What Can We Do About Drones?!?

[mstrebe]

Not sure if you've already solved the problem or not, but you can solve it with a medium power (500mw) laser pointer.

When the drone comes around, hit it with the laser pointer on the camera lens. This will direct the laser energy directly into the CCD/CMOS sensor, dazzling the video and potentially damaging the CCD/CMOS sensor.

Use a green laser, as these are the center point of sensitivity for a CCD. Above 500mw, lasers become dangerous for eyes so I wouldn't go any higher than that unless you intend to wear really good sunglasses while you operate it.

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

Not sure if you've already solved the problem or not, but you can solve it with a medium power (500mw) laser pointer.

When the drone comes around, hit it with the laser pointer on the camera lens. This will direct the laser energy directly into the CCD/CMOS sensor, dazzling the video and potentially damaging the CCD/CMOS sensor.

Use a green laser, as these are the center point of sensitivity for a CCD. Above 500mw, lasers become dangerous for eyes so I wouldn't go any higher than that unless you intend to wear really good sunglasses while you operate it.

You'll probably receive a visit from a police chopper if you try that.
Do you think it'll work for speed cameras too?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Ann,
What I think you're missing is that 2Hulls is an exceptional person with an exceptional boat. Above he states very clearly, "Guys, my boat is on par (outside anyway) with some of the best in the world.

It's an attention getter.

People filmed me all the way here from up north.

Mega yacht crews dropped what they were doing to watch the boat.

Hundreds of thumbs up."

These are not things that can be easily dismissed. Many of the above remarks are goals, desires and dreams that people have worked for their entire lives and have never been able to attain. And, this reverence for his boat is not an isolated occurrence during his time spent in Florida, but rather spans the length and breadth of the entire US from the North to perhaps, in the near future, the Bahamas, the Caribbean and ultimately the world. So, when an unwanted intruder spies on an individual of this caliber and with a boat that is an unrestrained fantasy of most on this Forum, we should take note. May I be the first to apologize for Ann to our friend, idol and inspiration--Mr. TwoHulls. We should all make an effort in the future to consider these factors before commenting on any of his enlightening posts with anything that even breaches the standards of respect for such a supernal individual. May I be the first to offer my thanks and humble respect. Sincerely . . . Capt. Rognvald

Excelent post and likely strikes to the heart of hte matter.

[GrahamHO]

"Mega yacht crews dropped what they were doing to watch the boat"

I occasionally drop what I'm doing to look in amazement at.....a boat that is cutting in front of a container ship. Or going too fast in a restricted area......or heading for the rocks.

[Neo]

These types of stories are usually apochrephal in nature, in a class with many other urban legends that hit a collective nerve at any given time.

See the "cat in the microwave" story that circled the globe around the time that microwaves first became common.

We are all too willing to believe such stories because they embody the fears and uncertianties of our time. Plus they allow us to express a sense of moral outrage, one of the most rewarding and least demanding things we can do.

And I'm all for it!

Privacy is worth more than a few thousand bucks, isn't it? And it sounds like you have the money. If your story is as you've told it, just video the drone on its next 4 or 5 visits and then take hime out with a fishing pole. He'll have to spend all his time and money suing you. And I'm sure a lot of lawyers would love to take your case pro bono, because it makes a great headline.

[Canibul]

Originally Posted by dannc

Not in any US state I have resided.

Later,
Dan

nor in any of the 40+ countrries I've worked in. Lots of people here talking about things they know nothing about. From firearms to LEOs, from jammers to the FAA.

I'd say some of us need to stick to talking about boats, but then I see there are a few here talking who don't know much about boats, either.

doesn't stop them from thinking that they do, though.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GrahamHO

You are excused. The point is that if a Navy ship has such a high strength electronic field around it that airliners keep away as has been suggested, I wouldn't have been able to use my equipment.
More likely airliners keep clear in case they are mistakenly shot down as in the The Persian Gulf.

Airliners?
No, but I participated in the flight tests to Carrier qualify an AH-64, and can predict that you will never see one on a Carrier in actual use for the reason stated.
It is very common for the electronics suite for most of the more capable systems to not be on in port etc. and often completely disabled in peace time
Radar jammer on an AH-64 had a wartime / peacetime switch on it that was sealed, you never flipped that switch on unless you were going against real threat systems, always wanted to to see what it would do to Police radar, but never did.

But as stated, I doubt you will fry the thing with an SSB, but it's not impossible, back in the old days of RC flying before 2.4 GHz even flying close to power lines could get you shot down, and "glitches" where the airplane would just jump for a second was common, a CB radio with an illegal amp would shoot you down, but this 2.4 Ghz stuff is digital I've been told and almost immune to interference, that is why I doubt a jammer would work.

[2hullvenus]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

2.4 Ghz stuff is digital I've been told and almost immune to interference, that is why I doubt a jammer would work.

Slight point to make...

Analog or digital, if the "sound" of the signal is blocked due to saturation of the communication frequency, the checksum in the bytes of data won't match (or exist), so no data will get through.

Jamming would work the same for analog or digital devices transmitting wirelessly.

The reason digital is better at handling interference is that it has a checksum, which automatically resends any data that was corrupted by static/interference.

[Wotname]

While you jammers are sorting out the finer details of your perferred methods, you might care to remember you have a couple of small, low very low level, 1.5GHz digital receivers on board and presumably nearby.

This may or may not be a concern to you and others if your GPS becomes deaf or even dead.

[2hullvenus]

Update:

Looks like the bottle I threw at and me filming it gave the operator the message.

Drone wasn't back today.

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Airliners?
No, but I participated in the flight tests to Carrier qualify an AH-64, and can predict that you will never see one on a Carrier in actual use for the reason stated.
It is very common for the electronics suite for most of the more capable systems to not be on in port etc. and often completely disabled in peace time
Radar jammer on an AH-64 had a wartime / peacetime switch on it that was sealed, you never flipped that switch on unless you were going against real threat systems, always wanted to to see what it would do to Police radar, but never did.

But as stated, I doubt you will fry the thing with an SSB, but it's not impossible, back in the old days of RC flying before 2.4 GHz even flying close to power lines could get you shot down, and "glitches" where the airplane would just jump for a second was common, a CB radio with an illegal amp would shoot you down, but this 2.4 Ghz stuff is digital I've been told and almost immune to interference, that is why I doubt a jammer would work.

I also doubt jamming would work. At the most it might cause the drone to return home having lost the operating signal. If someone wants to buy a drone they could test to see whether it dives into the sea or goes back home.
Incidentally I know a frigate is not an aircraft carrier but the one I was on was fully operational carrying out exercises in conjunction with the Australian Navy including several (5?) naval ships. My own comparatively low powered wireless microphones were not affected in the slightest.

I've seen very good drone footage from an engineer on board a cargo ship sending it out to film his ship. Presumably they had SSB operating on the ship which he was flying the drone around.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

I'm having a hell of a time right now with some jerk who keeps sending a drone to my boat.



I'm at anchor and this jerk sends the drone 20' above the boat repeatedly, day after day.



I'm really tired of the noise and I'm not here at anchor to have people looking in my salon windows and stuff.



I'm in Miami. What are my legal rights?



First instinct is to throw things at it.

Get the lightest monofilament you can find.
Cut a whole bunch of 25-35' pieces
Get 1/4" or 1/8" nylon line from some place cheap, Home Depot say.
Tie mono to the cords every 5' for the top 20' of each cord.
Hoist one cord to masthead or hounds for every stay or shroud on the boat.
There should be a gently waving sea of mono trailing off to leeward of the top of the boat. With a little luck the filament will not be visible to the drone's camera and if it moves in close enough will become tangled in the filament.
Cut it loose to drop into the water and float away. Water damage will hopefully render it unusable. Don't intentionally damage it in any way other than cutting it loose.

Any official questions the mono is to deter birds from roosting and shitting on the boat.

If you want to be really mean attach medium size sinkers near the cord end of the filament so when you cut the drone loose there is a weight that will hopefully sink it. This precludes plausible deniability though.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Get the lightest monofilament you can find.
Cut a whole bunch of 25-35' pieces
Get 1/4" or 1/8" nylon line from some place cheap, Home Depot say.
Tie mono to the cords every 5' for the top 20' of each cord.
Hoist one cord to masthead or hounds for every stay or shroud on the boat.
There should be a gently waving sea of mono trailing off to leeward of the top of the boat. With a little luck the filament will not be visible to the drone's camera and if it moves in close enough will become tangled in the filament.
Cut it loose to drop into the water and float away. Water damage will hopefully render it unusable. Don't intentionally damage it in any way other than cutting it loose.

Any official questions the mono is to deter birds from roosting and shitting on the boat.

If you want to be really mean attach medium size sinkers near the cord end of the filament so when you cut the drone loose there is a weight that will hopefully sink it. This precludes plausible deniability though.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

That should work, but wouldn't it be easier to capture a seagull and train it to attack drones. The Navy trains dolphins to carry out assignments so a trained seagull should be no problem.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by GrahamHO

That should work, but wouldn't it be easier to capture a seagull and train it to attack drones. The Navy trains dolphins to carry out assignments so a trained seagull should be no problem.

Cheaper if you didn't feed it maybe but not easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Cheaper if you didn't feed it maybe but not easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

A trained sea eagle would probably be better than a trained seagull.