XPost: sci.electronics.equipment   
   From: gnuarm@gmail.com   
      
   James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:   
   > 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.   
      
      Ok, I suppose you know more than the retailers.   
      
   --   
      
   Rick C   
      
   Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,   
   on the centerline of totality since 1998   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)