On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote:

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



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.

That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea.

On 3/6/2014 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.



That's if the jamming doesn't cause it to crash first. Based on the
videos I've seen of those things, they react very quickly to control
inputs, or lack of.

As Wayne mentioned I suspect that if the RC craze continues and more
incidents of "spying" in a neighbor's back yard occur some restrictions
will be legislated on their use. It's one thing for Google to be
taking static satellite photos augmented with aircraft/helicopter images
to generate maps of the entire world. But a "hobbyist" purposely
targeting someone's backyard or house from 200 feet and video recording
the "visit" is another thing altogether, plus the annoyance of having it
and it's noise hovering in your yard. Given the lack of federal (FAA)
regulations and state regulations many towns have already enacted
ordinances governing their use. It's common sense.

It might be illegal to down one by shooting it but who's going to prove
you jammed it?

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote:

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



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.

That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea.

I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a
fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the
Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws
I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake"
violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it.
I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away.
(PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a
solenoid valve.)

Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a
pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:09:10 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

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.

===

With sufficient power and a good antenna spark gap transmitters have
communicated transatlantic. That's what the early radio pioneers
used.

On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote:

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



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.

That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea.

I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a
fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the
Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws
I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake"
violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it.
I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away.
(PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a
solenoid valve.)

Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a
pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it.



Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting?

On 3/6/2014 6:43 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote:

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



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.

That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea.

I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a
fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the
Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws
I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake"
violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it.
I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away.
(PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a
solenoid valve.)

Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a
whole lot more damage than a
pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it.



Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting?

Tax stamps?

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:43:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote:

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



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.


WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed.

That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea.

I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a
fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the
Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws
I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake"
violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it.
I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away.
(PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a
solenoid valve.)

Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a
pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it.



Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting?

Go read your poem. Then come back and be nice while telling us about your Mac.

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:07:20 AM UTC-6, 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.

I'm not sure of how the laws read in the case of a toy-like drone, bit I don't think any kid who has one will be interested in having it registered, titled (as home built or experimental) and having number decals on the side. (not counting insurance too!) to make it a legitimate 'aircraft'

On 3/6/2014 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

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.


And some things you really don't want to interfere with that will draw
attention. Controlled bandwidth jammers are pretty easy to make and way
less obnoxious.

On 3/7/14, 1:23 AM, thumper wrote:
On 3/6/2014 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

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.


And some things you really don't want to interfere with that will draw
attention. Controlled bandwidth jammers are pretty easy to make and way
less obnoxious.


More fun would be a hardened backyard toy chopper of your own, armed
with sharp steel rotor blades that could be used to slice and dice the
toy choppers of nosy neighbors whose devices violate your air space.
Chopper wars! It's the 'Merican way. One can envision the escalation,
all the way up to MINI NUKES, available soon from the NRA.