quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
So you talked about the first sentence, what about the one I quoted?

And please show me where I mentioned banning anything. Or mentioned that the government should "solve" it. Thanks.

The one you took out of context? I addressed it in context with the first sentence.

Of course you didn't say anything about banning anything. I was putting words in your mouth like you did with me.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
So you talked about the first sentence, what about the one I quoted?

And please show me where I mentioned banning anything. Or mentioned that the government should "solve" it. Thanks.

The one you took out of context? I addressed it in context with the first sentence.

Of course you didn't say anything about banning anything. I was putting words in your mouth like you did with me.

Reductio ad absurdam has long been a useful device in oratorical and logical presentations, not so much as a way of life.

But only to those who know when they are using it.

quote:

Morabe said it's not a matter of lawmakers not wanting to act but that they are tied to donations from the telecommunications industry, which is adamantly opposed to counter-drone machines because it would rely on their networks to send a signal to the drone as it jams the drone's mission instructions.

"In recent conversations, lawmakers of both parties have said that it’s because it's a powerful lobbying group — the telecommunications industry — that it would take another terrible act of 9/11 with a drone to force Congress to make the changes right away," said Morabe.

WTF is the author is this article talking about? Very poorly written, and I'm doubting much of what I quoted here. How would counter-drone machines rely on "their networks" to send a signal to the drone????

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
Domcintosh, am I correct in assuming drones powered by electrical motors have small heat and radar signatures?

For all these conundrums, I ask what are the Israelis doing? Before we reinvent the wheel, I suspect they already have multiple working solutions.

Yes on the small heat signature on the small Unmanned Systems. Radar cross section, due to materials and size, is also slim.

The problem with jamming these drones is choosing which frequencies to jam. The majority of the control frequencies pass over 2.4 ghz, or 5 ghz. These are the smaller drones; separately, we could operate in various UHF frequencies.

The larger trick is collecting the frequency via RF monitoring, analyzing and correlating it to a command and control signal, and then over riding that signal with a disruptive command.

The Drone Killer gun does not send new command signals. It just jams the receiver on the drone, putting it into a loss of signal mode.

The largest problem is the issue of how to engage the drone. The FAA modernization act calls them aircraft, and its a felony to interfere in flight activity.