XPost: sci.electronics.equipment   
   From: gnuarm@gmail.com   
      
   James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:   
   > 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.   
      
   Why does a supermarket sell name brand and store brand at a much lower   
   price?  Why do they sell luxury cars and economy cars?   If they make the   
   same profit on every car regardless of selling price, why bother with the   
   expensive ones?   
      
   --   
      
   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)