XPost: sci.electronics.equipment   
   From: imvalid@somewear.com   
      
   On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman  wrote:   
      
   > James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:   
   >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:   
   >>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch   
   >>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 2007-01-19 12:13, Peter Fucker wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really true that turning on a microwave with nothing in it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> will   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> break it?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Derp.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It was a sensible question.  This could be done by accident.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with testing   
   >>>>>>>>> microwave ovens.  They ran them all the time with nothing in them.   
   >>>>>>>>> I had   
   >>>>>>>>> always read that you should not operate them with nothing to absorb   
   the   
   >>>>>>>>> energy and mentioned that.  I got a strange look from the guy.   
   >>>>>>>>> Obviously   
   >>>>>>>>> the energy that would be absorbed is within the limits of what the   
   >>>>>>>>> ovens   
   >>>>>>>>> were designed to get rid of.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You'd think there would be something that absorbs microwaves that miss   
   >>>>>>>> the food.  And you'd think such a thing would have a thermal cutout.   
   >>>>>>>> Anybody want to try it?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>    IDIOT!   
   >>>>>>>    ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.   
   >>>>>>>    Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I went for an interview in a place that designed industrial strength   
   >>>>>> magnetron.  There IS a block to absorb energy.  A microwave oven without   
   >>>>>> one is VERY badly designed.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>    Rule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every fifty   
   >>>>> cent cost to make, selling price must go up by five dollars (cars, toys,   
   >>>>> etc).   
   >>>>>    Industrial grade magge-powered ovens cost a lot more than the over   
   >>>>> the counter el-cheapos that the great unwashed buy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why would you need to make $4.50 extra because you spend $0.50 more on the   
   >>>> production?   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know that it is 10 to 1, but the $0.50 higher production cost means   
   >>> the price is elevated at each step of the distribution process.  Most costs   
   >>> of handling, storage, promotion and retailing are allocated by price.    
   Raise   
   >>> the price from the manufacturer by 10% and the final sale price also goes   
   up   
   >>> 10%, not the exact dollar rise of manufacturing.   
   >>   
   >> It costs no more to shift a microwave oven through the retail system if a   
   >> component inside it costs $0.50 more.  If I was a shop selling microwaves,   
   >> I'd want a fixed profit per unit, not a percentage.   
   >   
   > But you are not a shop selling microwaves or anything else most likely or   
   > you'd be out of business quickly.  I suppose you might do OK selling gravel.   
   >   
   > Virtually every retail establishment has costs which *do* vary with the   
   > selling price of a unit.  Which do you think sits on the shelf longer, the   
   > $100 microwave "marked down" to $69 or the $399 unit?  That shelf space   
   > costs money, advertising costs money, heating, cooling and lighting the   
   > store costs money.  Sometimes the store has their own capital tied up in the   
   > goods (not Walmart, it's yours until it is sold) and a higher profit is the   
   > only reason for selling higher priced goods that take longer to shift and   
   > sell fewer.   
   >   
   > Do you really not see this?   
      
   I would imagine they both sit on the shelf for the same amount of time, or   
   they're badly priced.   
      
   --   
   Before you set out on a journey, ring your local radio station and say there's   
   a terrible congestion on your road.  Everybody avoids it and it's clear for   
   you!  --  Jack Dee   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)