Good for you! Use what you have, do what you gotta do with what is available. One reason I like working POTA (and SOTA) stations is that so many of them are using compromise antennas!
Big deal. Who are these OM you speak of here on the Zed??? Any antenna will work to some extent especially in the upside of the solar cycle. More clickbait from the youtubers. Here's a better youtube video showing antennas work to some extent buried....
Having fun with ham radio. Just barely buried in the band on a beach very near seawater.... I would say it was surface laid and was assisted by the seawater just underneath. Thanks for sharing the link, seems this OP is enjoying their time at the beach. related: Useful radiation from an underground antenna (nist.gov) Bonny Crystal, KQ6XA, has done some work on these as well. She is also active with the ARRL, Amateur Radio, Federal Government Engaged in Joint 5 MHz Communication Exercise (arrl.org) Bonnie was quite active in cave radio as well -- deep underground antennas - like this: 2005_NSSNews_63_Knutson.pdf (cuevasdelperu.org)
I thought the video and activation were great. I like to OP outdoors and enjoy wilderness adventures. Operating with a minimal amount of a kit and chasing the miles per watt game is great fun and challenge. Thanks Tim.
Not an underground antenna. It is a surface antenna. KL7KN is correct about the salty water table--3-10 feet below?-- acting as a partial reflector, while the antenna is in a dry air/sand composite dielectric. The side-- low angle transmission is likely aided by a pseudo Brewster angle with the sea.
Experiments such as this are an invitation, for some, to understanding the physics of what's going on. But there is no new physics here. Substantial fall off angle is producing the desired effect.
agreed.... but it must also be understood that as good as our current antenna theory goes, it is still not perfected for each and every variable, site contion, and operational requirement. For years, all of our calculations were based on the Chu-Wheeler equations.... until a researcher discovered that they have flaws related to efficiency and radiator size. By that time they were so entrenched in ham radio, and radio in general, that the mere mention that they were flawed led to all sorts of arguments which are still ongoing today. So you are right in that there is no new physics, but there are still concepts and ideas that we don't fully appreciate yet. Every now and then, something comes along that performs better (or worse) than the current accepted theory allows..... and then the arguments start up.
I disagree. There was nothing new to be learned here. The ANTENNA HANDBOOK goes through much of this. The enablement of the installation is caused by angular fall off of the ground. The WHeeler-Chu limit is very real, with high efficiency in electrically small antennas limiting BW to a very high Q. However, melded adjacent resonances , such as with use of fractals, broaden out the useable bandwidth so it LOOKS like the Wheeler-Chu limit is exceeded. But that is another topic, which is not tied into the OP. 73 Chip W1YW
What makes any antenna work is that all antennas work. The question is, "How well for the intended purpose?" That's set by physics: Communication depends on the orderliness of the transmitted signal being sufficiently distinguishable from the disorderliness of noise at and in the receiver. Oh, and the fact that all signals travel exactly the same distance: In time, every emitted signal passes through the entire universe. So even a low antenna, even a buried antenna, emitting quite low-power RF will emit a signal that at some points will be sufficiently distinguishable from noise at/in the receiver to support communication. Add the processing gain available through use of a modern communications protocol enacted through sound DSP techniques, and you can communicate even farther. The above said, this thread does not dig deeply enough into the subject of buried antennas. Luckily, Larsen E. Rapp, WIOU, one of amateur radio's Great Technical Greats, got there first with his publication in April 1957 QST of "A Compact All-Band Antenna" -- read it and wipe. A sample:
The only problem is that when some people read BS like that, they take it seriously and repeat it, but they repeat it in places other than the April (fools) issue of QST, where most people know that it's in jest.
