Neighbours children driving me mad!

[Ampera]

Do you believe this active sound canceling device is as illustrated in the video?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170649-sono-a-noise-cancelation-and-isolation-device-that-sticks-on-your-window

I am by no means an expert, so I am talking out of my ass here, but in my mind this doesn't sound impossible, just impractical.

Sound is just the vibration of air particulate in a certain position, I believe back and forth. You can capture sound through a microphone, and technically output the negative sound to that. The only issue is that this is all localized. The positions at where this would be effective would probably be very limited. Just move to another place in the room, and then the sources of the sounds are closer/farther, the intensities have changed, and the negative sound doesn't really cancel anymore, or at least not as well.

Then again, it could still do something, I don't know.

[Brumby]

Do you believe this active sound canceling device is as illustrated in the video?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170649-sono-a-noise-cancelation-and-isolation-device-that-sticks-on-your-window

I don't think the concept is outside the realms of possibility.  The window pane acts as both the microphone diaphragm and the speaker "cone" - with some clever DSP controlling a mass driver.  As a concept in itself, the biggest question I would have is powering such a device.  I can't see a lot of energy getting transferred through WiFi.

Factors which I would consider helpful in this concept is that the target sounds would be likely coming from far enough away that the window pane could be adequately treated as a planar interface, without requiring any significant phase difference considerations.  You could almost consider it a point source.  The next is that the area of sound transmission - the window pane - is the exact same medium that is driven by the mass driver ... having the same rigidity and modes of vibration.  The third is that this single pane can be considered as the only area that is likely to transmit sound from outside that is going to be at levels of any concern.

This specific solution would not - I think - be anywhere near as effective against ceiling sounds.  For a start, the ceiling will be acting as a sounding board, converting physical stomps and thumps directly into a broad area source.  There would need to be a lot more energy available to negate this.

Second, the stomping around can be in different locations, so there is no real possibility for a solution based on a point source equivalent.  This would apply - to a slightly lesser extent - for conversation and other noise sources that don't involve direct mechanical excitation of the floor/ceiling interface.  These are less localised - but not completely homogeneous.  You can still tell roughly in which room the "discussions" are being conducted in the dwelling above.

I would suggest an experiment worth trying - as a start to further development - would be to have a number of these devices, each mounted on a panel and suspended from the ceiling... perhaps even using the current "suspension ceiling" systems that are in wide use.

Imagining a ceiling of such panels makes me wonder if such a thing might actually work.  Technically, that is.  Financially, it's not going to help the average apartment dweller.

The only issue is that this is all localized. The positions at where this would be effective would probably be very limited. Just move to another place in the room, and then the sources of the sounds are closer/farther, the intensities have changed, and the negative sound doesn't really cancel anymore, or at least not as well.

The localization is the reason I see this actually working - because the external sounds all meet at the window pane - and it's the window pane that retransmits the sound.  Sure you will get sounds passing through other portions of the building which this device won't be able to address, but the level of those tends to be much lower.  These would add that subtle ambiance to the sounds coming through the window pane that could provide directionality - but would not be as bothersome on their own.




Just thinking pout loud....

[Mr. Scram]

ElectroBOOM did an episode on such a device. Apparently, it's total nonsense. See the video below.

Talking to the neighbours is the most likely to have long term results. Attitude, intonation and demeanour is everything, though. It's almost impossible not to take your frustration into that conversation, but you need to do so. Just a very slightly different attitude or intonation can change the outcome of the conversation dramatically, even if the words are the same. If you're not careful, your pent up frustration can make your complaint feel like an assault. After all, you've been living with this frustration for a while now and these people might not even have realized anything is wrong yet. Even before the conversation has started you're miles apart, and you need to end up at the same point. To avoid them going on the defense, it's important to remain calm and reasonable throughout.

[Ampera]

The only issue is that this is all localized. The positions at where this would be effective would probably be very limited. Just move to another place in the room, and then the sources of the sounds are closer/farther, the intensities have changed, and the negative sound doesn't really cancel anymore, or at least not as well.

The localization is the reason I see this actually working - because the external sounds all meet at the window pane - and it's the window pane that retransmits the sound.  Sure you will get sounds passing through other portions of the building which this device won't be able to address, but the level of those tends to be much lower.  These would add that subtle ambiance to the sounds coming through the window pane that could provide directionality - but would not be as bothersome on their own.




Just thinking pout loud....
[/quote]

External sound can be at different intensities depending on where you are in a room. If I have a stereo on one side of the room, and this thing on the other, the closer and farther I get from the stereo, the louder and quieter it gets. Since this device's speaker can only output one intensity of sound at a time, and it can't get louder the father you get away from it, the cancellation will lose effectiveness the farther you get from it, and the range at which this starts is something I do not know.

Not to mention, if you have sound that isn't really air vibrations more than vibrations throughout the walls and ceiling, then you can still feel the vibrations. I doubt this thing has the power to counteract the distributed energy of some overactive twits rehearsing the entirety of the play Stomp one floor up.

This I think was actually done in a car on TopGear UK, but they never went into how well it worked.

[BrianHG]

Except for your bed frame bouncing around due to vibration in the house, being fed right through your skeleton, it looks as if you want silence, especially at very low frequencies, your only solution is the modified method of inserting those orange earplugs right down your ear canal which I posted on page 1 of this topic.  Also note that once they are worn like that, there is no vibration in the air or movement or physical contact with your pillow as you shift your head position while sleeping making them even more silent + completely unobstructive.  When I said you become near death, I mean you can't hear anything, even anything muffled, except for your lousy annoying heart beat...  Better get used to that...

[Mr. Scram]

While the question is, in itself, reasonable - you are focussing on the wrong side of the equation.

Calling it "revenue raising" completely misses the point.  People speed and, hence, break the law.  When they break the law and get caught, they are punished.  The punishment is meant to deter offending again.

It doesn't matter what the punishment is - it is there to dissuade breaking the law in the future.  That can't be any simpler.

The fact that a financial punishment is most often used is that this is, perhaps, one of the most sensitive nerves that can be hit - and it is one of the simplest to implement.  It has - as a by-product - a benefit to the community in the form of financial support.  Sometimes this support is used to fund a hospital bed.  Sometimes this is used to pay a teacher ... and sometimes it is used to pay for counselling of police when they have had to help locate body parts of some teenager who has wrapped their car around a tree - and then have to tell their parents.


I can see where this focus might come from...  You speed.  You get caught.  You don't like it.  We get that.

But, instead of making a fuss - how about thinking a little differently.....



(IMO - whoever came up with that slogan gets an extra piece of pie!)

It would naive to think many countries don't depend on the income fines provide to close budget gaps. In some cases the increase of fines is even explicitly tied to the need for more money. When there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that increasing fines has no lasting effect on safety, yet the fines keep being increased consistently, you know it's not about safety.

Besides, research has shown that financial punishment isn't very effective at all. There's a base effect, but after that making fines higher doesn't make them more effective. What actually is effective is increasing the likelihood of getting caught. Of course, that involves making investments which isn't politically desirable at all. It also turns out that community service often is much more effective than a fine, but again having people just pay fines is better for the bottom line. Of course, simply increasing the fines is something that's easy to sell too. Intuitively many people feel bigger fines are more effective, even if that intuition is wrong. It's not hard to see why a firm public stance on undesired behaviour and a better bottom line is politically appealing.

Note that I'm not arguing against fines. They're a useful tool and have their place in the penal system. However, we see that in many countries it's slowly become another way of raising revenue, and that the discussion surrounding them has nothing to do with effective punishment. There are cases where fines are so stupidly high that it has basically become a reverse lottery. People don't have to like it as that's the point, but leaving people feeling robbed isn't helping things either.

[Electro Detective]

Good points above   

My point is the p0lice are not doing their job to increase safety by targeting the real offenders

rather they pull over easy soft targets like mum, dad, gramps and tired tradies heading home, that will just pay up,  shut up and 'move on'

There's no point having these uniformed armed tax funded employees out there leeching money from law abiding citizens,
and looking the other way or avoiding conflicts with dangerous hoons, drunks and car thieves, because their bosses above tell them to because of 'bottom line' BS polluting the police force

**** them all, we don't need them, we need real police on the streets revenue raising on the crims and getting the *ssholes off our roads

Defenseless, gunless, cheque book wielding concerned citizens can't do much about it, especially with constant friendly fire on their backs from their own p0lice 

[TMM]

Ha ha at people suggesting police intervention for some kids stomping around noisily at 6:20am! If the police can't turn up to tell my neighbours to turn off their 120dB dance music at 2:30am on a Monday I don't think they are going to bother turning up to old mates neighbours to tell their kids off for stomping too loudly.

Just ask them nicely to make less noise. Failing that try retaliation with noise (still might not work), moving to another apartment (could have even more annoying neighbours) or moving to a free standing house (still no guarantee of quiet neighbours, but unlikely to be making significant noise that would wake you before 9)

[paulca]

Do you have a shotgun?

[Brumby]

rather they pull over easy soft targets like mum, dad, gramps and tired tradies heading home, that will just pay up,  shut up and 'move on'

So... the police pull up and book people who are not breaking the law?

[Zero999]

While the question is, in itself, reasonable - you are focussing on the wrong side of the equation.

Calling it "revenue raising" completely misses the point.  People speed and, hence, break the law.  When they break the law and get caught, they are punished.  The punishment is meant to deter offending again.

It doesn't matter what the punishment is - it is there to dissuade breaking the law in the future.  That can't be any simpler.

The fact that a financial punishment is most often used is that this is, perhaps, one of the most sensitive nerves that can be hit - and it is one of the simplest to implement.  It has - as a by-product - a benefit to the community in the form of financial support.  Sometimes this support is used to fund a hospital bed.  Sometimes this is used to pay a teacher ... and sometimes it is used to pay for counselling of police when they have had to help locate body parts of some teenager who has wrapped their car around a tree - and then have to tell their parents.


I can see where this focus might come from...  You speed.  You get caught.  You don't like it.  We get that.

But, instead of making a fuss - how about thinking a little differently.....



(IMO - whoever came up with that slogan gets an extra piece of pie!)

It would naive to think many countries don't depend on the income fines provide to close budget gaps. In some cases the increase of fines is even explicitly tied to the need for more money. When there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that increasing fines has no lasting effect on safety, yet the fines keep being increased consistently, you know it's not about safety.

Besides, research has shown that financial punishment isn't very effective at all. There's a base effect, but after that making fines higher doesn't make them more effective. What actually is effective is increasing the likelihood of getting caught. Of course, that involves making investments which isn't politically desirable at all. It also turns out that community service often is much more effective than a fine, but again having people just pay fines is better for the bottom line. Of course, simply increasing the fines is something that's easy to sell too. Intuitively many people feel bigger fines are more effective, even if that intuition is wrong. It's not hard to see why a firm public stance on undesired behaviour and a better bottom line is politically appealing.

Note that I'm not arguing against fines. They're a useful tool and have their place in the penal system. However, we see that in many countries it's slowly become another way of raising revenue, and that the discussion surrounding them has nothing to do with effective punishment. There are cases where fines are so stupidly high that it has basically become a reverse lottery. People don't have to like it as that's the point, but leaving people feeling robbed isn't helping things either.

I don't know about other countries, but in the UK, speeding fines get the driver points, i.e. black marks on their licence and if they get too many, they get their licence revoked and can no longer legally drive.

I'm all for road safety and catching dangerous drivers, but speeding isn't always the issue it's made out to be. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK, there's no consistency in the set speed limits, which appear to be selected at random. There are two roads near where I live, about 20 miles apart from one another, both about the same size and a similar proximity to houses and schools, yet one has a 30mph speed limit and the other 50mph limit. There are guidelines for speed limits, but each local authority interprets them differently. One of the silly things is, there may be a 20mph limit, because the road is near a school, which may seem fair enough, but at the start and end of the school day, the traffic moves at less than 20, because parents are dropping/picking their children up. Now at night time, when the school is closed, the speed limit is silly because there are no children about, it's perfectly safe to go much faster, yet the stupid speed limit holds the traffic up!

[paulca]

Decent studies have found that excess speed causes very few accidents directly.  While it is considered a contributing factor in many/most accidents it is "intention"  that is the No.1 cause of accidents.

I don't see anyone being done these days for:
Facebooking
Chatting
Texting
Not paying the slightest attention
Not indicating (and dozens of other indications of inattention)

They policy is simple.  We can't increase, maintain or police the driver standards, so lets slow everyone down so less people die when inattentive idiots cause accidents.

[bd139]

I got pulled last year for chatting on the phone while driving and I wasn't even doing it so they're pretty hot on that. I was actually sticking my finger in my ear and the officer drove past in the opposite direction and did a 180. Officer requested to see the call logs on my phone which I showed him and he apologised and drove off.

He tried to get me to admit it to start with by asking discrete questions to get me to admit to it. Best thing if they start doing that is immediately refuse to answer any questions until the officer has explained why I was pulled over.

[Gyro]

Decent studies have found that excess speed causes very few accidents directly.  While it is considered a contributing factor in many/most accidents it is "intention"  that is the No.1 cause of accidents.

I think you meant 'inattention',  although intention would be a pretty guaranteed reason for an incident occurring.   

[woody]

but in the UK, there's no consistency in the set speed limits, which appear to be selected at random.

Be that as it may, also the case over here in NL, I still think that it should not be left to the individual driver to ignore posted limits and set their own.

Funny thing is that the majority of people find that traffic should slow down in their own street. All these 30km zones are there for a reason. That reason can be safety, noise, air quality, whatever. But as soon as the same people are on their way in a car, passing through someone else's'  street / village / city they think they can ignore speed limits because they make no sense.

If you have a problem with a set limit contact the authorities and get it changed. Up till then, stay within the limit.

[jasonbrent]

Talk to them.

But know this: no parent chooses to have their kids awake at 6:20AM...

This.

I'm a new parent at almost 42 years old... 5 month old... not to diminish how you feel at all, but it's possible those parents feel at least that. I don't want my child screaming, or crying, ... heck, as a parent *I* wear noise cancelling headphones around the house because I am sound sensitive (more specifically, I'm sensitive to sounds I'm not creating as they interrupt thoughts).



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Cerebus]

Be that as it may, also the case over here in NL, I still think that it should not be left to the individual driver to ignore posted limits and set their own.

If everybody drove to "the standard" there would be no need for statutory speed limits as everybody would set their own and, more often than not, in an urban environment that limit would be under the posted limit. "The standard" being to "drive at such a speed that you can stop, under control, on your own side of the road/own lane, within the distance you can see is clear and will continue to be clear". Easy, you'd think, but hardly anybody does it in practice.

That will be my sole contribution on driving in this thread, as it's already wandering well off topic.

[Brumby]

I suppose I should know by now that it is pointless to argue the fact of breaking a law is irrespective of the arguments people build around the point.  Debating (say) a specific speed limit is not something you do with your motor vehicle out on the road.  If the speed limit is 50 and you're doing 60 - that's breaking the law.  That is black and white.  If you don't like it - take it up with the traffic authority.

That will be my sole contribution on driving in this thread, as it's already wandering well off topic.

I am compelled to agree - and my complicity in that is not denied.  So I, too, will cease from that line of discussion.

[RobNorthen]

Gummy bears and rat poison......

I feel with you, I have tried it too.

[bd139]

Gummy bears and rat poison......

I feel with you, I have tried it too.

Just buy the sugarless Haribo ones. You want to hurt the parents, not the kids:

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/8gdga4/sugarless-gummy-bears-are-not-safe-for-humans

[Cerebus]

I suppose I should know by now that it is pointless to argue the fact of breaking a law is irrespective of the arguments people build around the point. 

It's becoming difficult to do when those who ought to set an example of respect for the rule of law often fail dismally to do so.

The supreme court in the UK ruled, in 2012, that the Home Office and the Police were illegally retaining custody images of acquitted persons. A report yesterday about the current use of these illegally retained images for automatic face recognition drove home the point that the government and police have had six years to comply with the rule of law and still fail to do so. I can quite see why some people might think "if the law is optional for those who make it and enforce it, why shouldn't I treat it as optional for me too". As the Italians say of corruption: "A fish rots from the head downwards".

[vodka]

I don't know how are the council city's law in Germany, perhaps there are possibily that you may sue the parents by incivic behavoir("Of course with evidences: police report, logging the sounds, eyewitness,etc"). The council city could warn or fine to the infractor dependly of the case. But with a good fine of 5000€, many people react quickly.

[Electro Detective]

I don't know about other countries, but in the UK, speeding fines get the driver points, i.e. black marks on their licence and if they get too many, they get their licence revoked and can no longer legally drive.

Good one mate    that's the other issue I forgot to mention,

mum, dad, gramps and local tradies get 'demerit' Rewards points on top of their 'compliance' to pay obvious revenue raising 3 to 4 kph brief 'over the limit' sneaky legal entrapment fees.   

If / when they lose 12 demerit points a loss of license occurs, and if they need the car to go to work to feed the kids and or pick up the kids they are SOL

The hoons, drunks and crims RARELY have to worry about losing points or fine money, much less get pulled over,
and if they do, it's easy to do an interstate runner and continue their BS there,
it's not like anyone is going to waste resources following up, or send bounty hunters   


Mum, dad, gramps and local tradie are a much easier 'touch'
with no chance of hot coffee and cinnamon donuts flying off the p0lice vehicle dashboard... in the unlikely event of a law breaker 'pursuit' 

So yeah to the OP/ original poster,
don't hold your breath waiting for gun toting revenue raisers to rock up and word next door about keeping their offspring quiet

They'll probably cuff you for interrupting their phone p0rn giggle session during paid 'safety camera' operations on their favorite quiet main road at 6.20am,
where mum, dad, gramps and local tradie frequently drive through...   

[Mr. Scram]

I suppose I should know by now that it is pointless to argue the fact of breaking a law is irrespective of the arguments people build around the point.  Debating (say) a specific speed limit is not something you do with your motor vehicle out on the road.  If the speed limit is 50 and you're doing 60 - that's breaking the law.  That is black and white.  If you don't like it - take it up with the traffic authority.

Laws should have a purpose and be reasonable. A law for the sake of the law itself isn't any good. I would argue it's actually a horrible thing. A law is a means to an end and should never be absolute. Not to mention there's plenty of outdated laws. Nobody wants every law strictly applied. Absolute chaos would ensue and normal life wouldn't be possible.

Mind you, I'm not saying these are excuses for people to speed. There's a lot of idiots out there that do whatever they want, yet kick and scream when they get caught. There's plenty of people who will simply refuse to admit they may have been wrong, even if that's obviously the case. But simply claiming the law is the law Judge Dredd style isn't viable either. The most atrocious things have been justified by it simply being the law. Law is rarely black and white, if ever.

[bd139]

Starting to be more glad I live in the UK at the moment. From this thread I gather that Australia is like Mad Max and the USA is like The Running Man. 1980s film education was valuable after all.