TD-H3 VHF/UHF Radio

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.


Bob Witte, KØNR, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Colorado, USA. Contact him at [email protected].

Mode Use by Band Allocation in Canada

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


Frank Howell, K4FMH, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Mississippi, USA. Contact him at [email protected].

LHS Episode #549: Ham Exam Prep Deep Dive

Hello and welcome to the 549th installment of Linux in the Ham Shack. In this deep dive episode, the hosts go over their own personal histories with studying for the various amateur radio exams. Also discussed are open source software and other online resources for learning information and techniques for passing your ham radio tests. Then we try to pass the exams again as licensed hams. Hilarity ensues. We hope to hear you on the air soon and we also hope you have a great week.

73 de The LHS Crew


Russ Woodman, K5TUX, co-hosts the Linux in the Ham Shack podcast which is available for download in both MP3 and OGG audio format. Contact him at [email protected].

Finding Your Best Crystal Radio ‘DX Diode’


Over the past few weeks I’ve had time to examine many dozens of diodes, mostly germanium, in my crystal radio diode collection. Many of them were removed from equipment built in the '50s and '60s (old diode matrix boards), some are vintage NIB 1N34As while others are modern SMD Schottky style diodes.

 
There are numerous excellent websites such as this one by Dick Kleijer or  SV3ORA's site  ... all describing elaborate ways to determine which diode is ‘the best one’ (the holy grail diode!) for crystal radio work. Most methods use a vigorous, somewhat complex test procedure plus a lot of math, most of which is well beyond my old brain, in attempts to flesh out each diode’s inherent characteristics ... as the sites referenced above illustrate, the simple appearance of a crystal diode belies its complexity and determining  diode behaviours can be more challenging than one might suspect.

My testing procedures were much more basic, and in the end, may hopefully reveal the best diode in my collection. I think one needs to undertake this with the understanding that there really is no overall ‘best' crystal radio diode but rather, only a diode that is best for your particular system and what works best in my system may not necessarily be the best one in yours.
 
My plan was to measure a few diode behaviors, shrink the list of candidates and then compare them against each other in my system's high-Q tank circuit.
 



My first step was to measure Vf or the forward voltage needed to ‘turn the diode on’. This can usually be determined to reasonable accuracy by using the diode test function on most digital multimeters. I’ve always supposed that the diode with the lowest Vf  turn-on threshold would probably be the most sensitive, but is it the only factor? Hopefully my tests would indicate if anything else is in play.
 
The next task was to determine the minimum signal level of a 1000 Hz modulated carrier on 1400 kHz that could be detected by each candidate diode. An RF probe was used to measure the level of signal capacitively coupled into my crystal radio’s antenna tuning stage which was then lightly coupled  into the detector stage, using the diode under test. No importance was given to the actual base level of this signal other than to note the level at which it could first be detected by ear (using sound powered phones) and making sure the coupling distance between stages remained the same for all diodes under test. This allowed me to compare weak-signal diode ‘sensitivity’ to the diode’s previously measured turn-on point or Vf value. Would the diode with the lowest Vf also be the most sensitive when used in a detector circuit composed of complex impedance, resistance, reactance and capacitance values that the test diode would be looking into?
 
The RF signal coupling was adjusted so the injected carrier could be varied between 0 and 10mV as measured on the RF probe. For each diode, the signal level was slowly increased from ‘0’ until the 1400kHz tone-modulated AM signal could first be detected.
 
The lowest 'first detected' signal level was .6mV while the highest level required 3.4mV, representing a pretty good range of diode behaviours. There were 49 different diodes in the test pool.
 
Four of the 49 diodes detected the .6mV signal, six detected the signal at .7mV, and nine first detected the signal at .8mV. The remainder required a still higher level of injected signal. The average level of first detection was 1.2 mV.
 
Of the four .6mV ‘best detectors’, their turn-on Vf values ranged from .15V to .38V while the .7mV and .8mV detectors had a Vf between .181V and .40V!
 
It seemed, not surprisingly, that generally the higher the Vf turn-on threshold, the greater was the level of signal injection needed for first detection … but evidently using the Vf value alone to determine the ‘best diode’ was not the hard axiom I had always assumed it to be!
 
Since a low Vf was not necessarily needed for good sensitivity, would there by any other tests that might indicate best performance?
 
The next trial was to measure actual diode currents in my hi-Q detector while receiving a lightly-coupled constant level input signal (1400kHz) to see how this value related to Vf. Measured diode currents (Id) varied from 9uA to 14uA for the same level of input signal, with the diode having the lowest Vf also producing the lowest current level ... hhhm! There was more to this than I expected, but generally, the lower valued Vf diodes tended to produce the most current and consequently the louder headphone signal … but not always! Some diodes with a Vf as high as .46V yielded high currents!
 
This now begged the question, “Does the higher current diode with a higher turn on (Vf) prove to be a better overall performer than the diode that turns-on early but produces a weaker signal?” What is the relationship between diode current and weak signal detection?
 
The next step was to express the relationship mathematically by calculating the ratio between the diode’s Vf and the level of diode current  (Id) measured in the previous test (Id / Vf). Each diode could then be assigned a number (Vdx) that might possibly indicate it’s true performance potential in my own system.

The diodes with the highest Vdx values would then be A-B tested under real receive conditions to see if any (or just one!) particular winner(s) might emerge … and if Vf was as critical as initially believed.
 

The Vdx values proved most interesting and seemed to account for some of the anomalies noted in earlier measurements with some of the higher Vdx values coming from diodes not necessarily with a low Vf. I’m hoping that this sorting concept properly takes into account both turn-on level (Vf) and current level (Id), since a higher level in either number will compensate for a lower level in the other. Vdx values ranged from 23 to 66, with seven diodes in the higher 53-66 range.



Click Image For Larger View


All of the 49 diode's test parameters were put onto a spreadsheet and listed in order of their Vdx value.


Click Image For Diode Spreadsheet Data


The highest Vdx assignment of 66 went to my 40-year junkbox resident, a JHS Sylvania 1N3655A microwave mixer diode. It will be interesting to see if it really is the best of the lot! Although it did not produce the loudest signal (Id) compared with others, its Vf turn-on was an impressive .181V and its weak-signal detection level was good although not the lowest. A couple of the UHF diodes exhibited the interesting behaviour of picking up the UHF data stream 'clicks' from my nearby wifi booster. The 1N3655A was one of them.
 
1N3655A Vf = .181V Id = 12uA Vdx = 66
   

Diode #2, with a Vdx of 62, is a mystery diode with a very low Vf of .197V. It was slightly louder and oddly enough, dug down slightly further than the 1N3655A, which had a slightly lower Vf. Although I don’t recall specifically, I suspect the diode may have been removed from a VCR front end many years ago.
 

Mystery diode  Vf =.197V  Id = 12.2uA Vdx = 62
 

Diode #3 with a Vdx of 61 is a modern SMS7630 Schottky microwave detector diode in an SMD package. Although it did not produce a competitive level of loudness (Id) in the diode current test, its shockingly low Vf turn-on of .147V and weak-signal detection threshold were the best of all diodes tested. Before testing, all SMD diodes were mounted on small PC boards in order to attach leads.
 

SMS7630 Schottky  Vf = .147V  Id = 9uA Vdx = 61


Diode #4 (Vdx of 60) is an ISS98, another modern Schottky microwave detector. I recall seeing this diode recommended for good performance in an FM crystal radio detector. Its sensitivity level was excellent.
 

ISS98 Schottky Vf = .211V  Id = 12.5uA Vdx = 60


Diode #5 (also with a Vdx of 60) appears to be a normal germanium of unknown type. I suspect it was used as an RF mixer since it was found on a small printed circuit board with three others, connected in a diode ring configuration typically seen in balanced RF mixers. It produced high current as well as good weak signal capability. 
 

Mystery diode Vf = .22  Id = 13.2uA Vdx = 60


Diode #6 (Vdx of 55) also looks like a germanium of unknown type with a body striping of gray-white-green-gray. If the last band is ignored, this could be a 1N895, a UHF germanium diode. It shows the typical internal cat-whisker type of junction often seen on the 1N34 germaniums.
 

Mystery diode Vf = .238V  Id = 13uA Vdx = 55


Diode #7 with a Vdx of 53 is marked as a ‘95481’ on a green body. It had excellent sensitivity and produced a strong signal (Id), elevating it to the top tier to be looked at more closely.


'95481'  Vf = .246V  Id = 13uA Vdx = 53


Diode #8, another germanium mystery, earned a Vdx of 49 due to its fairly high Id level.



Black 'T'. Vf = .258V  Id = 12.5uA  Vdx = 49


The rather beat-up looking Diode #9 is marked with what appear to be house numbers, '1846' and '6628'. I believe this was pulled from an old portable radio's FM section many years ago. Interestingly, like some of the UHF mixer diodes, '1846 / 6628' detects my high speed modem data stream clicks. Additionally, this tortured specimen produced the highest level of signal among all 49 diodes, with an Id of 14uA.


Vf = .294V  Vdx = 48 Vdx = 14 (Schottky?)


Diode #10 appears to be the brother of Diode #8 with a Vdx of 48. Although it has a lower turn-on point and was a better weak signal detector, it did not produce as much Id as its sibling, dropping it one notch lower on the list. Like its brother, it also has the mystery 'T' marking. Both are most likely unmarked 1N34As.

Vf = .252V  Id = 12 Vdx = 48


As well, three other diodes garnered my interest. Although they ranked lower than I expected, all had previously been found to be good detectors in my system. Their lower ranking may be a hint that my system of grading is not a valid method of determining best performance. All three will be given a harder look in the upcoming elimination tests.

The first is the germanium FO-215. Often touted as 'the holy grail' crystal radio diode but I have never found it to be particularly outstanding. Maybe my system has a lower Q than it really needs in order to show its stuff. This diode is shown on the bar graph above as #11. During testing, it appeared much less capable of weak signal detection than most others but its low Vf and high Id elevated its overall ranking.

Vf = .272V  Id = 13uA  Vdx = 48


The second diode is the Soviet-era D18, a military-grade germanium in a glass '50s-style package. I have previously found it to be a very good detector but its high turn-on level lowered its ranking. The D18 appears on the bar graph as #12.



Vf = .366V  Id = 12.2uA Vdx = 33


The third diode is a vintage Sylvania 1N34 from the 50s and likely one of the first 1N34s to be manufactured. Although it produces a loud signal, its Vf was higher than expected. As I recall, it was salvaged from an old parted-out Heathkit.  It appears on the bar graph as #13.


Vf = .335V  Id = 13uA  Vdx = 39


As mentioned earlier, one can measure and calculate a large amount of data for crystal diodes while they sit passively on the bench but they really need to be mounted, tested and compared in the actual system in which they will be used. Comparing diodes 'A-B' style in real time with weak signals may be better than any measurements made on a diode being bench-tested. 

Will a new ‘holy-grail’ emerge from the pile? This type of testing requires a lot of careful listening so time will tell. 

Testing will be ongoing over the summer / fall months ... stay tuned for the final results, hopefully in time for the fall DX season!

Steve McDonald, VE7SL, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from British Columbia, Canada. Contact him at [email protected].

Amateur Radio Weekly – Issue 340

Amateur Radio Weekly

Are hackers the future of Amateur Radio?
Shaking off an image of being the exclusive preserve of old men with shiny radios talking about old times remains a challenge.
Hackaday

Amateur Radio Newsline announces Young Ham of the Year
Grace has been a regular presenter at the Youth Forum at Dayton Hamvention.
Amateur Radio Daily

International Dog Day special event
Calling attention to the urgent needs of abandoned, abused, neglected and homeless dogs by operating special event stations in Europe and the US.
International Dog Day

Understanding repeater speak
All that jargon that Hams use can seem like a foreign language to those who have had little exposure to Amateur Radio.
OnAllBands

Ham Radio call signs discovered during university renovation
Alumni recall making infinite connections around the world.
Lehigh University

FCC hits 13 landlords in NYC metro area with pirate letters
Enforcement sweeps allege illegal FM broadcasts within the last year.
RadioWorld

Review of the RFNM software defined radio
It is capable of wide bandwidth – up to 153.6 MHz.
RTL-SDR

Medium-wave sunset in Europe
European medium-wave transmitters are going silent.
RedTech

Video

Cheap FT-857d display replacement
George replaces a defective FT-857d display with an economical new option.
Amateurlogic TV

Return from whiskey two-seven with 2M FM radio operations
Aeronautical 2m simplex.
W7NY

Get Amateur Radio Weekly in your inbox.

Sign-up here


Amateur Radio Weekly is curated by Cale Mooth K4HCK. Sign up free to receive ham radio's most relevant news, projects, technology and events by e-mail each week at http://www.hamweekly.com.

Band use by Canadian Amateurs

Results from the national RAC Survey 2021

The 2021 RAC Survey asked about the use of frequency band segments and hours per month devoted to each one. This identifies where Canadian amateur operators transmit to complement what type of communications they reported (see Full Report). The bands used and the amount of time per month reported by survey participants provide the contours of these behaviors in Canada. They also provide RAC with demonstrable data for the Canadian regulator as to how these frequency allocations are being utilized by the amateur radio service in that country.

I begin with the share of hams reporting the bands and band ranges they use in a typical month (see Figure 1). The results are fairly clear, reflecting no surprise at the dominant bands, but give empirical contours to those used by smaller segments of Canadian hams.

This chart shows that two-meters is the common band for over 90 percent of Canadian amateurs. The HF bands, from 80-10 meters, are second at over 80 percent. The UHF band of 430 MHz is used by two-thirds (67%). These three bands are used in a typical month by a majority of hams in Canada. They are followed by the Magic Band of six-meters (46%) at less than one-half. The Top Band, 160 meters, is used by almost a third (30%) of these hams. The 220 MHz band captures about one-fifth of Canada’s operators. Above this frequency, are the microwave allocations, including Super HF at above 3 Ghz. None reach a tenth in reported usage and systematically decline as the frequency goes higher. It is likely that the need to homebrew much of the equipment to operate in these frequencies is an inhibitor for their use. This may change in the future as commercial manufacturers get into this market segment.

Is 2 Meters or HF King of the Bands?

Operating Patterns Among Canadian Amateurs:
Results from the RAC Survey 2021
Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

A total of 194,174 hours per month were reported by Canadian amateurs to have been used over 15 bands during 2021. The average is 93 with an estimated standard error of 5.4 hours. The variation in these reported hours is large, with a standard deviation of 249! (This is not unusual in a highly skewed distribution.) The median is 34 hours per month, or just over an hour a day. This means that one-half spend more with the other half in the survey reporting less. These statistics are only for hams reporting any hours of usage per month (a total of 121 respondents reported zero hours). This demonstrates that many operators are active, perhaps one hour per day or so while a smaller segment report spending vast amounts of time on one or more of these bands.

These summaries should be qualified with a small anomaly. One element of modern amateur operations is “always-on” monitoring receivers or beacons. These could be APRS on 2-meters, transmit beacons on other bands, scanning VHF bands or above, and a host of others. The survey asked an open-ended question about hours of use on a given frequency band. Some respondents added text statements when they replied with 720 hours per month (24 hours x 30 days) to the effect that beacons or other “always-on” transmitters or (scanning) receivers were used in their shack on that band segment. Some of the extreme hours reported per month likely reflect these “always-on” monitoring activities.

A total of 194,174 hours per month were reported by Canadian amateurs to have been used over 15 bands during 2021.

Operating Patterns Among Canadian Amateurs:
Results from the RAC Survey 2021

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

These patterns can be seen in Figure 2, containing two box plots of total hours reported. On the left, the number of hours is concentrated around the median (represented by the dark line in the middle of the “box”) of about 34 but a share of respondents responded to the question with increasingly larger totals. The 3,000-hour total clearly reflects multiple radios in operation at the same time by a given operator in the survey. Many of those reporting less than this highest value also fit into this operating style. The complementary box plot (right) illustrates how the bulk of hams vary in hours of operation on all bands. This is expressed in a log transformation of total hours. This graph of the log (LN) of hours reported shows the distribution in a way that is not dominated by the extreme high values reported in the survey. This set of graphs show that there is a small portion of Canadian amateurs who report large numbers of hours on multiple band segments whereas the high majority say they operate around the median of 34 hours or so.

However, the more representative pattern of behavior is a spread of hours that varies by band. To best understand these patterns, we consider the “time portfolio” that a ham might allocate to the hobby. The median would suggest about an hour a day (which may be bundled to several on a weekend but none on a few week days). What share of time in the total number of hours that amateurs report spending each month is allocated to each of these band segments? In other words, whatever the total time spent on the hobby, where is it spent in the frequency spectrum?

I computed the total time as described above. The reported hours on each band were converted into a percent of the total time spent per month by band. These percentages, which total to 100 percent for an individual respondent, are shown in Figure 3 as a box plot of the distribution by band. This represents a time portfolio characterizing each amateur in the survey.

Two patterns jump out to me in Figure 3. Some hams spend most of their time on 2 meters and 430 mHz while others are mostly HF operators. This is not a surprising result for most readers. There are small numbers of hams who are effectively “band specialists.” Note those near the 100 percent mark on various microwave bands or 160 meters or the lowest bands, 630 and 2200 meters. Some operate mostly on six meters. The bands with low medians but a skewed distribution toward the highest end illustrate these specializations.

It is important to note the dominant patterns of frequency usage while also recognizing that not all hams follow suit. Some choose to be band specialists in the time they spend participating on these frequency allocations. These are the first such data ever reported on a national sample of licensed amateurs so it is a benchmark against the various impressions that most hams have of how bands are utilized on a routine basis.

Age Patterns by Frequency Range

I have organized comparisons by age group for each prominent frequency band: Low Frequency, HF, Very and Ultra High Frequency, and Super High Frequency (see Full Report for details). These results will tell us about age differences in how bands are used. Do younger hams use particular bands than more senior ones? Are there sharp differences by age in the adoption of higher bands? Age patterns can inform us about future band allocation policies so they can be critical bits of data for national advocacy groups and spectrum regulators.

Low Frequency (LF) Bands

I begin with low frequency (LF) bands, including 2200, 630 and 160 meters as represented in a stacked barchart (Figure 4). Each bar represents the banduse composition for a given age group with specific labels to make reading them a bit easier.

As a long-standing band allocation, the Top Band of 160-meters is used by every age group. This is particularly so for those over age 30. But the newer allocations of 630- and 2200-meters are sparingly used among all ages. Likely because of the required antenna lengths and land-use restrictions, the lowest frequency band (2200-meters) has, at most, a mere 3 percent participation in any age groups. The 630-meter band has at most a 5 percent usage rate, this among twenty-year-olds. Surprising results perhaps but it is informative to more fully grasp how the newer LF bands are reportedly being used.

High Frequency (HF) Bands

The results for HF include the Magic Band of six-meters are shown in Figure 5. There are few surprises in this graph. The 80 through 10-meter bands are enjoyed by over half of the hams in Canada for those over age 20. (This is likely due to licensing patterns.) These are the most long-standing allocations where the widest variety of commercially available equipment is available to the amateur radio market. Use of 80-10 meters slightly increases with age (e.g., 20-year-olds at 53% vs 80-year-olds at 94%). The HF bands are in good stead regarding dominant use by hams in Canada.

For six meters, use is fairly constant at just less than one-half of Canadian ham operators play in the periodically open Magic Band. This really does not change much by age. The attraction to this low-opening, high-reward band is the ability to work DX during band openings. A minor attraction is local and regional communications, often using repeaters operational on the band. To link this band back to Figure 3’s time portfolio, note the share of hams who spend most of their time on six meters.

The result of the highest reported usage (33%) among the small number of teens in the survey should be taken cautiously since the actual use in the population could be different than the other age groups with higher numbers of respondents (i.e., there is a low number of teens in the survey).

In short, the results for usage in the high frequency to six-meter bands is largely what would be expected by most amateur operators. But knowing the age patterns does empirically illustrate how young hams get into HF at those ages, too. This grounds the survey into the type of results that can be more reliably trusted for findings that are unexpected, too. The intriguing result of the “band specialists” for six meters await openings to operate tell us about another segment of the amateur radio hobby in Canada.

Very and Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) Bands

Turning to VHF and UHF bands, Figure 6 also shows no surprises: two meters is king! About 90 percent or more of every age group says they work two meters in a typical month, hands-down the universal frequency band for Canadian amateurs (see Figure 1). This is followed by the 430 MHz band which is a bit more popular among younger hams than older ones who tend to favor 2 meters. The 220 MHz band universally holds a slice of about one-fifth (15-24%) of the survey respondents’ reported usage.

Now, we often hear: why are the repeaters dead? I interpret these survey results with reference to Figure 3 above regarding the time portfolio spent on 2 meters. Most Canadian hams say they spend between 10 and 50 percent of ALL their amateur radio hobby on the 2 Meter band. I suspect that this is due to the prevalence of short-lived Nets that are on weekly activation cycles but this is speculation. So many hams check-in, have nothing to report, and are quickly off of the Net. Some hams may check-in to many Nets while others just a few (or none).

This time-targeted behavior pattern hypothesis may not explain these survey results versus the mantra that we all tend to hear but it’s one possibility for sure. It does beg the question of what “dead” means in this sense. No one there when a given ham listens for a few minutes? No one responding to a dropped call sign on the frequency? Given these survey results, the use of “dead” may be hyperbole.

Microwave and Super High Frequency (SHF) Bands

Moving into the microwave and Super High Frequency ranges involving the highest band allocations, Figure 7 shows these results of band usage by age. (I have included the 900 Mhz to 2.3 Ghz bands here for convenience, technically not part of the SHF range.) The barriers to getting into SHF operations differ markedly from other bands. There are fewer off-the-shelf commercial radios and associated equipment so homebrewing is almost a perquisite. The equipment and space for homebrewing, for instance, a transverter for an HF or VHF/UHF radio or a horn antenna is not available to every ham operator as they can be very expensive relative to VHF/UHF or HF radios and antennas.

With this preface, there are significant age-graded patterns of usage in this frequency allocation region. Figure 6 displays a stacked bar chart by age group of Super HF band use. This region of band allocation is sparsely used at the highest band of 24 GHz. The users are exclusively in the 40- to 70-year-old groups. On the other end, the 900 MHz region is used by all age groups, especially younger hams. The 1.2 GHz band has a significant group of users, between a fifth and a third of those from age 40 to 80 or more. This compares well with the 5 GHz (5650-5925 MHz) band. The 2 GHz region is close behind. With these relatively new allocations as compared to HF, for instance, there is likely to be increased use. The concentration of use in large urban centers may foster increased adoption since there are more operators and Elmers available in those cities.

With this in mind, Figure 7 shows that younger hams do operate in the various SHF bands (slightly less than one third). There is a spread of participants across these individual bands, too. Most of it is in the 900 Mhz to 5 Mhz range as 10 Ghz and above require quite specialized equipment. As more commercially manufactured equipment comes on the market, this highest set of bands may perk up, too.

Conclusions on Band Use in Canada

There is a healthy use of the amateur radio spectrum in Canada as reported by the hams in this national survey. Two meters is the common band for the vast majority. But HF is a dominant place where Canadian amateurs get on the air, too. The age patterns in band use are not as prevalent as they are in modes of operation (see Full Report and previous blog articles). This bodes well for future band allocations as use is often said to drive allocations.

It is good to see the presence of hams in bands above HF. While some of this is very specialized technology at this point in time, experimentation and innovation in the SHF region will likely yield grand benefits. This national survey confirms these patterns of behavior rather than rely on what is technically hearsay by individual hams. These results should also have importance for manufacturers and, especially, small innovators. They establish a market for such products. We now know that the bands above VHF/UHF have a significant segment of amateurs participating in activities on these frequency regions. Moreover, the mainline HF and VHF/UHF markets are stable, a safe and sound target for product design and sales.


Frank Howell, K4FMH, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Mississippi, USA. Contact him at [email protected].

CHOTA 2024, Anyone?

The Churches and Chapels on the Air coordinator, John Wresdall G3XYF, sent this notice out this morning:

Dear All,
thanks to all those who have let me know they are operating in CHOTA 2024
on 14 Sept . If you intend to put your church or chapel on the air please let me know. The latest list is periodically uploaded to the WACRAL site when Mike G0RBB can manage it.
73
John G3XYF

John’s email for this is: [email protected]. He is good on QRZ.com

Note: CHOTA 2024 is September 4, 2024. See other posts on this blog about CHOTA. The main site for this event is: https://wacral.org/chota-2024/. My church group had a blast last year!


Frank Howell, K4FMH, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Mississippi, USA. Contact him at [email protected].

Subscribe FREE to AmateurRadio.com's
Amateur Radio Newsletter

 
We never share your e-mail address.


Do you like to write?
Interesting project to share?
Helpful tips and ideas for other hams?

Submit an article and we will review it for publication on AmateurRadio.com!

Have a ham radio product or service?
Consider advertising on our site.

Are you a reporter covering ham radio?
Find ham radio experts for your story.

How to Set Up a Ham Radio Blog
Get started in less than 15 minutes!


  • Matt W1MST, Managing Editor




Sign up for our free
Amateur Radio Newsletter

Enter your e-mail address: