Live data from Hacker News

DJI Puts $145K Bounty on the Drone Pilots Who Were Disrupting Flights

improdrone.com

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: DJI Puts $145K Bounty on the Drone Pilots Who Were Disrupting Flights

#101

Drones are nothing of not noisy, and that noise is unlike almost any other piece of machinery. It shouldn't be too hard to set up towers around the airport with sensitive speakers that can triangulate the location of a drone flying within a restricted area. From that point it can sound an alarm and/or deploy counter-measures.

Small drones are pretty quiet, especially once they reach altitude. It would be difficult or impossible to pick one up over the noise of wind, cars, lawn mowers or leaf blowers.

You say that like it's impossible, but drones have a very particular pitch. If the Navy has sonar capable of finding submarines thousands of miles away in a very noisy ocean, there's technology that can do this.

Maybe it's not inexpensive, but it's at least proven to exist.

Re: DJI Puts $145K Bounty on the Drone Pilots Who Were Disrupting Flights

#102
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem being that in order to effectively 'jam' a signal far away, antenna theory requires that a fairly significant proportion of that radio energy must be directed out the back of the 'antenna'/gun. Right into the person firing it. That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.

I don't see why the signal has to go out the back. Otherwise dish-type antennas couldn't work. And those TV aerials would work as well pointed 180 degrees away from a signal as straight at it, which isn't true.

It's based on the antenna design. These 'jammer' devices aren't dish based; they're designed after Yagi-Uda style antennas, in the format of a 'rifle' that the user points at the drone. The radiation pattern for them is exactly as I described. [1]

[1] https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/antenna-yagi-radiat...

Post reply on HN