Results from the RAC 2021 Survey

In this brief article, I focus on how much transmit power is typically used on the HF and microwave bands. Survey respondents were asked about what they consider “typical” usage although these settings can certainly be different at any given operation. The results do give the reader a picture of how amplifiers are used on these two broad segments of band allocations by Canadian ham operators.

In Figure 1 (click for larger image), the maximum power used to transmit on 160-6 meters is displayed in a pie chart. Although many may not agree that 10 watts is QRP power, we are using that convention here. About three-fourths of the survey respondents say they use between 10 and 150 watts in a typical transmission. This is a wide gap in RF power. However, it is a range that places operators between QRP and what many of today’s HF transceivers will output. Some 17 percent use over 150 watts, perhaps up to their license limit. Only 7 percent report that they use QRP levels at less than 10 watts. These responses are not contingent on the mode of transmission.

Turning to the VHF and UHF bands, Figure 2 summarizes the typical power used in Canada. A similar pattern occurs as in HF and six-meter operation. Just under three-fourths (71%) use between 10-150 watts on a regular basis. A small slice, some 2 percent, report over 150 watts. About one-fourth (27%) say that less than 10 watts is what they typically use in these bands.

In both HF and the VHF/UHF frequency bands, only a small proportion say they use amplifiers to reach over the 150-watt RF power mark. There is a small but notable share using what we’ve termed QRP levels in HF (7%). A decidedly larger share use above QRP levels in VHF or UHF bands (27%). For many hams, this is very understandable, given the most popular band of 2 Meters (92%). But operations on HF using a 10-watt definition of QRP are much smaller.

The power utilized in the microwave bands reflects a very different picture. Figure 3 displays two box plots to illustrate. As shown in previous articles on this blog, microwave band usage is a niche activity within Canadian ham radio. Fewer than 10 percent report any activity but these spent quite a bit of time on these frequencies. Likewise, the boxplot in the left panel of Figure 3 illustrates the small number of microwave aficionados who use high power. (This is power in watts without consideration of antenna gain.)

In the right panel, I’ve reproduced the left-hand panel’s data in watts into a logged form to allow readers to more closely see the lower power portion of the distribution. The log of the power in watts places less emphasis in the smaller frequencies at the extreme power levels. The average power usage is 40 watts with a majority under 100 watts of power. This is not the power level emitted from the antenna with is buoyed by the relative gain of the antenna.

I examined these transmitter power reports by province, age group and license class. There was not much meaningful variation in those data apart from the differences in reported activities on microwave bands. In part, this is the limitation I mentioned of the small number of extreme values in the upper power range. The specialization of using high power in the microwave frequencies is a small number of Canadian hams, at least in this survey. It would take a new sampling design to “over sample” hams who are microwave users to get a more reliable estimate of the higher power ranges in use.

In summary, power output in Canadian amateur radio operations tends to reflect the output of the transceiver on HF bands. There is a wide variation in the category but this is a reasonable conclusion. QRP use is a bit smaller than I expected, given the popularity of portable operations (37%). But this reminds us that not all portable operations use low power. There is innovation in a small group of microwave operators. They use a significant amount of power. A later article will examine reported gain in antennas used in this band. As the microwave bands become more routinized in the hobby, these pioneering leaders will have laid a path for others to follow.

Amateur Radio Fun in the Colorado Mountains
August 2 through 5, 2024
www.ham14er.org

The post 2024 Colorado 14er Event (SOTA) appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

Ham College episode 115 is now available for download.

Ham College 115
Technician Exam Questions Part 2.
T1B – Frequency allocations, Emission modes, Spectrum sharing, Transmissions near band edges, Contacting the International Space Station, Power output.

Download
YouTube

In this episode, we join Martin Butler M1MRB, Chris Howard (M0TCH), Martin Rothwell (M0SGL), Frank Howell (K4FMH), Bill Barnes (WC3B) and Leslie Butterfields (G0CIB) to discuss the latest Amateur / Ham Radio news. Colin Butler (M6BOY) rounds up the news in brief and the episode's feature a discussion on Behind the Scenes of an Amateur / Ham Radio Special Event Station.

We would like to thank D Renton, Roy Jones, Frank Westphal (k6fw1), Simon Wilton (VA3SII and G7HCD), Denny Morrison (GM1BAN), Stephen Leeman (sm5yra), John R Stengel (W8UC) and our monthly and annual subscription donors for keeping the podcast advert free. To donate, please visit - http://www.icqpodcast.com/donate

• ARRL on The Weather Channel
• Band Use by Canadian Hams: Results from the national RAC Survey 2021
• ARRL Board Completes 2024 Second Meeting, Approves Report to Advance a 3-Year Strategy
• First M17 Based Radios Begin Shipping
• From Hackers to Hams? Sure!
• Broadcasters Grapple With Global IT Outage
• RSGB Convention Update 2024
• International Dog Day Special Event Highlights Need for Rescue Efforts
• Telford Hamfest

News Flash: I found a cheap economical VHF/UHF handheld that I really like. The TIDRADIO TD-H3 is getting a lot of attention from YouTube reviewers. You can think of this as an improved Baofeng UV-5R, with a few key features that grabbed my attention:

Improved Look and Feel: This radio looks like a quality product, much improved over the plastic Lego-style industrial design of the Baofeng radios. It feels and looks solid in my hand. The rubber duck antenna seems higher quality although I haven’t tested its performance.

One Radio, Three Modes: The firmware can be set to operate in three distinct configurations: Ham (transmit on 2m and 70cm ham bands only), GMRS (standard FCC Part 95 GMRS channels) and Normal (which is basically unlocked). You can easily switch between these modes but the memory information does get reset. So in most cases, you will need to reprogram the radio with your favorite frequencies after you change modes. The exception might be GMRS mode which will reset to standard GMRS channels. The flexibility of these three configurations is quite nice: The Ham configuration is great for normal ham operating with no risk of going “out of band.” I can loan out the radio in the GMRS configuration knowing that the user won’t inadvertently transmit on the ham bands. And, of course, the Normal mode provides access to a wide range of frequencies, to be used carefully, abiding by the relevant regulations.

USB-C Connectors: The radio battery has a USB-C connector for charging and a USB-C connector for programming (with Chirp or the TIDRADIO app). This may seem minor, but using a common industry-standard connector is a huge convenience factor. For example, I recently packed my gear for a trip and found that the USB cables I normally carry for my smartphone and tablet will handle the TD-H3 just fine. So there is no need for a drop-in cradle, extra charger or special programming cable.

Video Reviews

Apparently, TIDRADIO gave away a gazzillion radios to ham radio Youtubers and asked them to review the radio, so you’ll find many reviews out there. This one gives a good overview of the radio’s capabilities:

This radio is not quite the One Radio To Rule Them All, primarily because it won’t be convenient to switch between configurations. However, the radio is legal for GMRS and ham use, so that is definitely a plus. Will the FCC object to this kind of flexibility? Who knows, but they haven’t so far.

This video from KS6DAY shows how to switch between the three radio configurations:

Some Problems

Early on, several Youtube reviewers reported high spurious emissions coming from the radio. They fed this information back to TIDRADIO, who responded with a design change and some updated radios to test. They appear to have corrected this problem…the three radios in my possession tested out fine. There have also been some complaints about how a few features work and TIDRADIO has responded with a firmware upgrade to address those issues. So we can give TIDRADIO a good grade for responsiveness but poor marks for releasing a product that was not completely baked. Unfortunately, there are many videos in the etherwebz claiming the radio has problems and it is a challenge to sort through the actual situation today.

To become familiar with the radio, KS6DAY has a series of videos that explain how to use the radio. Lots of good information here:

Summary

As I mentioned, I have three of these radios and may be going back for more. For me, they fit the role of that “spare radio” that is kept in my vehicle, loaned out to other people, or just stored away for When All Else Fails.

73 Bob K0NR

The post TD-H3 VHF/UHF Radio appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

Results from the RAC 2021 Survey

What modes of transmission are used in various amateur radio bands? We are aware of the stalwarts of SSB or CW on HF, FM on two meters, and so forth. But some still use AM and there’s the various digital modes, like the venerable RTTY. The weak signal modes implemented under the WSJT-X software (FT8 etc.) have seemed to exploded on the bands. But where? And in what share of reported use by amateur operators?

In this article, I present some of the reported modulation modes used in specific groups of bands for Canadian amateur operators. The mode distribution by band is shown in a pie chart with the percent usage for each band. (Click on the graphic for a larger image.) This allows the reader to quickly identify where a specific mode is used and how diverse modes are for a given band allocation. This depiction does not show how much a mode is used in terms of time, only how the mode’s reported use is distributed across bands.

As a convenience to readers, I have reproduced the bar graph illustrating the percent of Canadian hams reporting the use of each band in an appendix below for quick reference.

In Figure 1, AM and SSB modulation find their traditional bands. One half of the AM use resides in the 80- to 10-meter bands. It is used to a lesser extent in 160-meters, 2-meters and 6-meters with sparse usage in the remaining band allocations. There are contests organized around two meters which may well create some of that use as well as SOTA and related operations. The Magic Band of six meters is open for distance seasonally and sporadically within and outside that season. The use there is likely predicated on the propagation eccentricities of six meters. The microwave bands have small use of AM. Recalling the smaller segment of hams operating in these bands (see appendix), this use may be ardently deployed by a smaller number of active amateurs there.

The use of single sideband usage is unsurprisingly dominated by the 80-10 meter HF bands with six meters coming in a distant second. The six meter and 160 meter bands come in next at 19 and 14 percent, respectively. This is followed closely by two meters (13%). These figures tend to decline sequentially as the frequency band increases. SSB is a frequently used mode, largely in frequency bands that are fairly known to active ham operators.

Turning to the use of CW, it is an original mode for the radio amateur. There are many, many debates as to the status of how much Morse Code is used on the ham bands today. For the first time, this national survey documents both how many hams say they use CW (32%) and where they use it as shown here in this article. As displayed in Figure 2, CW is used in several bands, dominated by HF (80-10 meters) at just over one-third (35%). Two bands bookending HF finds CW a common mode: 160- and 6-meters. This mode’s usage drops off precipitously in the 70cm band, 900 MHz, and 10 GHz bands. These are followed by the 1.2 GHz band with the rest having nominal CW activity reported in this survey.

These national survey results should serve as a benchmark—along with the share of hams reporting the use of CW in the appendix—for future discussions of the status of CW operations, at least in Canada.

The rise of digital data modes (especially the wildly popular FT8) is confirmed in this national survey of hams. Some inferences can be made using signal spots (like PSKreporter) of specific transmissions and reception circuits but they do not represent the broad population of all ham operators, only signals over a transient period. The HF bands, from 80 to 10-meters, are used with digital data modes by over one-third (35%). This is followed by 6 meters (15%) and 160-meters (12%) as well as 2-meters (12%). There is nominal to significant digital data mode use on the rest of these band allocations as well. The 70cm band has, for instance, 6 percent of these amateurs using digital data modes there. Thus, digital data modes are a significant means of communicating in most all of the amateur band allocations for Canada. While HF and nearby frequencies are the prominent areas, it is only 24 GHz that show no reported digital data mode activity as of 2021.

The uses of a modern digital voice mode as well as a traditional data mode, RTTY, are summarized in Figure 3. It is no surprise to the reader who is active on 2 meter and 70cm repeaters that some 85 percent of the relative digital voice usage across bands is concentrated here. The 2-meter band has 44% while the 70cm band has 41% of digital voice use in Canada. The rest reflect nominal patterns, such as the 4 percent with digital voice operations in the 6-meter segment. These specific digital modes (DStar, etc.) are not broken out separately in this survey. The picture of where digital voice modes are used is rather clear in these results.

The traditional data mode of RTTY remains largely an HF-centered transmission style. The 80- to 10-meter bands garner almost three-fourths (71%) with the 160-meter band trailing far behind in second place at 15 percent. The remainder trail off as the frequency goes up the spectrum. RTTY is still used, perhaps during RTTY-allowed contests, but it is used almost wholly on HF and 160 meters.

The final transmission mode presented in this article is slow-scan television (SSTV). Figure 4 contains these results. Like RTTY, it’s largely an HF use pattern (52%). However, for SSTV, two meters has almost a third (31%) of the traffic in this mode. The 70cm band follows (8%) with six-meters right behind (6%). The 1.2 GHz band, gaining in popularity due to more commercial equipment being available, is used by 1 percent. The other slivers in this pie chart round down to zero percent but it does reflect small numbers of microwave-oriented ham operators making use of the spectrum. Will that grow? It will take another replication of this survey a few years in the future to determine if that prospective growth is measurable in such a broad survey like this.

Conclusions

Transmission modes in Canada largely conform to what many readers would expect for the traditional modes of SSB and AM. CW use may be somewhat surprising but should be compared to the prevalence of CW usage by Canadian operators (see appendix). The use of digital voice and data modes is much more diverse in some ways. Digital voice has taken flight on both repeaters but particularly the small, inexpensive “hotspots” that operate via the Internet to connect local operators to other repeater systems worldwide. Digital data modes have exploded through the proliferation of the WSJT-X software and it’s variants. Many hams in the public sphere decry the use of, for instance, FT8, over using voice or CW modes. However, it has made many bands more active as can be seen by others analyzing the online databases of observations such as WSPR, PSKReporter, and the RBN sites. Such is how behavioral change occurs in large, moderately organized groups like amateur radio. It is the collective behavior that shapes the usage of a technological innovation like weak-signal modes and such.

My overall assessment of these results is that the Canadian ham bands are both stable, in the main, and innovating in some frequency bands. I say this partly because the microwave regions have a pluralistic set of modes in use today. This is undoubtedly the result of experimentation as well as competitive contesting or DXing activities. The combination of modes plays well into the future growth of both the operational efficiency as well as the market development for commercial products. The recent release by Icom of their IC-905 transceiver is a case in point.

I hasten to note this. Some readers will invariably say, “But I don’t see that [result]…” Sure, an individual ham operator’s observations either on the bands or elsewhere are a relatively unique way of gathering observations. They are not consistent across observations as people look at the world in differing ways. And, they do not garner insight into a collective national view of what is consistently obtained in a large-scale survey such as that for the RAC Survey 2021. Please bear that in mind with regard to these results as you read them.

Appendix: Band Usage Bar Chart from Full Report