat is this loud, it will be a ticket and a fine'?

The link below leads to a table originally from Powerboat magazine, showing the noise laws of the 50 states.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/mtboats/noiselaws.html

(I'm aware of the fact that this is from 2002, it was the most current and complete list that I could find. If anyone has a newer one, please let me know and I'll change the link)

According to this table, 31 states currently have boat noise laws; 20 have none. Of 31 states with laws, two use the standard of 'Reasonable Level', one uses the phrase 'Must be adequately muffled', and one state (Massachusetts) requires boats to meet 'Federal Standards', which I believe is 80 dB. I'm sure that Skip can explain to us the likelihood of convicting someone for violating a law that uses the phrase 'Reasonable Level' in place of a measurable standard.

So, according to this chart, barely half of the states have enforceable noise level laws. New Hampshire is one of the few that does. Researching this post has been a real eye opener for me, I can tell you that. I was starting to believe those stories about New Hampshire’s benign (by design) laws. It's good to see that New Hampshire is ahead of so many states in it's approach to boat noise laws and boater education. Perhaps it’s due to all those students from Massachusetts and other states who regularly vote in New Hampshire elections. (I’m only repeating what I’m told here on the forum.)

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Rob

I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

{snip}

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob

Let me step in and see if I can help. Most noise measurements I'm aware of use the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measured via decibels (dB) using the "A scale" (vs the B or C scales). This logarithmic measurement tends to mimic the tonal (frequency) response of human hearing with some caveats I'll add in a bit. The math is that X dB SPL means that X = 20 x log(pressure/0.02 mPa). The 0.02 milli Pascals is a somewhat arbitrary reference level (idealized minimum detectable sound level) but the math explains the following. For every 6 dB increase or decrease the SPL doubles or halves and sound pressure (with another caveat) follows the usual inverse square law, halving for each doubling of distance. Said another way if some noise measures 60 dB SPL at 100 ft then at 200 ft it's 54 dB and at 400 ft it's 48 dB. The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance. Add in echos (reflections) from other surfaces and a hard scientific way of accurately estimating SPL vs distance over the lake eludes me. It may be better or worse that the simple inverse square law everyone likes to mention. I don't know of any good emperical methods to account for lake effects (there may be some rule of thumb, I just don't know it).

The first caveat I mentioned has to do with the A scale. As LRSLA mentions it tends to discount the lower (<500Hz) and higher (>10,000Hz) frequency sounds but it does so because human hearing does likewise, at least at lower SPLs. Human hearing is non-linear in it's response to increasing SPL. We poorly hear low frequency sounds at low levels but as they increase in level we tend to hear them disproportionately louder than we would a similar increase in mid-tones. At loud SPLs perhaps the flatter (frequency response-wise) C scale would be a better match. I'm not sure which should be applied at ... say ... an 80 dBa SPL.

Lastly I would emphasize the non-linear nature of human hearing once again. We don't "hear" a doubling of sound power or sound level that same way a microphone would measure it. I've always heard that a 3 dB increase is just noticeable and a 10 dB is perceived as a doubling in loudness, 20 dB as a quadrupling. A low 60's dBA SPL is normal conversation, mowing the lawn produces mid 80's, a chainsaw something around 100-110 and a Foghat concert (from personal experience) at least 120

So getting back to the topic, I'll opine from my experience in Alton Bay there are a few boats that unlawful and more that are probably at the legal limit. The latter don't stop conversation but are noticable over the general din of the background level. These don't bother me but do annoy "Mee". As I said earlier this is a topic that will get many responses depending on what someone thinks is "too" loud. I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation. I don't think it's as bad as some say but I do agree it's a valid point to debate and there are some boats which are too loud even for me. While I can understand trying to wring the best possible performance from the boat, this has to be balanced against the desire of the rest of us to not be disturbed. Especially when 50 extra HP won't make that big a difference in top speed.

[LRSLA]

Sorry for the delay in posting I have been out of town.


I have to agree with you on the overall quality of the posts on this forum.
This has been a good forum for communication.

You are correct on the operational test being 90db in maine.
I must have had a middle age moment. :-))

The rule of thumb in noise measurement is that doubling the distance from a source decreases the noise level by 6db; Halving the distance increases it by 6db.

So if the operational limit is 75db at fifty feet, and I take a measurement from shore from 1/2 mile away and the SPL (sound pressure level) is 72db. I can assume that at 1/4 mile the measurement would be 6db higher, or 78db. At 1/8 of a mile the SPL should be about 84db. At 1/16 of a mile the SPL should be 90db.

This measurement was forwarded to the Warden service and they caught up with the boat later in the day. The Warden's preformed a Stationary test and the boat failed that test. Later in the summer the boat was cited again and told to tie up until the boat was brought into compliance.

I really need to add that when ever I take measurements or forward info on measurements I add distance to my distance from source measurement.
If I take a measurement at 150 feet I forward that the measurement was taken at 200 feet. I try to build in a conservative approach to sound measurement. LRSLA has begun using laser ranging scope to obtain distance readings.

I have found that most of the boats I have measured are so far over the operational limit that obtaining good quality measurements is not a problem. This why I have pressed the issues with the State. I have found that obtaining operational tests in real world environments is not difficult.

The Maine State operational noise test procedure is supposed to be preformed at fifty feet from the source. All of my measurements were taken at least 200>300 from the source.

I also take wind, temperature and barometric readings prior to take measurements.
I also re-calibrate my meter at the beginning of each test day.

Mee'n'Mac, post was excellent and a very concise explanation of sound measurement. The only issue I would bring up is that noise measurement has not really moved out of the factory and lab and into the real world. Many communities are using the C scale because it more closely represents the impact that audible low frequency sound has on communities.

Additionally my feeling is that a real world impact should be
mitigated by a real world test. In essence, surface water reflection of sound and other impacts on the noise measurement process are OK if they support normal measurement of the normal sound scape on the lake and the noise impact of the boat of issue.

I have witnessed reduction in noise level by trees but never increase in sound levels.


I would speculate that this is due to the extreme amplitude of the
offending craft. One key point is that a source must be at least 10 db over the background noise level in order to measured effectively an legally.

Of course environmental conditions effect the efficiency of a sound wave moving through air and thus can affect it's impact.
Yet once again, this is a real world condition, and if a boat is operating during a time when those atmospheric conditions are present, then the boat should be considered illegal if it fails a test at that time.

Most of my sound traces were taken at around two to three hundred feet from the source boat. All the traces were over 75db even at that distance. Most traces were around 86>89db at two to three hundred feet.

You are correct that you can have a source with a very high db, but almost not be able to hear it. SPM's, (Sound Pressure Meters) are calibrated with a
certified calibrator. A testing officer should calibrate the meter before and after each test. Meter readings can change with changes in temperature and barometric levels. SPM's must be calibrated and the calibrators must be calibrated each year by a certified sound engineer. The certifications are kept with the units to prove this calibration.

The calibrator emits a very precise tone at a specific frequency and a specific SPL. My meter calibrates at 114db. The microphone on the meter is placed very close to the calibrators speaker for calibration and then the meter is adjusted to that level of sound. If you hold the calibrator at arms length you can not hear it. Yet, the sound level adjacent to the speaker is 114db.


As for mandatory education I would support this , absolutely!!!

The reality is that bloody hell would break out in Maine if this were attempted to be floated. LRSLA is planing to bring up the issue when it meets with State Reps this winter. We are not hopeful that the issue will move forward. IFW and the Federal government would love to have a mandatory boater education course in place in Maine. In Maine many of the 6000 bodies of water are not heavily impacted by recreational boating. To ask a fellow who lives in a northern township were he might see ten boats in a summer, to take a boater education course, is a hard sell in Maine.

As far as warning boaters.

We put info in the local press and contacted marina owners to inform them of the enforcement. And as I mentioned this issue has been coming to boil for three seasons. Each season has seen increased enforcement.

I also need to correct one of my statements. The impact of noise is subject on an individual basis. What is not subject is the measurement of sound.
The measurement of sound is extremely objective and scientific.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance.

So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation.

That's a great idea. I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

Skip was kind enough to post the RSA back in the beginning of this thread, so we can read up on it and do the test under official conditions.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island. As of last weekend, they still have all of the buoys in the water, both the ones to moor the test boat to as well as the ones to use as a guide when you do your runs. I snorkeled over there some months ago, and I noticed that the chain for the mooring is getting kinda thin, but I'm sure it will hold.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).

I won't be up next weekend unfortunately, but maybe the one after that, if the weather holds. If not this winter, then next spring.

Rob

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Rob

So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.

Yes but there are 2 points here. First is the well known phenomenon of how well voices (sound) will carry over the calm lake at night*. Most science articles will tell you that it's due to refraction (bending) of the sound waves as they travel. You'd expect that sound not "aimed" at your ear would pass by you unheard but due to refraction some of the sound initially aimed overhead is bent downward and is effectively now re-aimed and impinges upon your ear. This indirect path can add to the direct path sound and increase the level you hear. I won't bore you with the physics behind the refraction (besides there's some debate as to what effect is actually dominant, air density difference due to temperature inversion or air density difference due to humidity).

The other point is that sound will emanate from it's source in widely varying directions. As I said above you hear only the sound waves that hit your ear but these can come from different directions (other than the most direct, straight line path) as the sound reflects off different surfaces, one being the water itself. Look at the Sun reflecting off the water and now imagine it's sound waves rather than light waves. A calm lake gets you (more or less) a single patch of reflection while a wavy lake gets you multiple, small, time varying reflectors. Other reflectors might be the glass windows of the cabin behind you or from the shore across the way or from ... you get the idea. Just like multiple waves intersecting on the lake can create places where the wave crests are higher (and troughs lower) than any single wave, so can the various sound waves add or subtract to create higher or lower SPLs. How much difference this makes in the real world I don't know but it's interesting that in order to get reproducable results the test procedures call for short distances (50') btw boat and meter and large distance from other potential reflecting items.

Originally Posted by Rob

That's a great idea. (informal SPL measurements) I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).
Rob

Might be a fun experiment. Could make a few passes at varying distances to see how well the real world adheres to the anechoic, free space 6dB rule as well. Only problem would be the MP getting antsy about > headway speed passes

*This is one good use for CL's idea of allowing switchable exhaust. One reasonably quiet for daytime and one really quiet for night-time. No doubt too much hassle to enforce though ....

I do have 1 question for LRSLA How did ME arrive at the 75 dBA limit ? This is more restrictive than NH's 82 dBA. How well do older OB engines do with that limit ? (OK, 2 questions )

[LRSLA]

I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.

It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.

I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.

1) I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.

What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.
And if they do not pass a fifty feet they will absolutely pass at 100 feet.

Boats that will pass at one hundred feet are not an issue on the lakes.
Even boats that will pass at a two hundred foot reading in most cases are not an issue.

The boats that we are having an issue with are boats that would not pass at 300 feet or greater.

So 75db seems restrictive yet it really is not. I could understand how it would be restrictive if you are not in compliance. We have a Baja on the lake that
runs so quiet I can't even hear it coming down the lake. So compliance with the
regulation is possible.

75db is also a decent regulation point die to the low ambient noise levels on Maine's lakes and ponds.

Now Maine is not performing the operational test yet. LRSLA has been working with the State for the commencement of operational testing next summer.
The boats that were cited this season have been muffling to comply with the
stationary test. Next year they might be forced to retool their muffling for the
operational test.

There is no boat that will comply with the cutout part of the test. Remember,
boats with cutouts in Maine must be able to pass the 75db reg when tested with the
cutout engaged. And they there is the issue with normal exhaust operational
testing.

The operational test in Maine is the same for the most part as the NH test.
Most agencies will not use it due to the inherent danger of the test.
There is a move a foot to develop a more real world test procedure.

I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the
A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9. Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.

If the boat was traveling at 60mph then the the test shows a trace over a half mile of operation. You can read the trace from left to right. The boat is
traveling through the sound scape left to right as graphed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

OK now you've done it You've put data before the enginerd and now it's time to pay (no good deed goes unpunished) But more seriously if you have the time I have a few questions as my curiousity is whetted.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9. Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.

I think I was right with you until the 10 dB part I've underlined above. What's that for ? There are 3 very similar traces (yellow, reddish and magenta) that I understand to be A weighted measurements. I would ask if these are 3 passes made by the boat or 3 different time averages or outputs from 3 different meters or ??. If it's the first then it's nice and consistent ! Good to see that in a field test. I understand the green trace to be a C weighted measurement (not sure what the jagged blue one is). It's interesting (to me ) that the aspect angle to the boat doesn't affect the measurement more. Was your technique to pan the mic as the boat passes or leave it aimed "straight out" ? I'm making an assumption hear that the boat's course was more or less a straight line and not a curved trajectory.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.
It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.
I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.
I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.
What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.

Reason I asked was that in looking for some sound data on boats I came across an old (1995 I think) set of measurements done by NJ authorities. Some of the normal boats would have had trouble with a 75 dB limit. I suspect your average family runabout has gotten quieter since then.

[LRSLA]

I knew I was getting long winded.


I use a quest 2900 type 2 logging sound meter.
The meter has the ability to measure two scales at the
same time. I started out with a RS meter for 45$.
These are not really that good for capturing data that
will support your case. My meter is only garunteed to 1db.
SInce you can't calibate the RS meter it is worthless
for issues related to legal issues.

The three traces that I use are LEQ RED and LMAX and LPeak.

In these traces, LMAX and Lpeak are measured at C scale
with LEQ measured at A scale. What I was trying to point out is that
C scale measurements end up around 10dB higher then a C scale taken at
fifty feet from source.

This trace is made up of samples taken once a second.
My feeling is that the C scale represents the real impact of the
boat noise. The A scale really does not fully show the impact of low frequency noise. But, since the regs are set to that standard it still works for enforcement.

4 stroke outboards and most IO have gotten quieter.
The issue with PWC's is that they are out of the water half the time.
This means that the violate noise regs half the time in most cases.

Noise as a whole is something that is normally avoided by manufacturers.

For instance, most car manufacturers go to great lengths to engineer away noise. This is due to the stress that long term exposure to noise places on the human body. Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.

The beer maybe , but noise cummon you gotta be kidding

[LRSLA]

You can think what you want.....

This info came off www.boatingsafety.com

Don't overdo your boating fun. In 3 hours of normal boating, the noise, motion, sun, wind and glare can frequently double an individual's reaction time.

Boating is fun, a great form of recreation. Problem is that
many boaters don't respect the hazards of boating.