XPost: sci.electronics.equipment
From: gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
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.
--
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)
|
