While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

73 de Jim, N2EY

I believe the ARRL has a relatively recent survey on its website about the
same thing. I'd dig it out but will wait till later to do so as it's time
to hit the sack.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:

While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles. Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%


Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

In article . net, robert casey
writes:

A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles.

Not just in a pileup, either.

Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.

I'll take your word for it ;-)

The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO, a

1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum
2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the sidebands on
SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM)
3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than high power
AM.

RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...

No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the narrow
deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was roughly
equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH heterodynes
were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest signal and
little else.

Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for US hams to
use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential was much
greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the survey.

It should be remembered that in 1961:

- only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access to HF
'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz

- only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and 15 meters
was opened to hams

- there were less than a quarter million US hams

- VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant an
electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded the cost of
many hams' entire stations.

It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break down
today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

That is almost interesting.

N2EY wrote:
In article . net,
robert casey
writes:

A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the
receiving station can make out people's voices
without carrier heterodyne whistles.

Not just in a pileup, either.

Also no
wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a
listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear
all those heterodyne whistles.

I'll take your word for it ;-)

The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO,
a

1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum
2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the
sidebands on
SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM)
3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than
high power
AM.

RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's
wider bandwidth...

No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the
narrow
deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was
roughly
equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH
heterodynes
were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest
signal and
little else.

Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

Even back then, half the hams perferred voice
(phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit
over 1/3 perferring CW.

Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for
US hams to
use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential
was much
greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the
survey.

It should be remembered that in 1961:

- only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access
to HF
'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz

- only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and
15 meters
was opened to hams

- there were less than a quarter million US hams

- VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant
an
electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded
the cost of
many hams' entire stations.

It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break
down
today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..

In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams
(membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time):

HF:
CW: 34.4%
AM: 27.8%
SSB: 23.3%
RTTY: 1.5%
FM/NBFM: 0.3%
Other modes: 0.6%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1%

Without a single poll to back me up, the following could be said to
be accurate for 1911:

Any Frequency:
CW: 100% [on-off keying]
AM: 0%
SSB: 0%
RTTY: 0%
FM/NBFM: 0%
Other modes: 0%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 0%

In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio
enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in
the USA in 1911] :-)

Sunnuvagun!

Without a single poll to back me up, the following could be said to
be accurate for 1911:

Any Frequency:
CW: 100% [on-off keying]

Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in
the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and
produced a crude form of AM. Couldn't have been
much power else the mic would have burnt up. These
mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear.

AM: 0%
Near but not = 0
SSB: 0%
RTTY: 0%
FM/NBFM: 0%
Other modes: 0%

VHF/UHF (all modes): 0%

Well, how far up did spark go?

In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio
enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in
the USA in 1911] :-)

No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically
outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later.

"robert casey" wrote

No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically
outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later.


"Everything not specifically prohibited is mandatory!"

73, Hans, K0HB

In article . net, robert casey
writes:

Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in
the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and
produced a crude form of AM.

Actually, Reginald Fessenden did a lot more than that, as early as 1900. By
1906 he had two-way transatlantic *voice* radio communications working.

Couldn't have been
much power else the mic would have burnt up.

He got at least a kilowatt from one set.

These
mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear.

Which is all an AM modulator really does.

Point is, there were folks using practical voice radio years before 1911. It's
all well documented. Of course that early voice equipment was more expensive,
less reliable and did not perform as well as its Morse code counterparts.

AM: 0%
Near but not = 0

Exactly!

Well, how far up did spark go?

Depends entirely on the design. In those days, the conventional wisdom was that
longer waves = longer distance, so there was little interest in going above
about 1 MHz.

No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically
outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later.

There was *some* radio regulation in the USA as early as 1906. In the years
leading up to 1912, there were a number of bills introduced into Congress to
regulate radio even more. But there was no great urgency to enact any
comprehensive radio regulation until the Titanic disaster.

73 de Jim, N2EY