Neat idea, need to investigate how targeted the disruption is. You can do a lot with very little power and noise by doing targeted disruption. EG target the sync window.
The 30m range to me indicates they might just be trying to blast noise on all 2.4 given the called out applications.
I could see this being useful to test the resiliency of RC control links. Some modern links operate below the noise floor, but can dynamically scale up power to 2w. They might be able to punch through just overpowering the jammer.
Could be useful to simulate a very high noise floor environment or flying around something that has a lot of spurious emissions.
Recently was flying a drone around an oil rig in Ohio. Now using a loRa based RC control link. This is the first time I didn't have any issues with dropped connection compared to previous control link systems.
I would love to test it out in the lab first to have higher confidence in the field.
InTheBarn
Projects like this often refer to them being "For educational purposes."
I presume the "education" is the user learning how the legal system works, the laws that get applied when they are caught and the typical fines imposed.
btreecat
> Projects like this often refer to them being "For educational purposes." > > I presume the "education" is the user learning how the legal system works, the laws that get applied when they are caught and the typical fines imposed.
Sure that could be part of it, learning the laws is certainly part of getting your ham ticket.
But let's step back from a less snoody POV, and view it from another angle.
In your own home, it's fully legal to experiment with RF if you have a ham ticket, provided you don't cause destructive interference to _others_.
Jamming yourself, is like hacking your own wifi, you are not technically interfering with communication. Under the rules that you are allowed to manufacturer your own RF equipment provided you don't cause destructive interference with authorized transmission.
lucyjojo
depends on the country.
mfkp
Would potentially be useful when walking through grocery stores etc. that track your precise location and shopping habits through bluetooth beacons.
Or just leave your phone in the car and pay with cash...
> This can be completely turned off in scanning settings. The article title is kind of clickbaity.
Okay, one extra setting and you're good. (Yes, that's not great, but if it works then it works)
pixelpoet
That's the loudest readme I've read in a while, every other sentence ends in an exclamation mark!
amatecha
I wish these were legal. I do a lot of hiking in forest/mountain trails and it gets SUPER old having someone going along the trail bumping some loud music on a big Bluetooth speaker in their bag. Like, really? Get some earbuds and cut that shit out please. I came to nature to be in nature, not to listen to the latest hardstyle tracks emanating from some dude's backpack. I don't really see why I shouldn't be able to RF jam that shit since they're apparently allowed to jam my earbuds with their acoustic interference.
btreecat
> I wish these were legal.
May I assume you _always_ drive within the speed limit?
Context matters when we personally evaluate legality and use that as a moral justification to do or not do something.
wpm
Just do it?
Some dipshit blasting music in the mountains isn’t going to call the FCC on you.
Incipient
Depending on the range/power, I'd be INCREDIBLY CAREFUL of disrupting emergency services.
I haven't researched into what effect it could have, but I'd definitely check first.
If it was safe...then it's definitely less likely to get you in trouble than stomping the 'dipshits' speaker into scrap!
btreecat
> Depending on the range/power, I'd be INCREDIBLY CAREFUL of disrupting emergency services.
What emergency services are you contacting with Bluetooth or wifi (or any 2.4ghz signal) when out on a hike?
robotburrito
This would be quite useful for taking out people who use Bluetooth speakers on hiking trails :)
wtcactus
This might be illegal, but in my country, having loudspeakers on the beach or public transportation is also illegal (carrying heavy fines) and the police doesn’t seem to care at all.
So, I’m probably going to make myself one of these and carry it to the beach at least when I take my toddler.
phplovesong
Souce code seems missing
BonoboIO
So this would be the brute force solution for people who are running their Bluetooth speakers on full blast in public spaces.
Havoc
This would knock out wifi too, right?
tylerflick
2.4 Ghz, yes.
lgleason
These are illegal in most countries.
pixelpoet
As noted in all-caps with exclamation mark, right at the top.
The 30m range to me indicates they might just be trying to blast noise on all 2.4 given the called out applications.
I could see this being useful to test the resiliency of RC control links. Some modern links operate below the noise floor, but can dynamically scale up power to 2w. They might be able to punch through just overpowering the jammer.
Could be useful to simulate a very high noise floor environment or flying around something that has a lot of spurious emissions.
Recently was flying a drone around an oil rig in Ohio. Now using a loRa based RC control link. This is the first time I didn't have any issues with dropped connection compared to previous control link systems.
I would love to test it out in the lab first to have higher confidence in the field.
I presume the "education" is the user learning how the legal system works, the laws that get applied when they are caught and the typical fines imposed.
Sure that could be part of it, learning the laws is certainly part of getting your ham ticket.
But let's step back from a less snoody POV, and view it from another angle.
In your own home, it's fully legal to experiment with RF if you have a ham ticket, provided you don't cause destructive interference to _others_.
Jamming yourself, is like hacking your own wifi, you are not technically interfering with communication. Under the rules that you are allowed to manufacturer your own RF equipment provided you don't cause destructive interference with authorized transmission.
Or just leave your phone in the car and pay with cash...
Okay, one extra setting and you're good. (Yes, that's not great, but if it works then it works)
May I assume you _always_ drive within the speed limit?
Context matters when we personally evaluate legality and use that as a moral justification to do or not do something.
Some dipshit blasting music in the mountains isn’t going to call the FCC on you.
I haven't researched into what effect it could have, but I'd definitely check first.
If it was safe...then it's definitely less likely to get you in trouble than stomping the 'dipshits' speaker into scrap!
What emergency services are you contacting with Bluetooth or wifi (or any 2.4ghz signal) when out on a hike?
So, I’m probably going to make myself one of these and carry it to the beach at least when I take my toddler.