Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.



I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble.
However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that
could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever
having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering
around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer.

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.


Isn't there a town in Colorado that just opened a hunting season on govt
drones or similar?? Thought I heard that, I will leave it to you all,
got another site to work and we know you all aren't interested in that:)

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.



I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble.
However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that
could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever
having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering
around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer.


I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal
hopping' capability.

Good article on the transmitters in use:

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml

Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across
this:

"What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference
protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency
hopping system. It’s wideband agile.

DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC
application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX
transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique
Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum.

By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a
wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters
provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker
reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6

Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS',
with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'.

Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try.

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.



I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble.
However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that
could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever
having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering
around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer.


I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal
hopping' capability.

Good article on the transmitters in use:

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml

Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across
this:

"What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference
protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency
hopping system. It’s wideband agile.

DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC
application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX
transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique
Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum.

By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a
wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters
provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker
reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6

Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS',
with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'.

Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try.

Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the
oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap
transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range
of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter
is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and
can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications
to virtually any radio controlled device.

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote:

I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the
beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw.

===

Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out
or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig
getting hit by an osprey or seagull.

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On 3/6/2014 1:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote:

I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the
beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw.

===

Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out
or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig
getting hit by an osprey or seagull.



Harpooners in this area often hired spotter aircraft to direct them to
pods of tuna. I don't know if this is still legal or done anymore.

Seems like a a Quadcopter operating from the boat could do the job.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/wicked-tuna/videos/harpooning-christina/

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:46:46 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote:

I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the
beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw.

===

Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out
or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig
getting hit by an osprey or seagull.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBd-Wlsic9E

Note comment..."****ed off or just horny?"

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.



I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble.
However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that
could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever
having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering
around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer.


I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal
hopping' capability.

Good article on the transmitters in use:

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml

Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across
this:

"What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference
protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency
hopping system. It’s wideband agile.

DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC
application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX
transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique
Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum.

By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a
wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters
provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker
reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6

Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS',
with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'.

Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try.

Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the
oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap
transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range
of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter
is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and
can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications
to virtually any radio controlled device.



Came across this:

http://www.instructables.com/communi...plane-problem/

"Looks like a great Instructable project to build your own! -
http://radiohax.wikispaces.com/Spark+gap+transmitter

Wonder what the range is.

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On 3/6/2014 3:09 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.



I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble.
However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that
could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever
having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering
around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer.


I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal
hopping' capability.

Good article on the transmitters in use:

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml

Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across
this:

"What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference
protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency
hopping system. It’s wideband agile.

DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC
application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX
transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique
Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum.

By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a
wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters
provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker
reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6

Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS',
with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'.

Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try.

Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the
oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap
transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range
of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter
is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and
can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications
to virtually any radio controlled device.



Came across this:

http://www.instructables.com/communi...plane-problem/

"Looks like a great Instructable project to build your own! -
http://radiohax.wikispaces.com/Spark+gap+transmitter

Wonder what the range is.


Marconi used one to transmit successfully over 2000 miles. :-)

Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
 

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:23:00 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2014 3:09 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:



Wonder what the range is.





Marconi used one to transmit successfully over 2000 miles. :-)

Oh. ****. Oh, they'll leave us alone.