DescentBB

Spidey wrote:So are we to assume you guys on the farm actually tried to detonate a cap directly with radio waves…

Tesla would be proud.

and he would have to go back to the drawing board.

We had a long 100ft lead connected to the cap, which I triggered with a little 9v battery. The owner wanted to cut an old rusty auger with detcord, so we wrapped it up with four wraps and put the cap under it. It made a nice pop but that's about it. the auger was unscathed.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:"The remote-control IED is terrorists' first choice of bomb today," says Howard Melamed, chief executive officer of Coral Springs, Florida-based Cell Antenna Corp. "That's because they're so easy to construct and deploy." Bombers use the cell phone as a typical remote control: to send a signal via radio airwaves. The signal energizes a relay connected to a blasting cap, which in turn detonates explosive material.

Even Howard says "The signal energizes a relay", meaning the relay is connecting a circuit with a battery, which then sends power to the blasting cap. That's how they work. Nothing outdated about that.

End result is you trigger the bomb with a radio freq. So what if there is a battery in the link?

woodchip wrote:End result is you trigger the bomb with a radio freq. So what if there is a battery in the link?

because without the battery, it doesn't work.

look, if blasting caps worked on radio frequencies alone, there would be a ridiculously high amount of them going off. but they need DC current to work.

I think Fernman, you're being way too picky here. We all get the blasting cap needs a igniter.

oh, for fecks sakes! Would one of you just test this all out and post video already?

woodchip wrote:I think Fernman, you're being way too picky here. We all get the blasting cap needs a igniter.

Then don't claim something works one way when it obviously doesn't.

callmeslick wrote:Would one of you just test this all out and post video already?

You too can do the test

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think Fernman, you're being way too picky here. We all get the blasting cap needs a igniter.

Then don't claim something works one way when it obviously doesn't.

Here's my original comment:

Blasting cap can be triggered with radio waves, hence the use of cell phones used to ignite them.

If you really want to be picky, I meant the cell phone is connected to the blasting cap. What does the cell phone have? Tada..a battery. Perhaps you should not be so selective in your reading comprehension.

callmeslick wrote:oh, for fecks sakes! Would one of you just test this all out and post video already?

Been tested loads of times in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're called IED's.

I know, but RC flight adds a touch of the spectacular to it.

woodchip wrote:If you really want to be picky, I meant the cell phone is connected to the blasting cap. What does the cell phone have? Tada..a battery. Perhaps you should not be so selective in your reading comprehension.

Again, that's NOT HOW IT WORKS. It NEEDS a SWITCH to trigger. I strongly suggest you take a basic course in DC circuits.

Are you really arguing whether or not a drone can deliver an explosive? Servo > jet flame lighter > f'n wiley coyote acme dynamite.

"It NEEDS a SWITCH"

Yea, and you need conductors as well…I mean DuH!

I don’t really see the point here.

It is not important if Woody knows every single detail about how a cell phone detonated bomb works, all he has to know is...it’s easy…and it works.

When the police report that a cell was used to detonate a bomb…they don’t go into details, we have to assume there are some details that aren’t really that important. (for you and me, not the builder, or forensics)

Vander wrote:Are you really arguing whether or not a drone can deliver an explosive? Servo > jet flame lighter > f'n wiley coyote acme dynamite.

not really. those kind of drones are called mq1's and mq9's

It is not important if Woody knows every single detail about how a cell phone detonated bomb works, all he has to know is...it’s easy…and it works.

If one thinks "drone = flying bomb" without the important details, you get irrational fear. That's why it's important. Just a while ago, the kid who built the multirotor with the pistol on it was attacked by a beach goer who thought she was being spied upon -- yet everyone around her was carrying a cell phone with cameras. We got that thanks to bad reporting and missing information. Factual and complete information versus "A Wizard Did It".

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:If you really want to be picky, I meant the cell phone is connected to the blasting cap. What does the cell phone have? Tada..a battery. Perhaps you should not be so selective in your reading comprehension.

Again, that's NOT HOW IT WORKS. It NEEDS a SWITCH to trigger. I strongly suggest you take a basic course in DC circuits.

Ummm...the cell phone is the switch. Call the cell phone and the switch is activated. And just for your info I had a military mos in electronics repair.

I see no reason to continue my little discussion with woodchip, so he'll sit on my ignore list until his interest in seeking my attention has waned, and moves on to a different avenue.

does anyone else wish to discuss "drones"?

There's always your pissed off neighbor to worry about, especially if his daughter is sunbathing in his yard.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/man-shoots ... 32027.html

tunnelcat wrote:There's always your pissed off neighbor to worry about, especially if his daughter is sunbathing in his yard.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/man-shoots ... 32027.html

oh yeah, i read about that two days ago. he was off the guys' property and over 250 feet up.

this guy is going away for a good while. breaking a federal law by shooting down what's classified as an aircraft will do that.

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:There's always your pissed off neighbor to worry about, especially if his daughter is sunbathing in his yard.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/man-shoots ... 32027.html

oh yeah, i read about that two days ago. he was off the guys' property and over 250 feet up.

this guy is going away for a good while. breaking a federal law by shooting down what's classified as an aircraft will do that.

Yeah, I keep seeing stories about this from a group of friends who are "self-defense" oriented, and they're like "yah, way to protect your daughter!" and I'm like "do we have any idea where the drone actually was, what sort of range it was at, or anything else that might actually indicate spying?" and nobody seems to actually know.

I'd love to see the footage from the drone itself. If it was shot down from hundreds of feet in the air, that kind of busts the "it was buzzing our yard and scoping out my teenage girl" storyline.

Lothar wrote:Yeah, I keep seeing stories about this from a group of friends who are "self-defense" oriented, and they're like "yah, way to protect your daughter!" and I'm like "do we have any idea where the drone actually was, what sort of range it was at, or anything else that might actually indicate spying?" and nobody seems to actually know.

I'd love to see the footage from the drone itself. If it was shot down from hundreds of feet in the air, that kind of busts the "it was buzzing our yard and scoping out my teenage girl" storyline.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29675427/dron ... y-invasion

busted, fricasseed, seared and sent out for delivery.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:Yeah, I keep seeing stories about this from a group of friends who are "self-defense" oriented, and they're like "yah, way to protect your daughter!" and I'm like "do we have any idea where the drone actually was, what sort of range it was at, or anything else that might actually indicate spying?" and nobody seems to actually know.

I'd love to see the footage from the drone itself. If it was shot down from hundreds of feet in the air, that kind of busts the "it was buzzing our yard and scoping out my teenage girl" storyline.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29675427/dron ... y-invasion

busted, fricasseed, seared and sent out for delivery.

Not quite:

“The reason we don’t have the live footage is because when we got there where the drone was shot down and a neighbor had gone and retrieved it and the SD card was gone,” Boggs said. “We want that SD card.”

When asked, Merideth didn’t have an answer either.

“We have no idea where that's at,” he said.

So without the SD card you have no proof as to what actually happened.

woodchip wrote:So without the SD card you have no proof as to what actually happened.

yes you do. if you read the story, you'd see they have the flight data recorded.

Right. It turns out that drone software does that -- and we know the drone was up around 200 feet when it was shot down, because that's what the flight data shows.

That tells us that the guy who said it was "hovering at 10 feet" is a liar, and therefore we can dismiss his testimony. Whatever he claims about the drone hovering close and spying on his daughter is a lie. We don't need the camera footage because we know the altitude.

An inspection of the craft could settle the matter of how high it was when it was shot down. (but only in one direction)

It’s easy to tell crash damage from blast damage, and if it was hit at 10 feet, there would be plenty of blast damage. (unless the guy is a poor shot and only a few pellets made contact, so it wouldn’t be conclusive unless the craft is full of shot damage.) He took three shots? So that thing should be pretty well peppered.

If the craft is riddled with shot, then it probably was hit at 10 feet.

Spidey wrote:An inspection of the craft could settle the matter of how high it was when it was shot down. (but only in one direction)

It’s easy to tell crash damage from blast damage, and if it was hit at 10 feet, there would be plenty of blast damage. (unless the guy is a poor shot and only a few pellets made contact, so it wouldn’t be conclusive unless the craft is full of shot damage.) He took three shots? So that thing should be pretty well peppered.

If the craft is riddled with shot, then it probably was hit at 10 feet.

There's video in Ferno's link. It looks like one propeller was damaged by the shot, and there's "hitting the ground after a 200-foot fall" damage.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:So without the SD card you have no proof as to what actually happened.

yes you do. if you read the story, you'd see they have the flight data recorded.

I re-read and stand corrected.

Spidey wrote:If the craft is riddled with shot, then it probably was hit at 10 feet.

or, you could look at the flight recorder data.

Which can’t be modified?

Spidey wrote:Which can’t be modified?

We have two competing stories -- "it was hovering 10 feet up, scoping out my daughter" and "it was 200 feet up and had nothing to do with his daughter".

We have two pieces of evidence thus far -- the flight track data, and the actual damage to the craft. It's certainly possible that the flight track data was modified, and that they actually procured a second drone and damaged it. But not everyone is capable of hacking, and it'd be a fairly big job for someone who hadn't already planned to hack their data to dig through DJI's proprietary software and create a false flight log in just a couple days -- and would probably leave behind forensic evidence (remember, we're probably not dealing with an organization with substantial resources; the drone pilot is a lone redneck.) And the drone itself doesn't look like it was shot at close range; even birdshot would have left dents all over the skin.

It seems more likely to me, though not yet 100% proven, that the drone operators are telling the truth, and the guy who shot it modified his story to try to stay out of trouble. (A third, minor contributing factor to why I think the shooter is lying: he says he doesn't know if the drone was checking out his girls, looking for something to steal, or what. The camera on that drone is gimbal-mounted and has a big obvious directional lens. If it was hovering 10 feet up over the top of your yard, it'd be pretty obvious if the camera was pointed at your daughter. If it was 200 feet up, not so much.)

Spidey wrote:Which can’t be modified?

nope. the software won't allow it.

Lothar wrote:lone redneck

I see…

Well that settles that.

looks like I have a new species to target:

http://delaware-surf-fishing.com/califo ... n-mid-air/

Not surprising. I caught bats while casting at night.

woodchip wrote:Not surprising. I caught bats while casting at night.

done that myself. Sort of fun, retrieving fly and line from the trees........drowned a couple bats along the way.