Trial Discussion Thread #44 - 14.07.1-2, Day 34-35

[zwiebel]

N: Audibility, that's what we're dealing with...

Nel trying to simply the conversation but Lin is a scientist thru and thru and it's not working.

 

[G.bng]

What Lin means that audibility augments if there is a continuous noise because there is build up, i.e. the 5% added, the addition of 5% is not applicable to repeated screams over 15 mins.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Retweeted by andrew harding
Ruth Mackie @rmphysics · 2m
@simmoa Nel

Nel is correct but the term he should have used was resonance. Resonance DOES amplify the sound and that would carry outwards

 

[G.bng]

Because that correction standard to audibility is a standard for pervasive continuous noises that create noise pollution... this is getting embarrasing.

 

[JudgeJudi]

andrew harding @BBCAndrewH · 30s

At issue - whether Lin should have added "extra" background noise to his tests. He says not. Nel unconvinced. The rest of us, in the dark.

 

[zwiebel]

Lin: This is a very specific incident. We can't apply general standards...

They are discussing applying 'five'...or not, to Lin's findings.

 

[G.bng]

Retweeted by andrew harding
Ruth Mackie @rmphysics · 2m
@simmoa Nel

Nel is correct but the term he should have used was resonance. Resonance DOES amplify the sound and that would carry outwards

Lin has said it doesn't amplify merely release more of the same energy since the energy of the sound remains the same, cannot augment. Are you saying Lin is wrong?

 

[zwiebel]

What Lin means that audibility augments if there is a continuous noise because there is build up, i.e. the 5% added, the addition of 5% is not applicable to repeated screams over 15 mins.

Thank you. That explanation much needed in this quarter.

 

[JudgeJudi]

andrew harding @BBCAndrewH · 1m

Lin, a little riled now, clearly feels the science is on his side, but Nel isn't letting up.

 

[G.bng]

But you cannot apply a standard meant for noise pollution... just ain't possible.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel showing Lin photos now.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 28s

Nel shows that with a slight correction to the model, the noise level in one scenario would be audible and possibly intelligible

 

[zwiebel]

They are of the balcony, showing 'direct line of sight'. Lin agrees with Nel that is what they show.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Okay. I found my way from yesterday's testimony to today's live testimony. Hooray!

Nel knows exactly what he is asking, folks. I will say, he is kind of playing games a bit with this young expert.

Right now he is kind of beating the expert up over his (the expert's) failure to add +5 decibles to the measured decibel level, as is recommended in their national standards when measuring noise to determine whether said noise is creating noise pollution. The expert is saying that this situation is not like a noise pollution case, thus he did not encorporate the national standards.

Nel is saying it could make quite a difference if you add the 5 decibles.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel shows photos of estate and says 'That's not what you saw last week, was it?'

Lin agrees the housing estate has changed. New houses have been built.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel showing pic of neighbor's door with 'direct line of sight to source' (of sound).

OMG, Nel's just asked Lin if he 'has any literature' to prove his finding! I think he will have....lots.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel is now putting it to Lin that seals on doors/windows could have made a difference. Lin readily agrees that is so, but then Nel says 'but we don't know that' (if they were properly sealed or not).

 

[zwiebel]

Okay. I found my way from yesterday's testimony to today's live testimony. Hooray!

Nel knows exactly what he is asking, folks. I will say, he is kind of playing games a bit with this young expert.

Right now he is kind of beating the expert up over his (the expert's) failure to add +5 decibles to the measured decibel level, as is recommended in their national standards when measuring noise to determine whether said noise is creating noise pollution. The expert is saying that this situation is not like a noise pollution case, thus he did not encorporate the national standards.

Nel is saying it could make quite a difference if you add the 5 decibles.

Wasn't there a direct link from there to here?

 

[G.bng]

So, the police didn't check if the window was closed ? Or is that only they didn't check if it was closed "properly"...

 

[zwiebel]

Is that OP's brother with the glasses, appearing to make loads of notes?