XPost: sci.electronics.equipment   
   From: imvalid@somewear.com   
      
   On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Tell me why they want to make fuck all on cheaper ones that take up the same   
   store space.   
      
   --   
   What's the German word for Vaseline?   
   Vienerslide.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)