allardjd 1,853 Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 your suggestion leaves a window of 40ft to operate in the range you are talking about is 360ft or 109m No, I'm talking about 120' AGL - 40 yards. If he can't keep it above that he should not be flying it above the property of others. Link to post Share on other sites
MyPC8MyBrain 273 Posted June 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 either way i don’t see any possible way to enforce that kind of restrictionit’s impossible to monitor traffic in such alt; let’s assume you can monitor; how do you respond as law enforcement? let’s say i don’t have a shotgun and someone is hovering over my house; and i reported the activity; what’s next?the guy is operating his drone 20 miles away; from an open field or a parking lot rooftop, how do you get to him?lets say there is a devidce ID, the drone was bought from craigslist; the original owner is not longer operating it, Shotgun vs Drone Airframe Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 It's self-monitoring if there are enough shotgun-armed citizens out there who don't want drones taking video through their rec room windows. It sounds like a good reason to buy a shotgun to me. You don't go after the owner - you go after the drone. No additional enforcement necessary if you bring it down. You can mount it and hang it on the wall in your den. He suffers the loss of an expensive toy with no legal recourse and may be a little more inclined to stay within the law next time he flies one. If you see a drone and don't have the opportunity or means to bring it down you report it. If the police can't or won't find the guy, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Not all criminal complaints get resolved - this would just be one more. John Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 I like your idea of a lot John. I used to play with guns firearms shotguns bottle rockets what have you back in my younger Wilder days... Including shooting shotguns as straight up as possible to hear the shot fall around us. those little tiny pellets are fairly harmless in free fall. So any concerns about people being injured by shot guns fired into the air at drones would be fairly overblown in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 I Goggled 'How much airspace do you own above your property' and got many hits but it seems we have never really been given a definitive answer by the powers that be. Initially it was said we own from the ground to the heavens, that went out the window with cities and air travel. It most cases it's has been a given that we own up to 500 feet or in some case as much as the homeowner could use. Obviously a slippery area of law. That can change as police are now using surveillance equipment well below that altitude. I tend to think the folks with the most money along with the ones that are in a position to make the rules will usually take our rights away as new technology comes into play. Sooner or later this will end up in the courts as complaints pile up. As far as I am concerned, if an occasional drone flies overhead and doesn't become a nuisance, no harm no foul. I can tell you that I definitely wouldn't want to live near one of these warehouses where drones are going 24/7. Sound like a familiar argument? Think of those upcoming arguments, will we have low low airways and clearance routes next. Think of my property values. We haven't even touched on birdstrikes, the poor things. Link to post Share on other sites
MyPC8MyBrain 273 Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 it seem that birds have a strong feeling about drones and sharing the sky already Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I like your idea of a lot John. I used to play with guns firearms shotguns bottle rockets what have you back in my younger Wilder days... Including shooting shotguns as straight up as possible to hear the shot fall around us. those little tiny pellets are fairly harmless in free fall. So any concerns about people being injured by shot guns fired into the air at drones would be fairly overblown in my opinion. I know you're referring to shotguns, but there's always one nutter who prefers higher calibres. You fail to realize that a projectile fired at a drone, isn't necessarily in free fall! If the shot is fired above 45 degrees, then it reaches it's maximum altitude and falls at 32 feet per second per second, terminal velocity. If the projectile lands on you head, it's like, ouch, that hurt. However... if the projectile is fired at less than 45 degrees it still retains considerable energy. People have died and been injured as a result of celebratory shots fired into the air. Which is why I believe such a practice is illegal in the US, and I believe that includes shotguns. One gentleman I recall was sitting at his porch reading the paper. Some idiot fired a shot into the air at less than 45 degrees and the round ended up buried in the guys thigh. Others have been killed. In regard to projectiles fired from a rifled barrel at less than vertical, there's another consideration, spin. The bullet is less likely to tumble and can travel at higher speeds than in free fall. I'm not sure how this would apply to a shotgun pellet, given it's lower mass, but no, firing into the air is a very bad idea I would say. I don't think we really want lead [a toxic metal] spread around the environment either to be honest. So not sure about shotgun pellets, but there are plenty of nutters who fire much higher calibres into the air mistakenly believing it's safe. If you happen to have a reasonable sized garden and an invading low flying drone, potentially, I can see a shot fired at it being at less than 45 degrees. Couple that with something other than a shotgun being used... danger! danger! My solution to a nosey drone, would be my own "battle drone". It would be like the TV show "Robot Wars" only in the air. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Or you can just sent your falcon up to take care of them Martin. But I do like the idea of battle drones. As a safe gun owner I would never advocate shooting a firearm in the air, especially in a people or home rich environment, except when joking around in comments. I full well know the distances involved in projectiles fired from a barrel and so should anyone that picks up a firearm. That said and since I never miss, my previous comment is only for others. :P Signed, Mr. Nutter Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Shotguns with relatively small shot are not particularly dangerous at any great distance, whether fired vertically, horizontally or anywhere between. Slugs, 00 buckshot and the like can be a different matter, of course. I agree with Brett about not firing into the air when anything or anyone is within the danger zone. Someone should tell them about that in the Middle East, where it's de rigueur for any kind of celebration, usually on full-automatic. It should be recognized, however, that the danger zone is very different with different firearms and even with different ammunition in the same firearm. Where I live, firing a shotgun at any angle from my property would be quite safe except if pointed toward the road when someone is driving/walking/biking by. Relevant to an earlier post, I'm pretty sure that lead shot is outlawed in the US for shotgun rounds now, at least for waterfowl hunting. The steel shot runs out of steam a little faster than the lead shot did. John Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I was of course referring to light bird shot...not slugs or larger pellets. We were young, but we weren't THAT dumb. I didn't do it personally, but in reference to "Horizontal", the craziest of us had done that with buddies in Texas while hunting and bored...they would fire light bird shot at each other from several hundred yards away just to rain a shower of pellets around the other. Pretty sure the blast sound reached them before the pellets, so plenty of warning to close eyes if looking that way...hahaha. Which reminds me of some Homer Simpson advice. "You don't need safety glasses, just squint when the woodchips fly at you" LOVE that first video Chris. Bet that drones just might revitalize the ancient sport of Falconry I sure want one now! (Thinking along the lines of custom Kevlar Falcon boots, hardened to take out props) Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Interestingly enough, if you fire a bullet directly into the air, almost impossible, the projectile will loss velocity and spin and end up tumbling down to earth at terminal velocity. Probably give you a nasty bump and abrasion on your noggin. You still have to worry about the angled shots as the spin will continue. I'm sure there is a ton of math involved here that's beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Puerto Rico is pretty bad apparently. About two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve. California too. Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died. I would agree with shotguns being less of an issue in this respect. The only incident I can find was in Ireland. A celebratory shot at a wedding killing a women. Didn't say what sort of trajectory though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire#Trends There was a Myth Busters show on this a while back. Very interesting. My "Battle Drone" would be the way to go as I say. I'd equip it with lasers to blind the enemy drone, some kind of EMP pulse technology and a mid air ramming spike. Trouble is, it would be the size of a house! On the subject of relatively small flying machines... you may be interest to know that the Martin Jet pack will be available to purchase form next year. It will cost you $150,000. The guy in the video gets up to a pretty impressive altitude. But thank god there's a parachute. I'd be inclined to get up to it's minimum opening altitude pretty damn fast and spend the minimum time possible lower than that. And yes, to remain on topic, let me suggest that it would make a great mini quad drone killing platform. With an auto pilot you could go hands free. When the mini drone invades your gardens airspace and spies on your naked wife through the bathroom window, you could bash it with a baseball bat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDp1XztObUQ Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 943 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 You fail to realize that a projectile fired at a drone, isn't necessarily in free fall! If the shot is fired above 45 degrees, then it reaches it's maximum altitude and falls at 32 feet per second per second, terminal velocity. If the projectile lands on you head, it's like, ouch, that hurt. This is incorrect. An object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at 32 ft/s2 independent of its mass. This is acceleration not terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is a speed and is only reached when the speed is constant. In such a case as a vacuum, independent of mass, that terminal velocity is 32 ft/s (not squared). The terminal velocity of an object in the earth's atmosphere varies and is dependent on many factors, including mass, drag coefficient, and relative surface area. It will also only be achieved if the fall is from sufficient altitude. In free fall, from a sufficient height, the human body accelerates to a terminal velocity of approximately 177 ft/s (122 mph). Whereas a skydiver who streamlines their body by pulling their limbs in can reach a terminal velocity of approximately 90 ft/s (201 mph). This terminal velocity is greater again for a HALO jump where upwards of 150-200 lbs of equipment could be carried. Similarly, a 174 grain (11.3 g) projectile (bullet) will reach a terminal velocity of approximately 90 ft/s (201 mph). This will do more damage than "ouch that hurt"!!! Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 If the shot is fired above 45 degrees, then it reaches it's maximum altitude and falls at 32 feet per second per second, accelerating to terminal velocity. If the projectile lands on you head, it's like, ouch, that hurt. Two words. Similarly, a 174 grain (11.3 g) projectile (bullet) will reach a terminal velocity of approximately 90 ft/s (201 mph). This will do more damage than "ouch that hurt"!!! "Ouch that hurt" was tongue in cheek. MythBusters tested this. Not that they always get it right. In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact.However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time. http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 943 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 If the shot is fired above 45 degrees, then it reaches it's maximum altitude and falls at 32 feet per second per second, accelerating to terminal velocity. If the projectile lands on you head, it's like, ouch, that hurt. Two words. Similarly, a 174 grain (11.3 g) projectile (bullet) will reach a terminal velocity of approximately 90 ft/s (201 mph). This will do more damage than "ouch that hurt"!!! "Ouch that hurt" was tongue in cheek. MythBusters tested this. Not that they always get it right. In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact.However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time. http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 The science of ballistics is far more involved than an entertainment show presented by two special effects guys, with a bunch of side kicks, one who is an electrical engineer, the rest being tradespeople or TV presenters. Whilst entertaining and having some basis to their experiments, the control conditions for a lot of the experiments hardly gives rise to scientific fact or proof.....often big on bang, but lacking in substance. It just goes to prove you should never believe everything you see on TV or read in the written press. When it comes to ballistics, and without going into too much technical detail, the flight and behavior of a projectile is fundamentally determined by its velocity, and the spin of a projectile if fired from a rifled barrel or if the projectile itself is rifled to provide the spin (as in rifled slug ammunition for a shotgun). In situations where a projectile has spin imparted on it, this spin provides additional stability in flight, for the purposes of providing increased accuracy, energy and extended range. However, as the velocity and energy of the projectile dissipates, so too does the stabilising affect of spin, consequently resulting in the projectile ultimately tumbling. Therefore, a projectile fired from a rifle at any angle (be it vertical, near vertical, 45 degrees, etc.) with a clear path, and over sufficient range, will eventually result in the the projectile tumbling. Some projectiles, particularly in handgun calibres, can begin to tumble inside 100m. The ballistics testing conducted for the selection of military rifles and suitable matching ammunition evaluates this specifically, among other things. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 The science of ballistics is far more involved than an entertainment show presented by two special effects guys, with a bunch of side kicks, one who is an electrical engineer, the rest being tradespeople or TV presenters. Whilst entertaining and having some basis to their experiments, the control conditions for a lot of the experiments hardly gives rise to scientific fact or proof.....often big on bang, but lacking in substance. It just goes to prove you should never believe everything you see on TV or read in the written press. Oh absolutely. MythBusters is purely entertainment. As I said "not that they always get it right". The "frozen chickens penetrating glass easier than thawed" episode was a prime example. The first time they visited it they labelled it busted. Those of us in the UK however, are well aware that frozen chickens do indeed penetrate glass better than thawed chickens. British Rail famously messed up by firing frozen chickens at their advanced passenger train windshields. They were attempting to copy the aviation industry. Unfortunately they were unaware that the frozen chickens should have been thawed before testing. You would think MythBusters common sense would have told them that a soft chicken would absorb the impact better. Very much like the crumple zone of a car. They reclassified it "plausible". Should have been confirmed. As for ballistics, had to listen to plenty of that as a kid. My father was a marksman in the army. Incredible shot he was. He was also very well versed in the subject. You could say, that despite living in the UK, I grew up to the sound of gunfire. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Well I've made my decision, if I see a drone flying overhead I am going to throw a frozen chicken at it. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Have you considered a butterfly net? Actually, there are a lot of innovative ways to go at this, garden hose; potato gun; cast net; tennis raquet; Nerf gun; bottle rockets; water rocket; lawn darts; javelin; ultrasonic (silent) dog whistle (might screw up the obstacle avoidance detectors); canned string; bow and arrow, with or without twine attached; spear gun or harpoon; paintball gun; air rifle. Some would require more skill (or luck) than others; some will have a longer range or be more effective than others but all would be fun and might have a deterrent effect. Maybe employing some of these, even if unsuccessful, will make him go bother someone else instead. Necessity is the mother of invention. Martin's idea of another drone could be much simpler than his examples - just having yours trailing about 20' of stout twine with a treble-hook at the bottom and a break-away section at the top would be all you'd need. Drag it across him and he's toast. It would be great fun to watch if you could hook one in a way that he could still fly but couldn't break the tether. When he runs out of battery, it's yours, undamaged, to have your photo taken with, destroy and post the video to YouTube, mount on your wall, extract fingerprints from or maybe even collect ransom for. John Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I'm having a good chuckle reading all these posts and I know we started taking about Amazon's drone tech but I was wondering if anyone has had problems with these hobby drones and do they find it an annoyance if the neighbors kid is flying over or around your home. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Quote In such a case as a vacuum, independent of mass, that terminal velocity is 32 ft/s (not squared). One minor correction here. The terminal velocity in a vacuum is related to how far it is free to fall. Velocity increases by another 32 ft/sec for each second it falls. Velocity at 1 second is 32 ft/sec. Velocity after 2 seconds is 64 ft/sec. Velocity at 3 seconds is 96 ft/sec. The velocity will continue to increase without limit at the rate of 32 ft/sec/sec until it runs out of space to free fall in. The velocity could get very high if it were contained in a tall enough evacuated vertical cylinder. John Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 A trebuchet with a large cast net sounds like it might be fun. John Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 This is becoming my new favorite thread. I love all the anti-drone solutions you all are coming up with. Seriously, this could replace big game hunting, or open up a version of it for people adverse to killing things. Link to post Share on other sites
MyPC8MyBrain 273 Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 a simple GPS or Wi-Fi jammer should drop the drone from the sky like a rock or send it back home Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 943 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 In such a case as a vacuum, independent of mass, that terminal velocity is 32 ft/s (not squared).One minor correction here. The terminal velocity in a vacuum is related to how far it is free to fall. Velocity increases by another 32 ft/sec for each second it falls. Velocity at 1 second is 32 ft/sec. Velocity after 2 seconds is 64 ft/sec. Velocity at 3 seconds is 96 ft/sec. The velocity will continue to increase without limit at the rate of 32 ft/sec/sec until it runs out of space to free fall in. The velocity could get very high if it were contained in a tall enough evacuated vertical cylinder.John John, This implies acceleration is acting on the object continuously. In a vacuum, and independent of the mass of the object, other than from the initial force, without any gravitational force, or any other force acting on the object, it cannot accelerate. However, the energy of any such initial force in a vacuum will eventually dissipate. Terminal velocity is reached when speed is constant. In a vacuum, an object will initially accelerate at 32 ft/s2, up to a speed of 32 ft/s, and then remain constant. To your point, "...The velocity will continue to increase without limit at the rate of 32 ft/s2 until it runs out of space to free fall in...", even in the Earth's atmosphere, an object in free fall will ultimately stop accelerating, thus reaching its specific terminal velocity. Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 943 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I'm starting to practice for when they arrive. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now