XPost: sci.electronics.equipment   
   From: imvalid@somewear.com   
      
   On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman  wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
      
   Half their customers like expensive goods, half like cheap goods.  It doubles   
   the sales if you provide both.   
      
   --   
   Eskimoes only have 4 words for snow, but 32 words for demonstrative pronouns   
   (we only have this/that/these/those).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)