DescentBB

we had a bit of a lively exchange between some of you a couple months back on the regulation of drones, yay or nay. I read and didn't post because I can barely operate a video game and have no interest in drones for my personal life. The back and forth was interesting though, and I recalled those posts today when I read this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun-fi ... ar-AAdhwzf

game changer? Just an example of where the lines should be drawn?

What that kid did was legal, maybe? The FAA law is nondescript. It's something that no one thought possible either. Now it is. Very bad idea.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-firing-dro ... d=32585072

There was a big wildfire last week in California that destroyed cars on Interstate 15 and some drone operators sightseeing interfered with firefighting efforts in the air. If no one wants drones restricted, why are idiots like these ruining it for everyone else? Issac?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drones-delay-e ... d=32534795

I think TC you meant to call for Ferno, not Issac

Issac was pretty vocal, but yeah, Ferno too. No comments guys?

tunnelcat wrote:Issac was pretty vocal, but yeah, Ferno too. No comments guys?

I just cracked open this thread. give me some time to process it.

I was wondering when you'd stumble over it.

My first response: "Cool!"

My second response: This will give all of the paranoid people out there fodder. I bet there are ways to regulate something like this (I.E. it's a weapon, not a toy) - and the issue to me isn't the flying, it's the gun.

tunnelcat wrote:I was wondering when you'd stumble over it.

like a drunk at an outdoor party.

today was a full day for me, between cooking dinner, prepping an aircraft and attending an event, I didn't have any time to even read the article yet.

So it seems my predictions about drones is becoming ever more true:

"Islamic State threat: Isis plotting to use drones to bomb crowds at major British events"

Drones have now gone beyond the simple joyful toys that you enjoy ferno, to instruments of terror.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/593187 ... ls-Britain

At some point the govt. will require you to become licensed and let you use them with restrictions.

Yea…that will stop the bad guys.

Spidey wrote:Yea…that will stop the bad guys.

Yup, after all we see how well gun free zones work.

woodchip wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea…that will stop the bad guys.

Yup, after all we see how well gun free zones work.

actually, they work really well, most of the time. Still, on the ground or in the air, you will still need a bit more regulation than that to keep from potentially dangerous situations.

Okay, here's my initial thoughts...

It doesn't sit well with me, but unless it has some seriously sophisticated programming (making it essentially a flying robot), it would be rather impractical for a person to use this. The chances of this actually hitting a target is extremely low, so I wouldn't be worried about it.

callmeslick wrote:

actually, they work really well, most of the time.

Since we haven't tried the opposite you don't know that they work "Really Well"

Oh and another "Gun Free" shooting in La. Yeah they're working really well.

shut up, both of you.

Ferno wrote:Okay, here's my initial thoughts...

It doesn't sit well with me, but unless it has some seriously sophisticated programming (making it essentially a flying robot), it would be rather impractical for a person to use this. The chances of this actually hitting a target is extremely low, so I wouldn't be worried about it.

It would work just fine with a grenade or bomb. You don't need to aim a gun.

tunnelcat wrote:

Ferno wrote:Okay, here's my initial thoughts...

It doesn't sit well with me, but unless it has some seriously sophisticated programming (making it essentially a flying robot), it would be rather impractical for a person to use this. The chances of this actually hitting a target is extremely low, so I wouldn't be worried about it.

It would work just fine with a grenade or bomb. You don't need to aim a gun.

alright, there's a few things wrong with this.

First, the weight of a standard grenade is about a pound, and you'd have to wire up a way to pull the pin when you're close enough. Given those two conditions, a multirotor would have to be quite large. About three feet across and weigh about five pounds just to get it going. then, to get to where it needs to be, you'd have to get a large battery. Something like this would cost about a grand to get into the air, excluding the required radio equipment. Third, it would have to have a snowballs' chance in hell before it gets shot down. At that point, an RPG is cheaper and more effective.

And to carry a bomb, it would have to be twice the size; if not larger. It wouldn't even get within 100 feet of any intended target before it gets shot down. Total waste. And besides, if it was going to happen, it would have already happened.

September 11, 2001 four passenger airliner were NOT drones.

Ferno wrote:

alright, there's a few things wrong with this.

First, the weight of a standard grenade is about a pound, and you'd have to wire up a way to pull the pin when you're close enough.

Actually you could pull the pin and keep the spoon compressed, releasing it by various means electronically .

By the time a drone gets heavy enough to lift a bomb or grenade, just crashing it into someone will be plenty deadly enough.

And how big will the Amazon delivery drones be? And how will you tell the difference between a real Amazon drone and a fake? After the bomb explodes? BTW Ferno that pistol in the drone video probably weighs 2 lbs and how did they pull the trigger on it.

A small amount of seefour would be plenty light, and could be detonated using the battery….but see…this is why I usually refrain from saying stuff like this in open forum.

But, you guys act like it’s not possible, so I had to speak up.

woodchip wrote:And how big will the Amazon delivery drones be? And how will you tell the difference between a real Amazon drone and a fake? After the bomb explodes? BTW Ferno that pistol in the drone video probably weighs 2 lbs and how did they pull the trigger on it.

Solenoid

Nice and light if you use a pistol with a hair trigger. (only one shot tho) You could also rig a small charge to fire the weapon. (again only one shot)

Spidey wrote:A small amount of seefour would be plenty light, and could be detonated using the battery….but see…this is why I usually refrain from saying stuff like this in open forum.

But, you guys act like it’s not possible, so I had to speak up.

It will be much easier to put a home portable station suppressor frequencies and signals. And within a radius of 200-300 meters all civilian drones will lose satellite positioning. But your neighbors also will not work cell and cordless telephones, Wi-Fi Internet, radio, walkie talkie, wireless keyboard and mouse and will be a strong interference on the TV

Many radio sets have extra channels that can be used to control stuff like smoke effects or landing gear or other non-flight functions, there is really nothing special about these channels. Like any of the other flight function channels they can control a servo, and a servo can physically move something on the model. Even a fairly small servo can exert a pretty significant force on something because they have to be strong in order to move a control surface on a helicopter for instance (there is a lot of energy and torque in the rotors of pretty much any RC helicopter above the micro/indoor size).

To put it in perspective of what can be done with a off the shelf RC radio set and some ESCs:

woodchip wrote:Actually you could pull the pin and keep the spoon compressed, releasing it by various means electronically .

you're more likely to blow yourself up by doing that.

how did they pull the trigger on it.

Probably used a servo and a mechanism tied to the trigger.

Spidey wrote:A small amount of seefour would be plenty light, and could be detonated using the battery

"see fore" doesn't work that way. you would need a blasting cap and a method to trigger said blasting cap.

Yes, I understand that, but I am hesitant to even give ideas on this board let alone go into details…

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Actually you could pull the pin and keep the spoon compressed, releasing it by various means electronically .

you're more likely to blow yourself up by doing that.

True but I wasn't thinking a amateur doing this

woodchip wrote: how did they pull the trigger on it.

Ferno wrote:Probably used a servo and a mechanism tied to the trigger.

average trigger pull is 5 lbs. Grenade pin takes about 8 so servo could possibly pull pin.

Spidey wrote:A small amount of seefour would be plenty light, and could be detonated using the battery

Ferno wrote:"see fore" doesn't work that way. you would need a blasting cap and a method to trigger said blasting cap.

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

And spidey this is pretty common knowledge just from reading the news.

Krom, you want to make an interesting experiment? If you find, buy Senao. You'll have a lot of fun, if you know what I mean
P.S. I will not talk about the Russian powerful portable devices. It will be much more fun )

Spidey wrote:Yes, I understand that, but I am hesitant to even give ideas on this board let alone go into details…

yeah i know what you're thinking of and they're pretty much impractical and expensive.

woodchip wrote:True but I wasn't thinking a amateur doing this

neither was I, and amateurs can't get ahold of a hand grenade without some real connections.

woodchip wrote: average trigger pull is 5 lbs. Grenade pin takes about 8 so servo could possibly pull pin.

128 oz/in required force, which makes it a heavy servo.

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

No. no they can't. How do I know? I did demolitions for a family friend out on his farm one time years ago.

Ferno wrote:

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

No. no they can't. How do I know? I did demolitions for a family friend out on his farm one time years ago.

Well your out of date knowledge is lacking:

"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.

Woody...why even bother?

I guess I just hate ignorant statements by people too lazy to do a quick google search before posting.

woodchip wrote:I guess I just hate ignorant statements by people too lazy to do a quick google search before posting.

stop, you're killing me here!

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I guess I just hate ignorant statements by people too lazy to do a quick google search before posting.

stop, you're killing me here!

You are guilty of this more than any person on this board. So laughing makes the truth go away?

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.

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

Tesla would be proud.