• Running an empty microwave oven

    From Mary-Jane Rottencrotch@21:1/5 to Peter Fucker on Sun Dec 10 20:07:43 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Mary-Jane Rottencrotch on Mon Dec 11 16:50:48 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --
    If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Mon Dec 11 22:49:55 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Tue Dec 12 14:10:44 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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?

    --
    "It was reported last week that a citizen's group is trying to remove porn channels from hotels across the country."
    "The group is called the Coalition of People Who Want to Ruin Everything."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Tue Dec 12 14:14:52 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway. He never said if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA

    --
    Exersize: the act of removing excess baggage

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Robertson@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Tue Dec 12 08:12:51 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway.  He never
    said if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running
    it empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit
    will simply not draw as much current.

    Do regular ovens 'care' if something is in them or not? Why should a microwave?

    John :-#(#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Tue Dec 12 16:54:53 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:43:05 -0000, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:

    On 2017/12/12 8:25 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:12:51 -0000, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
    wrote:

    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway. He never
    said if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running
    it empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit
    will simply not draw as much current.

    Do regular ovens 'care' if something is in them or not? Why should a
    microwave?

    John :-#(#

    A regular oven switches off the heater once the inside is at 200C or
    whatever you set it to.

    A microwave oven works completely differently. 900W (or so) of
    microwave energy continuously enters the cavity and should be absorbed
    by the food. If it isn't, where does that microwave energy go?


    When in doubt find a real answer:

    http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentId=17934

    So, it seems microwaves will run up to five minutes when empty, but
    after that will overheat various parts. And probably die.

    Learn something every day!

    No, it says it will shut down. So clearly (that make anyway) has a thermal cutout and won't die.

    --
    If only women came with pull-down menus and on-line help.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Tue Dec 12 16:25:03 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:12:51 -0000, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:

    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway. He never
    said if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running
    it empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit
    will simply not draw as much current.

    Do regular ovens 'care' if something is in them or not? Why should a microwave?

    John :-#(#

    A regular oven switches off the heater once the inside is at 200C or whatever you set it to.

    A microwave oven works completely differently. 900W (or so) of microwave energy continuously enters the cavity and should be absorbed by the food. If it isn't, where does that microwave energy go?

    --
    The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Robertson@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Tue Dec 12 08:43:05 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On 2017/12/12 8:25 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:12:51 -0000, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
    wrote:

    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway.  He never
    said if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running
    it empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit
    will simply not draw as much current.

    Do regular ovens 'care' if something is in them or not? Why should a
    microwave?

    John :-#(#

    A regular oven switches off the heater once the inside is at 200C or whatever you set it to.

    A microwave oven works completely differently.  900W (or so) of
    microwave energy continuously enters the cavity and should be absorbed
    by the food.  If it isn't, where does that microwave energy go?


    When in doubt find a real answer:

    http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentId=17934

    So, it seems microwaves will run up to five minutes when empty, but
    after that will overheat various parts. And probably die.

    Learn something every day!

    John :-#)#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 12 11:26:51 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:43:05 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
    wrote:

    When in doubt find a real answer:

    When in doubt, read about what manufacturers have done about the empty
    oven problem.

    Some patents:
    "Oven protective device"
    <https://patents.google.com/patent/US3281567A/>

    "Electronic oven protection circuit" <https://patents.google.com/patent/US3412227A/>

    "System for sensing the presence of a load in an oven cavity of a
    microwave cooking appliance"
    <https://patents.google.com/patent/US6867402B1/>

    There are probably other patents.

    Basically, there is a directional coupler VSWR (voltage standing wave
    ratio) detector or other scheme for detecting if the oven is empty,
    which senses the high reflected power produces by an empty oven and
    shuts it down.


    Learn by Destroying(tm) or this should be tested by Mythbusters:

    About 15 years ago, I was drawn into a discussion about what bad
    things might happen if the oven were to run empty. Opinions varied
    ranging from nothing to planetary destruction. I wasn't sure but
    based on my RF experience, I guessed(tm) that it would be either a
    huge increase in voltage across the magnetron, or a huge increase in
    current through the magnetron. I placed my bet on some kind of
    arcing, but didn't offer any specific location.

    Three allegedly functional junk microwave ovens were purchased from
    the local thrift shop for about $20/ea. When the owners of the store
    found out what we were doing, she threw in three more ovens that had
    various defects which made them unsellable, but were allegedly able to
    heat water.

    I don't have time right now for the whole story, so I'll just
    summarize. Every oven acted or failed differently. As I vaguely
    recall:
    - One immediately shut itself off and would not restart until I
    unplugged the power cord. My guess(tm) is I tripped an overcurrent
    breaker.
    - One turned itself off after about 30 seconds by blowing a fuse.
    - One made a noise indicating the something had blown up inside, but
    continued to run. After about 1 minute, there was another noise
    followed by smell of burning electronics.
    - One arced over some burned food on the waveguide window. I removed
    the window and tried again. This time it arced intermittently inside
    the waveguide near the window for about 15 minutes. There was a hint
    that something electrical was burning inside, so we turned it off.
    - One had some mechanical damage to the case, which caused some arcing
    outside of the cooking area. Since that meant that we might have high
    levels of RF leaking from the oven, we terminated the test early.

    I have photos of the ovens and list of makers and models. I'm too
    lazy/busy to find them right now. Suffice to say that there were no
    fires, explosions, implosions, lightning bolts, ball lightning, toxic discharges or devastating EMP. In most cases, the fuse or breaker
    tripped, which is easily replaced or reset. Someone did an autopsy on
    3 of the ovens and found one shorted magnetron and two blown Hi-V
    diodes. The ovens that seemed to have burning electronic were not
    inspected.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to Jeff Liebermann on Tue Dec 12 17:04:44 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    Jeff Liebermann wrote on 12/12/2017 2:26 PM:

    Three allegedly functional junk microwave ovens were purchased from
    the local thrift shop for about $20/ea. When the owners of the store
    found out what we were doing, she threw in three more ovens that had
    various defects which made them unsellable, but were allegedly able to
    heat water.

    I don't have time right now for the whole story, so I'll just
    summarize. Every oven acted or failed differently.

    Jeff, you are a trip!

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to John Robertson on Tue Dec 12 17:00:53 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    John Robertson wrote on 12/12/2017 11:12 AM:
    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway. He never said >> if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running it empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit will
    simply not draw as much current.

    I don't think a microwave works like a transformer. The energy is emitted
    by the unit like an antenna regardless of whether there is something to
    absorb it or not. The difference is with a radio antenna the energy is free
    to leave the transmitter into free space. A microwave is in a sealed box.

    Hmmm... maybe the waves do go back into the klystron and reduce the power drawn. Then why would the makers have warned to not run them empty?


    Do regular ovens 'care' if something is in them or not? Why should a microwave?

    Because they aren't the same?

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Tue Dec 12 22:05:25 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:00:53 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    John Robertson wrote on 12/12/2017 11:12 AM:
    On 2017/12/12 6:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    It seems nothing happens, well no fire or explosion anyway. He never said >>> if it still worked afterwards:
    https://youtu.be/AsaW5xnOkCA


    Why don't you simply put a load meter on the microwave and try running it
    empty or with a cup of water. I expect that with no load the unit will
    simply not draw as much current.

    I don't think a microwave works like a transformer. The energy is emitted
    by the unit like an antenna regardless of whether there is something to absorb it or not. The difference is with a radio antenna the energy is free to leave the transmitter into free space. A microwave is in a sealed box.

    Hmmm... maybe the waves do go back into the klystron and reduce the power drawn. Then why would the makers have warned to not run them empty?

    Perhaps the power going back into the klystron causes heating? Perhaps the power goes into other parts and causes damage?

    --
    For this race I'm going to be using "beati dogu". Japanese for the ancient art of driving a sports car round a track faster than a greyhound. -- Richard Hammond

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jon Elson@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Tue Dec 12 16:15:43 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:


    Perhaps the power going back into the klystron causes heating? Perhaps
    the power goes into other parts and causes damage?

    Microwave ovens use magnetrons, not klystrons. When power is applied to the magnetron, it is pretty independent of the RF load, you apply a couple
    thousand Volts minus to the cathode, and the anode is grounded. But, due to the magnetic field, the electrons spiral outward instead of just heading straight outward radially to the anode. Passing the resonant cavities repeatedly during that spiral path builds the RF resonance.

    The oven chamber develops standing waves. If there is nothing to absorb the RF, it is reflected back into the magnetron, and the anode runs hotter. I think the thermal switch on the anode is more to cover the condition where
    the fan motor has seized up than no food in the oven, but may handle both to some extent.

    Jon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Robertson@21:1/5 to rickman on Tue Dec 12 14:20:08 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On 2017/12/12 2:04 PM, rickman wrote:
    Jeff Liebermann wrote on 12/12/2017 2:26 PM:

    Three allegedly functional junk microwave ovens were purchased from
    the local thrift shop for about $20/ea.  When the owners of the store
    found out what we were doing, she threw in three more ovens that had
    various defects which made them unsellable, but were allegedly able to
    heat water.

    I don't have time right now for the whole story, so I'll just
    summarize.  Every oven acted or failed differently.

    Jeff, you are a trip!


    He is having too much fun - Ban Jeff!

    (thanks, Jeff!!)

    John :-#)#

    --
    (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
    John's Jukes Ltd.
    MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3
    (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
    www.flippers.com
    "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Field@21:1/5 to Mary-Jane Rottencrotch on Mon Dec 18 19:25:27 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    "Mary-Jane Rottencrotch" <usenet@buttocks.local> wrote in message news:Nu-dnccoR7ENmbPHnZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
    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.

    I've never had one blow up because of that, but its best avoided.

    There may be am increased risk of arcing the dielectric window that covers
    the end of the waveguide.

    So far - I've yet to actually buy a microwave, I've done well out of simply removing a damaged dielectric window and carrying on. Carbonised food
    spatter is a far more common cause, but I wouldn't leave an empty microwave running longer than it took to realise my mistake.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Baer@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Wed Dec 27 19:59:42 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Baer@21:1/5 to rickman on Wed Dec 27 20:03:22 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    rickman wrote:
    Jeff Liebermann wrote on 12/12/2017 2:26 PM:

    Three allegedly functional junk microwave ovens were purchased from
    the local thrift shop for about $20/ea. When the owners of the store
    found out what we were doing, she threw in three more ovens that had
    various defects which made them unsellable, but were allegedly able to
    heat water.

    I don't have time right now for the whole story, so I'll just
    summarize. Every oven acted or failed differently.

    Jeff, you are a trip!

    I live in an apartment complex, and a lot of microwave ovens have
    been thrown away; and most of them were perfectly OK after they were
    cleaned up.
    Same pattern with vacuum cleaners.
    A number of people are pigs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Baer@21:1/5 to rickman on Wed Dec 27 19:56:51 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    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
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    STUPID!

    Microwave ovens *generate* (microwave) energy and cannot "get rid" of
    any of that.

    It boils down to how much of a load mis-match (SWR) can the magnetron ("maggie") tolerate.

    Nothing will "break", but the maggie may burn out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Robert Baer on Fri Dec 29 00:32:26 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:56:51 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    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
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    STUPID!

    Microwave ovens *generate* (microwave) energy and cannot "get rid" of
    any of that.

    It boils down to how much of a load mis-match (SWR) can the magnetron ("maggie") tolerate.

    Nothing will "break", but the maggie may burn out.

    There is a block to absorb the energy that comes back. It should have a thermal cutout on it.

    --
    Sweet dreams are made of cheese, who am I to diss a Brie? I cheddar the world and the feta cheese, everybody's looking for Stilton.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Robert Baer on Fri Dec 29 00:33:34 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --
    If only women came with pull-down menus and on-line help.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Robert Baer on Fri Dec 29 00:34:29 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 04:03:22 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    rickman wrote:
    Jeff Liebermann wrote on 12/12/2017 2:26 PM:

    Three allegedly functional junk microwave ovens were purchased from
    the local thrift shop for about $20/ea. When the owners of the store
    found out what we were doing, she threw in three more ovens that had
    various defects which made them unsellable, but were allegedly able to
    heat water.

    I don't have time right now for the whole story, so I'll just
    summarize. Every oven acted or failed differently.

    Jeff, you are a trip!

    I live in an apartment complex, and a lot of microwave ovens have
    been thrown away; and most of them were perfectly OK after they were
    cleaned up.
    Same pattern with vacuum cleaners.
    A number of people are pigs.

    I got four Dysons off freecycle (because they're infamous for falling to bits). Put all the faulty parts into one, then the other three work :-)

    --
    In the first few days of the Olympics the Rumanians took gold, silver, bronze, copper, lead and anything else they could get their bloody hands on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Baer@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Fri Dec 29 21:42:00 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:56:51 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    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
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    STUPID!

    Microwave ovens *generate* (microwave) energy and cannot "get rid" of
    any of that.

    It boils down to how much of a load mis-match (SWR) can the magnetron
    ("maggie") tolerate.

    Nothing will "break", but the maggie may burn out.

    There is a block to absorb the energy that comes back. It should have a thermal cutout on it.

    NOTHING to "absorb", IF there is a thermal cut-out that is a BIG clue
    to that fact.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Baer@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Fri Dec 29 21:39:04 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Robert Baer on Sat Dec 30 14:37:20 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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?

    --
    The teacher wrote "Like I ain't had no fun in months" on the board and then she said, "Timmy, how should I correct that?"
    Timmy replied, "Maybe get a new boyfriend?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Robert Baer on Sat Dec 30 14:38:36 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:42:00 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:56:51 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    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
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    STUPID!

    Microwave ovens *generate* (microwave) energy and cannot "get rid" of >>> any of that.

    It boils down to how much of a load mis-match (SWR) can the magnetron >>> ("maggie") tolerate.

    Nothing will "break", but the maggie may burn out.

    There is a block to absorb the energy that comes back. It should have a
    thermal cutout on it.

    NOTHING to "absorb", IF there is a thermal cut-out that is a BIG clue
    to that fact.

    Bullshit. The absorber could overheat, requiring a thermal cutout. Selling something to Joe Bloggs in the general public and allowing it to break by simply forgetting to put food in it is irresponsible.

    --
    People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Sat Dec 30 15:31:14 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Sat Dec 30 20:34:05 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --
    In 1272, the Arabic Muslims invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
    In 1873, the British refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Sat Dec 30 15:48:34 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> >>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
    <usenet@buttocks.local> 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?

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Sat Dec 30 20:56:14 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> >>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    --
    Before you set out on a journey, ring your local radio station and say there's a terrible congestion on your road. Everybody avoids it and it's clear for you! -- Jack Dee

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Sat Dec 30 17:33:26 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> >>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> Ok, I suppose you know more than the retailers.

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Sat Dec 30 23:45:16 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Sat Dec 30 19:59:45 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:
    On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Sun Dec 31 11:39:31 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Sun Dec 31 23:44:33 2017
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/31/2017 6:39 AM:
    On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Mon Jan 1 16:16:42 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 04:44:33 -0000, rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/31/2017 6:39 AM:
    On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael A Terrell@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Mon Jan 1 14:02:10 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

    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.


    You aren't going to sell much of anything. People will go elsewhere
    to by their microwave, and take their other business with them. First of
    all, it would be foolish to put out 500 units on retail shelves.
    Secondly, a lot of people who buy high end items don't go to a retail
    store. They call a service company, tell them what they want. It is
    delivered, and installed. The old one is hauled off as part of the
    price. The seller's reputation is on the line for quality, so most of
    the profit comes from the labor, not the markup.

    I just bought a new microwave. It was a high end model that was
    closed out for $60. The original price was $160. How much profit was
    lost after that $100 discount?

    BTW, that is the first new microwave that I've ever bought. I've
    used them for 35 years, and I only paid $2 for a good used one, once.
    The rest were repaired, mostly with used parts.

    Another example of silly marketing. I worked at a TV shop as a
    teenager. They sold new and used Color TVs, and new B&W, but no used.
    The owner gave me all the B&W trade ins that I sold from my home. I sold
    more TVs than he did, and most weeks I sold more in used B&W than he did
    in color sets.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Michael A Terrell on Mon Jan 1 21:54:09 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:02:10 -0000, Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

    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.

    You aren't going to sell much of anything. People will go elsewhere
    to by their microwave,

    No, because the moron next door is marking up the expensive ones too much, so everyone buying decent ovens comes to me.

    and take their other business with them. First of
    all, it would be foolish to put out 500 units on retail shelves.

    Give reasoning. There might be 500 different models, anyway it was a figure plucked out of thin air. I'd probably be selling other devices and wouldn't have room for 500.

    Secondly, a lot of people who buy high end items don't go to a retail
    store. They call a service company, tell them what they want. It is delivered, and installed.

    Only if you're a complete numpty that can't plug in something as simple as a microwave oven.

    The old one is hauled off as part of the
    price. The seller's reputation is on the line for quality, so most of
    the profit comes from the labor, not the markup.

    I just bought a new microwave. It was a high end model that was
    closed out for $60. The original price was $160. How much profit was
    lost after that $100 discount?

    Who knows, they were cutting losses as they couldn't get rid of them.

    BTW, that is the first new microwave that I've ever bought. I've
    used them for 35 years, and I only paid $2 for a good used one, once.
    The rest were repaired, mostly with used parts.

    I bought one for 30 once. Basic model. The rest were free second hand. Mainly due to idiots replacing perfectly working devices. It's the same reason 2nd hand cars are so cheap, people pay 30,000 for a new car, then sell it for half that after a
    couple of years. Complete and utter fools.

    Another example of silly marketing. I worked at a TV shop as a
    teenager. They sold new and used Color TVs, and new B&W, but no used.
    The owner gave me all the B&W trade ins that I sold from my home. I sold
    more TVs than he did, and most weeks I sold more in used B&W than he did
    in color sets.

    If he was only going to make a few dollars for each used BnW sale, then he was right not to bother. Why waste shop space?

    --
    If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rickman@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Mon Jan 1 16:51:50 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 1/1/2018 11:16 AM:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 04:44:33 -0000, rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/31/2017 6:39 AM:
    On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail..com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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.

    Like I said, you don't understand retail. You may only make 10 on the low priced ovens, but if you sell 10 of those for every 1 of the high priced
    oven you will still carry the low priced oven because you will make more
    money than if you don't. You will still carry the high priced oven because
    you can make more money than if you don't. The fact that you have 50 of the cheap ovens on the shelf doesn't mean you will sell more of them than if you had 40 cheap ovens and 10 of the expensive ovens sitting on the shelf.

    There are many factors you don't seem to understand.

    --

    Rick C

    Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
    on the centerline of totality since 1998

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ralph Mowery@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 1 18:31:01 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    In article <p2eahv$e3b$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
    says...

    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.

    Like I said, you don't understand retail. You may only make 10 on the low priced ovens, but if you sell 10 of those for every 1 of the high priced
    oven you will still carry the low priced oven because you will make more money than if you don't. You will still carry the high priced oven because you can make more money than if you don't. The fact that you have 50 of the cheap ovens on the shelf doesn't mean you will sell more of them than if you had 40 cheap ovens and 10 of the expensive ovens sitting on the shelf.

    There are many factors you don't seem to understand.




    About 60 years ago a couple of men started a grocery store with one
    store. Their idea was to make 5 fast penneys instead of one slow
    nickle. That turned into the Food Lion chain of stores. Made lots of
    people in a small town of about 20,000 people millionairs. I was a
    stock boy during part of that time and remember going to almost every
    item in the store (with others) and marking down each item. This was
    before bar codes and every item had to be hand marked. In that town and
    several small towns around there are several Food Lion stores, Wallmart,
    and two other stores toget groceries at as their main item. The A@P, Winn-Dixie chains folded years ago.

    Depending on the item, it is often better to stock many low dollar/
    profit items and a few high dollar items.

    People are funny. A fellow I knew sold items at a farmers market. One
    day he tried to sell cantalopes for $ .25 and not selling many, he
    marked that out and put up a sign of 3/$ 1.00. Sold almost all of them
    at that price even though they cost more.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to rmowery28146@earthlink.net on Mon Jan 1 18:18:13 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 18:31:01 -0500, Ralph Mowery
    <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

    People are funny. A fellow I knew sold items at a farmers market. One
    day he tried to sell cantalopes for $ .25 and not selling many, he
    marked that out and put up a sign of 3/$ 1.00. Sold almost all of them
    at that price even though they cost more.

    I found this at a local market: <http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/you-save.html>
    When I accosted a stocking clerk to point out the problem, he failed
    to see what was wrong. When I dragged over a manager, it took about
    15 seconds for his brain to engage and see the problem. He later
    mentioned that it was like that for at least 2 days and nobody
    noticed.



    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael A Terrell@21:1/5 to Ralph Mowery on Mon Jan 1 22:05:31 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    Ralph Mowery wrote:
    In article <p2eahv$e3b$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com says...

    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.

    Like I said, you don't understand retail. You may only make 10 on the low >> priced ovens, but if you sell 10 of those for every 1 of the high priced
    oven you will still carry the low priced oven because you will make more
    money than if you don't. You will still carry the high priced oven because >> you can make more money than if you don't. The fact that you have 50 of the >> cheap ovens on the shelf doesn't mean you will sell more of them than if you >> had 40 cheap ovens and 10 of the expensive ovens sitting on the shelf.

    There are many factors you don't seem to understand.




    About 60 years ago a couple of men started a grocery store with one
    store. Their idea was to make 5 fast penneys instead of one slow
    nickle. That turned into the Food Lion chain of stores. Made lots of
    people in a small town of about 20,000 people millionairs. I was a
    stock boy during part of that time and remember going to almost every
    item in the store (with others) and marking down each item. This was
    before bar codes and every item had to be hand marked. In that town and several small towns around there are several Food Lion stores, Wallmart,
    and two other stores toget groceries at as their main item. The A@P, Winn-Dixie chains folded years ago.


    Winn-Dixie went through bankruptcy, but they didn't fold. In fact,
    by local Winn-Dixie store was a 'Sweetbay' that had been a Food Lion
    store that was sold out with all the others to Sweetbay, in the region.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael A Terrell@21:1/5 to James Wilkinson Sword on Mon Jan 1 22:32:17 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:02:10 -0000, Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

    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.

    You aren't going to sell much of anything. People will go
    elsewhere to by their microwave,

    No, because the moron next door is marking up the expensive ones too
    much, so everyone buying decent ovens comes to me.


    So, everyone else is a moron, except for you? This explains more
    than you know. How will you eliminate the overhead for your store? Only
    sell stolen goods? No business phone, or insurance? No employees? Maybe
    a dirt floor, in a tin shack?


    and take their other business with them. First of
    all, it would be foolish to put out 500 units on retail shelves.

    Give reasoning. There might be 500 different models, anyway it was a
    figure plucked out of thin air. I'd probably be selling other devices
    and wouldn't have room for 500.


    Probably? You have no idea how to create a business plan. Without
    one, you'll have to front all of the CASH to stock your store. No floor
    plan, where the seller retains ownership of the merchandise until it's retailed.

    Secondly, a lot of people who buy high end items don't go to a retail
    store. They call a service company, tell them what they want. It is
    delivered, and installed.

    Only if you're a complete numpty that can't plug in something as
    simple as a microwave oven.


    High end microwaves are often installed under a cabinet. I guess all
    you've ever see are the trailer park models that are small enough to
    slide under those $10 cabinets. It required drilling holes in the
    cabinets to hang the oven and installing wiring for the unit so that
    makes you the 'numpty', whatever the hell that is.


    The old one is hauled off as part of the
    price. The seller's reputation is on the line for quality, so most of
    the profit comes from the labor, not the markup.

    I just bought a new microwave. It was a high end model that was
    closed out for $60. The original price was $160. How much profit was
    lost after that $100 discount?

    Who knows, they were cutting losses as they couldn't get rid of them.


    Which wouldn't happen, if someone didn't overstock on high end
    products that they had no chance of selling.


    BTW, that is the first new microwave that I've ever bought. I've
    used them for 35 years, and I only paid $2 for a good used one, once.
    The rest were repaired, mostly with used parts.

    I bought one for 30 once. Basic model. The rest were free second
    hand. Mainly due to idiots replacing perfectly working devices. It's
    the same reason 2nd hand cars are so cheap, people pay 30,000 for a
    new car, then sell it for half that after a couple of years.
    Complete and utter fools.


    If they didn't dump their still usable vehicles, you would never be able
    to own any vehicle. Some people have valid reasons to trade in a two
    year old car. Some people drive for a living, and put a lot of miles on
    a vehicle. Sometimes their needs change, and their vehicle no longer
    fits those needs.


    Another example of silly marketing. I worked at a TV shop as a
    teenager. They sold new and used Color TVs, and new B&W, but no used.
    The owner gave me all the B&W trade ins that I sold from my home. I
    sold more TVs than he did, and most weeks I sold more in used B&W
    than he did in color sets.

    If he was only going to make a few dollars for each used BnW sale,
    then he was right not to bother. Why waste shop space?


    He made no sale, since he didn't have what they wanted. This was the
    mid '60s when money was quite tight in the area. The people couldn't
    afford a new B&W set, which started at over $100 for anything worth
    taking home. People in management jobs at the local factories bought new
    color TVs. They were still vacuum tube, and they cost most working class
    people four months or more of their income. Used color TVs were more
    expensive than new sets, in that they needed a lot of repairs. My dad
    bought one of the first Motorola Quasar color TVs. It had the first
    rectangular color CRT. A 23EGP22. It was one of the worst color CRTs
    made. In today's money that set would have cost thousands of dollars.

    OTOH, I sold every usable TV as fast as I hauled them home, since I
    had no place to store them. He was throwing away the profit of three to
    five new color sets a week, in those B&W sets he was tossing out. I made
    up to $50 on the free TVs that I sold, and he lost that much. Not only
    that, but I had zero overhead, because there would be one to three TVs
    sitting in the old carriage house, with a dirt floor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel60@21:1/5 to Jeff Liebermann on Tue Jan 2 20:44:01 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 18:31:01 -0500, Ralph Mowery
    <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

    People are funny. A fellow I knew sold items at a farmers market. One
    day he tried to sell cantalopes for $ .25 and not selling many, he
    marked that out and put up a sign of 3/$ 1.00. Sold almost all of them
    at that price even though they cost more.

    I found this at a local market: <http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/you-save.html>
    When I accosted a stocking clerk to point out the problem, he failed
    to see what was wrong. When I dragged over a manager, it took about
    15 seconds for his brain to engage and see the problem. He later
    mentioned that it was like that for at least 2 days and nobody
    noticed.

    Just depends who the "You" is!! "You", the customer or "You", the
    retailer!! ;-)

    --
    Daniel

    The three Ages of Man ....

    1. Man believes in Santa Claus!!
    2. Man does not believe in Santa Claus!!
    3. Man IS Santa Clause!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Michael A Terrell on Tue Jan 2 21:53:47 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 03:32:17 -0000, Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:02:10 -0000, Michael A Terrell
    <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

    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.

    You aren't going to sell much of anything. People will go
    elsewhere to by their microwave,

    No, because the moron next door is marking up the expensive ones too
    much, so everyone buying decent ovens comes to me.

    So, everyone else is a moron, except for you? This explains more
    than you know. How will you eliminate the overhead for your store? Only
    sell stolen goods? No business phone, or insurance? No employees? Maybe
    a dirt floor, in a tin shack?

    If he needs to make $50 a sale to run his shop, then making less than that for te cheap shit is pointless.

    and take their other business with them. First of
    all, it would be foolish to put out 500 units on retail shelves.

    Give reasoning. There might be 500 different models, anyway it was a
    figure plucked out of thin air. I'd probably be selling other devices
    and wouldn't have room for 500.

    Probably? You have no idea how to create a business plan. Without
    one, you'll have to front all of the CASH to stock your store. No floor
    plan, where the seller retains ownership of the merchandise until it's retailed.

    Secondly, a lot of people who buy high end items don't go to a retail
    store. They call a service company, tell them what they want. It is
    delivered, and installed.

    Only if you're a complete numpty that can't plug in something as
    simple as a microwave oven.

    High end microwaves are often installed under a cabinet. I guess all you've ever see are the trailer park models that are small enough to
    slide under those $10 cabinets. It required drilling holes in the
    cabinets to hang the oven and installing wiring for the unit so that
    makes you the 'numpty', whatever the hell that is.

    How stupid do you have to be not to be able to fit these things yourself? Do you pay an electrician to change a lightbulb too?

    The old one is hauled off as part of the
    price. The seller's reputation is on the line for quality, so most of
    the profit comes from the labor, not the markup.

    I just bought a new microwave. It was a high end model that was
    closed out for $60. The original price was $160. How much profit was
    lost after that $100 discount?

    Who knows, they were cutting losses as they couldn't get rid of them.

    Which wouldn't happen, if someone didn't overstock on high end
    products that they had no chance of selling.

    You have to cater for whoever lives nearby. If it's a council estate, go set up business elsewhere or be prepared to make fuck all.

    BTW, that is the first new microwave that I've ever bought. I've
    used them for 35 years, and I only paid $2 for a good used one, once.
    The rest were repaired, mostly with used parts.

    I bought one for 30 once. Basic model. The rest were free second
    hand. Mainly due to idiots replacing perfectly working devices. It's
    the same reason 2nd hand cars are so cheap, people pay 30,000 for a
    new car, then sell it for half that after a couple of years.
    Complete and utter fools.

    If they didn't dump their still usable vehicles, you would never be able
    to own any vehicle. Some people have valid reasons to trade in a two
    year old car. Some people drive for a living, and put a lot of miles on
    a vehicle. Sometimes their needs change, and their vehicle no longer
    fits those needs.

    No, they just like a brand new car and have more money than sense.

    Another example of silly marketing. I worked at a TV shop as a
    teenager. They sold new and used Color TVs, and new B&W, but no used.
    The owner gave me all the B&W trade ins that I sold from my home. I
    sold more TVs than he did, and most weeks I sold more in used B&W
    than he did in color sets.

    If he was only going to make a few dollars for each used BnW sale,
    then he was right not to bother. Why waste shop space?

    He made no sale, since he didn't have what they wanted. This was the
    mid '60s when money was quite tight in the area. The people couldn't
    afford a new B&W set, which started at over $100 for anything worth
    taking home. People in management jobs at the local factories bought new color TVs. They were still vacuum tube, and they cost most working class people four months or more of their income. Used color TVs were more expensive than new sets, in that they needed a lot of repairs. My dad
    bought one of the first Motorola Quasar color TVs. It had the first rectangular color CRT. A 23EGP22. It was one of the worst color CRTs
    made. In today's money that set would have cost thousands of dollars.

    OTOH, I sold every usable TV as fast as I hauled them home, since I
    had no place to store them. He was throwing away the profit of three to
    five new color sets a week, in those B&W sets he was tossing out. I made
    up to $50 on the free TVs that I sold, and he lost that much. Not only
    that, but I had zero overhead, because there would be one to three TVs sitting in the old carriage house, with a dirt floor.

    You only made more as he gave you them free.

    --
    Helpdesk: Click on the 'my computer' icon on the left of the screen.
    Customer: Your left or my left?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to Jeff Liebermann on Wed Jan 3 15:40:25 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 02:18:13 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 18:31:01 -0500, Ralph Mowery
    <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

    People are funny. A fellow I knew sold items at a farmers market. One
    day he tried to sell cantalopes for $ .25 and not selling many, he
    marked that out and put up a sign of 3/$ 1.00. Sold almost all of them
    at that price even though they cost more.

    I found this at a local market: <http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/you-save.html>
    When I accosted a stocking clerk to point out the problem, he failed
    to see what was wrong. When I dragged over a manager, it took about
    15 seconds for his brain to engage and see the problem. He later
    mentioned that it was like that for at least 2 days and nobody
    noticed.

    People drinking that shit are gullible enough to not notice.

    --
    Why do men die before their wives? They want to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Wilkinson Sword@21:1/5 to rickman on Wed Jan 3 15:40:54 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 21:51:50 -0000, rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 1/1/2018 11:16 AM:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 04:44:33 -0000, rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> >> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/31/2017 6:39 AM:
    On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:59:45 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 6:45 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:33:26 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:56 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:48:34 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 3:34 PM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:31:14 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/30/2017 9:37 AM:
    On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 05:39:04 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert Baer
    <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail..com>
    wrote:

    James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:07:43 -0000, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@buttocks.local> 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.

    <shrug> 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.

    Like I said, you don't understand retail. You may only make 10 on the low priced ovens, but if you sell 10 of those for every 1 of the high priced
    oven you will still carry the low priced oven because you will make more money than if you don't. You will still carry the high priced oven because you can make more money than if you don't. The fact that you have 50 of the cheap ovens on the shelf doesn't mean you will sell more of them than if you had 40 cheap ovens and 10 of the expensive ovens sitting on the shelf.

    There are many factors you don't seem to understand.

    I understand that they're not making as much as they could on the expensive ones. Lower the price, they aren't clearing them fast enough.

    --
    Why do men die before their wives? They want to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steff@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 13 14:16:58 2018
    XPost: alt.electronics

    Den 2017-12-11 kl. 05:07, skrev Mary-Jane Rottencrotch:
    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?


    No I run them empty when I was a repairguy/problem shooter in Whirlpool
    factory here in Sweden. Sometimes running them for 10-15 minutes to
    check for microwave leaks and abnormalities. So a Shorter time of
    running empty will not harm your owen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)