yeah, I broke it out and counted. darn! and here I thought I had 40! WAAAAH! :)

DE n7zzt Eric

On Jan 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Steve Dresser wrote:

> Eric,
> 
> There is no 40-cell U2.  The U2 has only 32 cells.
> 
> Steve
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eric Oyen" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: January 09, 2016 19:49
> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
> 
> 
>> hmmm. mine must be a top of the line model. It's a Braille Sense U2 40 =
>> cell model. retails for $5,995. I am still paying on a 72 month contract =
>> to own it. I am about halfway through it, so I have a while to go. =
>> Honestly, I don't see how these things should cost this much. Seriously, =
>> the cost per cell to actually manufacture a cell is $0.15 (I know, I =
>> checked and it took a lot of digging to find that). Mostly, a lions =
>> share of the cost is probably the per unit license for windows CE. =
>> still, with an alternative CPU and some other goodies (as well as an =
>> open source OS), the unit could be made for far cheaper and be more =
>> powerful and a better quality.
>> 
>> ANyway, this is a bit off the ham radio thing.
>> 
>> DE n7zzt Eric
>> 
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Jose Tamayo wrote:
>> 
>>> A braille display, while ideal and very important, is beyond the reach =
>> of
>>> many folks who need it / want it.  I think the last time I checked, a
>>> Braille display was priced at around $200 per refreshable cell.  I may =
>> be
>>> off since I recently heard a friend of mine purchased a Braille NSpeak =
>> for
>>> around $2000.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> MY BrailleNote was a Humanware BrailleNote MPower BT 32 and it was
>>> spectacular but the price tag was very high.  Not affordable for all =
>> in Ham
>>> radio.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> So, indeed the  braille display would be helpful  but it would also =
>> depend
>>> on the software accessibility.  For example, if the Screen reader =
>> can't read
>>> the software interface, then a braille display would be useless, or =
>> perhaps
>>> we were discussing another topic and I am completely off.
>>> Smiles=20
>>> Jose Tamayo=20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Tom Behler
>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:37 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>>> =20
>>> Jim:
>>> =20
>>> I hear you. ...  Braille access to ham rigs is great, and I truly =
>> applaud
>>> you for all your efforts with the J J software, which is on my list of
>>> things to try just as soon as possible.
>>> =20
>>> But what about those who don't have access to, or cannot afford a =
>> Braille
>>> display?
>>> =20
>>> Perhaps I'm missing your point, so please feel free to correct any =
>> errors in
>>> my thinking here.
>>> =20
>>> Just trying to have an open discussion.
>>> =20
>>> Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Jim Shaffer
>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 1:55 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>>> =20
>>> Ron, good point.
>>> =20
>>> However, I consider audio access to a radio as minimal accessibility.=20=
>> 
>>> Imagine a car where, in order to drive it, you had to take your eyes =
>> off the
>>> road.  I've become convinced that braille provides the only true =
>> access to
>>> ham rigs.
>>> --
>>> Jim, KE5AL
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dr. Ronald E. Milliman
>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:21 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>>> =20
>>> Jim and others here on the list, please accept my comments in the =
>> positive
>>> manner in which they are intended. First, I certainly applaud the =
>> actions
>>> Mike and Jim have taken. Too many times we only complain but do little =
>> to
>>> solve our own problems.
>>> =20
>>> However, we need to communicate to Mike Dishop and John, the Ten Tec
>>> developer, that Jim's software approach is only one solution and in =
>> the
>>> longer run, we need a solution built into the Ten Tec line of =
>> transceivers
>>> that is completely independent of Jim's software. We need to be able =
>> to
>>> purchase Ten Tec rigs that are accessible right out of the box just =
>> like
>>> they are for sighted hams, much like the Kenwood line of transceivers.
>>> =20
>>> Ron, K8HSY
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Jim Shaffer
>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:08 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>>> =20
>>> Here's a note I sent to the Ten Tec developer in response to his =
>> query...
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jim Shaffer
>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>>> =20
>>> John, in addition to VFO, Frequency and mode, blind hams need readings =
>> such
>>> as s-meter, SWR, AGC on/off and level, noise blanker on/off and level, =
>> noise
>>> reduction on/off and level, VOX/breakin settings, mic and speech =
>> processor
>>> settings, ALC, and anything that might effect operations.  For =
>> example, the
>>> TS-590 has a feature to drive an amp with minimal power from the =
>> radio.  If
>>> accidentally set, the rig basically doesn't transmit.  It is nice to =
>> know
>>> the receive filter settings, but these are generally set by ear =
>> anyway.  I
>>> would say that the ability to control the AF and RF gain is of minimal
>>> importance, at least where accessibility is concerned.
>>> =20
>>> Also, for many radios, access to the memories and menus is often =
>> difficult,
>>> if possible at all.  My software reports and sets memory values as =
>> well as
>>> providing text for the menu settings.
>>> =20
>>> Also, I need to be able to provide support for reasonably priced rigs.
>>> Unfortunately, many blind folks are on limited budgets.
>>> =20
>>> hth, and thanks again.
>>> --
>>> Jim Shaffer, KE5AL
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> http://www.avast.com=20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> http://www.avast.com