<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Rene Olsen via Dxspider-support je
28.11.2022 ob 6:10 napisal:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:638442B9.14963.59ABC5F4@rene.rcolsen.dk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It was almost half of what it was in the SSB part.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's very likely that number of SSN bellow 50 had a impact on
conditions last weekend compared to SSB weekend (97,68). I was 28
Mhz full time the last weekend with not-so-good conditions on the
sunny side of the Alps. Anyway I have two related SEEME questions.</p>
<p>1. Seems SEEME for SPOTS are working through the filters I set
up. I think SEEME spots for SPOTS would be just as welcome as RBN
SEEME spots. All, regardless of the filters set?<br>
</p>
<p>2. I can't find the link why double SEEME spots from one RBN
station only. Otherwise it's not a big problem, more is better
than none. I've checked "regular" rbn spot from this station and
it looks relevant. The program I used was N1MM+.<br>
</p>
<pre>08:17:31 S50U spotted on 28051,9 by BI4RFP-# - CW 7DB **SEEME**
08:17:38 S50U spotted on 28051,9 by BI4RFP-# - CW 7DB **SEEME**
08:22:21 S50U spotted on 28052 by BI4RFP-# - CW 7DB **SEEME**
08:22:25 S50U spotted on 28052 by BI4RFP-# - CW 7DB **SEEME**
</pre>
<p>Perhaps we could also talk of how to reduce the number of BUSTED
spots. The impression is that there was more BUSTED calls on
Sunday or I was just more attentive to the spots on a boring
Sunday. I am aware that increasing the Q filter may lead to the
loss of some correctly forwarded calls to the network. Our S50CLX
is set to quality filter Q:2 or more other adjustments are up to
users.<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks Dan S50U</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a href="https://s50e.si/gorje.html">Gorje, Cerkno h=604m</a></div>
</body>
</html>