Drone Defender Project suggestion

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,510
It expects to make it available to US government agencies next year.
...
But in any case, with shooting drones still illegal in the US, at least, Stamm admitted that there are “slim chances” that Battelle’s or any other anti-drone systems would be licensed for private use in the immediate future.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
21,906
If it is an ultrasonic signal I don't see where the restrictions would apply, unless the drone was legal.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
In my opinion, the only safe legal way to prevent alien drones from your air space, is your own kamikaze drone.

Or R/C rocket.

The sonic alterative is interesting, but can be shielded.

Maybe we have finally found a viable use for potato guns.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
I have previously posted that I claim control of the airspace above my real estate to a height of 35 yards (about the range of my 870), and am only half in jest.

Regardless of any statute to the contrary, I claim the right to take action against any drone over my property whether I am on the ground, on my roof, in my trees, strapped to my 180' tower, or flying in my jetpack. In other words, my concept of the castle doctrine extends to anything and everything that I can reach if I deem it to be a potential threat.
 

Thread Starter

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,162
“The system works by disrupting radio control frequencies between the drone and the pilot. It basically makes the drone think that it’s gone out of range. The drone enters into its safety protocols which include one of three options. It’ll either hover in position until the pilot can regain control link, it lands so the pilot can recover it physically, or it returns to its point of origin,”

This statement and the size of the Yagi antenna makes me think this is a gigahertz range transmitter. It would max out the AGC of the receiver and reduce the owners signals into the noise floor.

"It expects to make it available to US government agencies next year."

This statement makes me think it will only be sold to those who can ignore The Law with impunity.

As for the rest of us, I think any time you ground a UAV, the owner is going to object. If you shoot it with physical mass, no matter what size or quality, you are easier to find and more likely to be arrested than you would be if you radiate a short range, gigahertz signal. After all, I have a perfectly legal telephone that radiates a short range gigahertz signal. I'm just sayin'...if you are going to dance near the edge of The Law, this seems a safer and more discrete way than using a projectile weapon.;)
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,510
I have previously posted that I claim control of the airspace above my real estate to a height of 35 yards (about the range of my 870), and am only half in jest.

Regardless of any statute to the contrary, I claim the right to take action against any drone over my property whether I am on the ground, on my roof, in my trees, strapped to my 180' tower, or flying in my jetpack. In other words, my concept of the castle doctrine extends to anything and everything that I can reach if I deem it to be a potential threat.
I've got a nice little weapon to handle the invasion of rebel drones at any height.

 

Lestraveled

Joined May 19, 2014
1,946
Lets crunch some numbers on the barrage noise jamming technique.

Assume:
- Frequency is 2.4 Ghz.
- distance between controller and drone is .7 Km (2300 ft). Free space path loss would be 97 db.
- distance between jammer and drone is .1 Km (328 ft). Free space path loss would be 80 db.
- Controller antenna gain is 2 db
- jammer antenna gain is 12 db.
- input power to the controller and the jammer antenna is 1 watt (+30 dbm).

Calculate path loss
Incident power at the drone from the controller is: +30 dbm + 2 db - 97db = -65 dbm.
Incident power at the drone from the jammer is: +30 dbm + 12 db - 80db = -38 dbm.
Difference is 65 - 38 = 27 db
The jammer signal is 500 times more powerful (27db) than the controller signal. The jammer wins easily. But.......

Bandwidth
The other side of the jamming equation is bandwidth. The above analysis only is true when the frequency and the bandwidth of the jammer matches the controller signal. To do this would require a receiver and a processor, which would jack the price of the jammer up a lot. The alternative is to transmit noise over a wide bandwidth and hope you are covering the drones receiver bandwidth. (This is why it called barrage jamming.) But you lose power density when you widen the transmitted spectrum.

Per the above analysis the jammer is 27 db more powerful than the controller signal. Lets assume a receiver with a 1 MHz bandwidth. How wide can we spread the jammer spectrum and still be greater than the controller signal.
27db @ 1 MHz
17db @ 10 MHz
7 db @ 100 MHz
4db @ 200 MHz
1 db @ 400 MHz

You can jam a 400 MHz window around 2.4 GHz band and still be 1 db higher than the controller signal. (At the above conditions.)
 
Last edited:

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
245
Has anybody here seen the film the good shepherd?

Welcome to the world of paranoia.

But IMHO if a drone enters your airspace and is a threat, it should be a valid option to shoot it down
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,601
I just ran across this advertisement. Looks like a good project for those with the skill to make it. Despite the label, it is not a gun. It appears to be an RF transmitter with very limited range.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/company-unveils-first-ever-handheld-drone-neutralizer-gun/

No comment about why one would want or need to immobilize an unmanned drone or quad-copter which is less than 1200 feet away.;)

ps, uncertain which Forum to use. I do not intend to make one because I am not skilled in RF. Perhaps, "Chat"? Moderate as you see fit.
“The system works by disrupting radio control frequencies between the drone and the pilot."
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
7,091
Just playing Devil's advocate here :) This thread is locked - forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/pspice-signal-jammer-simulation-error.117281/ But the present one is allowed to continue? Don't quite understand the reasoning?
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,126
Shortbus,

We are not talking about phone jammers. That is the restricted topic. That and the fact no one put up a schematic of one.
 

Thread Starter

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,162
Speculation about the status of this Thread in regard to locking it:

1) An Administrator and a Moderator have posted in this Thread, therefore they must be aware of it.
If there is any doubt, I assume they had a conversation about it.
2) This device is a narrow beam radiator, therefore its range of indiscriminate jamming will be small compared to 400 yards.
3) This device might lock up a lot of cell phones in a crowded building, but if the target is inside a crowded building, the target poses more danger to people than the RF energy radiator.
4) Four hundred yards is a small distance compared to the altitude where occupied aircraft are normally found.
5) As in post #9 by tracecom: The Orange Team has already posted about this device.
 

markdem

Joined Jul 31, 2013
113
Here is a legal way of protecting your self from drones.


Now if only falconry was legal in Australia I would be set.
 

bertus

Joined Apr 5, 2008
20,109
Hello,

I can imagine that the militairy would have interest in the device to avoid spying on their properties.
Also the emergency people like fireman and police would have interest in the device.
I have heard that some bushfires could not be managed by helicopters as there where some drones flying around.

The device will not interfere with the mobile phones as it will likely work in the 2.4 GHz ISM band.
Mobile phones will work in the range of 850 - 900 and 1800 - 1950 MHz.
It will interfere with the WIFI signals at 2.4 GHz and not with the newer 5 GHz WIFI.

Bertus
 

Thread Starter

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,162
Hawks with attitude!
Could one design their toy to look like something that eats hawks?
Not many natural enemies: eagles, certain owls, and the hawk's wife.:D
Perhaps simply making your flying machine larger?
 

Thread Starter

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,162
I can imagine that the military would have interest in the device to avoid spying on their properties.
I can imagine that ALL of OUR government properties would have interest in keeping their activities secret from the citizens. (Constant, unlimited surveillance is only good in one direction.)
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,160
Here is a legal way of protecting your self from drones.


Now if only falconry was legal in Australia I would be set.
As I was reading through this thread, especially after watching guys pour thousands of dollars of lead in the desert trying to shoot these things down, I was thinking:

"If I were going to design something to be an adversary of drones, it would have to be something that actually hunts. Something with excellent cameras and image stabilization, with a projectile or directional beacon/laser weapon that can lead the prey as a waterfowl hunter does. Even better yet, something that can do all that while being mobile, so that it could pursue the drone over/around obstacles and get right up on it and take it down. Something like a predator hawk drone."

Never once did it cross my mind to just employ an actual hawk. But I don't there is or ever will be a better defense against drone. I doubt humans will ever be capable of designing something that can compete with the eyesight, agility, flight time vs. size ratio, and on-the-fly tactical decision making ability of a hawk. It's an apex predator who has had millions of years experience honing its skills for aerial combat. By the time we engineer a solution to best it, we'll be extinct, and it will still be at the top of the food chain.

Now we should just set our engineering skills to work designing lightweight armored socks to prevent their feet being damaged by copter blades.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,126
I can imagine that ALL of OUR government properties would have interest in keeping their activities secret from the citizens.
If only the citizens had access to drones and there was no internet to post the pictures and there no nefarious people looking at those pictures ... yeah, the government wouldn't have a problem.

I take it those against shooting down drones have no problems with "someone" hovering over your property, in other words, casing you place. Now imagine the last thing they see is you pointing a shotgun at their drone before the picture went blank. Yeah ... I know the furthest thought from their mind is let's go over there and rob the place.

Drones definitely brings a new "scouting" technology when hunting ... but ... every activity has it's risks.
 
Top