Friday, February 18, 2011

the truth

I was planning a sound test tomorrow to prove that the charge against me is not worth many thousands of dollars and years of litigation. I invited all the members of the planning, zoning and town boards so that we could systematically establish that the charge that Glencadia Dog Camp is ever or has ever been loud is not only theoretically false but in fact demonstratively false. If a physics paper and testimony of 31 eye-witnesses (so far) is insufficient, let's add a measurement experiment to the pile of evidence.

The purpose of the sound test was to follow up on my open house, when I invited the entire town to visit my facility, with a test specifically for those who might need to decide on the truth or falsehood of this dog barking charge. No one seemed to want to come, so I did the sound test this morning and won't ask folks to come back and pitch in tomorrow. But I can repeat this test anytime with any witnesses who might like to contact me.

Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

By way of reference, here is the neighborhood:

Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.


  1. Hi Will, I appreciate and salute this attempt at objective clarification; I suggested something similar to your neighbor at the last Board meeting.

    Unfortunately you didn't (IMHO, naturally) pull it off. Typical response would be "Technical, smart-ass hogwash."

    Needs some more thought about what would make it effective. I know you did but thought and preparation into it - the cell phone call, the equipment, the staging. But of course the absolute key - as you are aware - is making it absolutely clear that the dogs are really at it, "all out," 36 dogs (but did I hear up to 50 now, 75 later?), at the moment of the test.And that doesn't come across - likely the limitation is the cell phone.

    You either need really high-level radio gear; or, more likely, string wire and use a mike, amp and speaker. Then you could calibrate the volume at the heard at the boundary, originating at the barn (as you were trying to do); then switch back-and-forth between the speaker and direct hearing, with the meter visible in both.

    Its the nature of "objectivity" that it is difficult to arrive at. You've gone a long way. No experiment is a failure, I hope you will take the next step.

    You can buy 500' roles of thermostat wire at the lumberyard; that is likely the least expensive (just googled it; 500' = $46). Sometimes they even have it without the insulation that covers the inside wires. Least expensive, less usable afterwards.


  2. Thanks for watching. The thing is I invited the town board, planning and zoning boards to come and see the test and no one had time. If they had, one of them could have been in the yard to verify that all the dogs were outside (they were) and that Amy was doing her best to get them to bark (she was) and we still couldn't hear squat down by the road (we couldn't). Thanks again for your concern about this.

  3. I don't know how that could even be considered close to accurate. You are using an app for an Ipad, not actual test equipment.

  4. Thank for comment Bill. 1) I am under no obligation to prove anything. The other side is supposed to provide the evidence. 2) I invited the town board, the planning board and the zoning board members were invited to come to the test and they could have brought any equipment they wanted to bring. 3) I don't need any more sophisticated equipment. If the results were close to a problem, like if we needed to get into the difference between 80 and 90, we might need more equipment. However, the sound is not even 1/3 as much as a passing car and essentially zero measurable sound. No more equipment necessary. The mic on the camera should be enough.

    So thank you for commenting. Please note three (3) responses in any response you care to make.