Here are some of my recent thoughts on forward error correction and encoding schemes. I put them out here hoping that they might cause some discussion about the physical layer encodings used by pskmail, with a view to greater reliability and throughput. About the best design document, complete with detailed reasoning, for a FEC scheme that I have found is the AO40 telemetry spec here: http://www.ka9q.net/ao40/ It is a block level coding technique so not necessarily suitable for interactive sessions. Basically there is parity information generated by a Reed-Solomon code and the data is then scrambled to discourage too many adjacent zero bytes and then spread out in the time domain with a convolutional encoding. In terms of information carried per bit over a lossy channel, I understand Reed-Solomon encoding to approach the Shannon limit theoretical maximum. The only known scheme that does better are Turbo Codes which are patent encumbered. So why does, for example, fldigi, not implement any mode with RS FEC? I am speculating, but I think it is because it is designed for interactive use. Sending data in fixed block sizes of 64, 128, 256 bytes is not so useful for that. But it *is* useful for bulk data transfer such as email messages. I think THOR22 is better than no FEC but sub-optimal for bulk transfers as it is designed for interactive sessions. Even so, a FEC scheme like the above is useful when readability is marginal or variable but are a waste of bits when readability is good. In the latter case, simple ARQ such as is implemented now is proably best. Is it possible to have the system adapt, to be able to tell what type of error detection/correction is best? HARQ is a scheme that does just that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARQ It is used in UMTS cellular data networks. Running pskmail with THOR22 can be considered Type 1 HARQ, that is, using FEC and ARQ at the same time. More efficient, but more complicsted would be Type 2 HARQ, adapting to prevailing conditions, with a better FEC coding. Beyond that, what about schemes like Q15X25 that essentially transmit multiple narrow data streams to multiply throughput? Necessarily wideband at this point, occupying in the neighbourhood of 2kHz, but at about 10x the data rate. Would it make sense to do the signalling as now but for bulk data transfer QSY to a sub-band where 2kHz signals are allowed and more quickly transfer the bulk data? Would an encoding scheme like the above be useful or desireable? Any thoughts? 73 de William EA5/VE2WSW va3udp /@/ rac.ca