XPost: sci.electronics.equipment
From: imvalid@somewear.com
On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 04:44:33 -0000, rickman
wrote:
> James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/31/2017 6:39 AM:
>> 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.
>
> So they don't care if they have to inventory a lot more dollars for the same
> return? You don't understand retail.
Let's say I have a shop with shelf space for 500 microwaves. If the expensive
ones make me £50 and the cheap ones make me £10, I ain't gonna sell the cheap
ones.
--
"His idea of safe sex is an `X' spray-painted on the rump of animals that are
known to kick."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
