Is it really true that turning on a microwave with nothing in it will break it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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 :-#(#
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:
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.
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 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?
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!
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.
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?
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!
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.
rickman wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:STUPID!
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.
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.
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:IDIOT!
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR).
rickman wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote on 12/12/2017 2:26 PM:I live in an apartment complex, and a lot of microwave ovens have
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!
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.
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:STUPID!
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.
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.
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:IDIOT!
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?
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.
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:59:42 -0000, Robert BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:IDIOT!
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?
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.
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.
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:56:51 -0000, Robert BaerNOTHING to "absorb", IF there is a thermal cut-out that is a BIG clue
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
rickman wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote on 12/11/2017 11:50 AM:STUPID!
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.
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.
to that fact.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>IDIOT!
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?
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.
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?
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 BaerRule 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).
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>IDIOT!
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?
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.
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.
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 BaerRule 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).
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote: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.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>IDIOT!
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>
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.
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 BaerRule 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).
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote: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.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>IDIOT!
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: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
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. >>>>>>>>>
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>>
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?
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 BaerRule 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).
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:I went for an interview in a place that designed industrial strength >>>>>>> magnetron. There IS a block to absorb energy. A microwave oven without
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>IDIOT!
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:I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>>>
one is VERY badly designed.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:I went for an interview in a place that designed industrial strength >>>>>>>> magnetron. There IS a block to absorb energy. A microwave oven without
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:IDIOT!
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:I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>>>>
one is VERY badly designed.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every >>>>>>>> fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:I went for an interview in a place that designed industrial strength >>>>>>>>> magnetron. There IS a block to absorb energy. A microwave oven >>>>>>>>> without
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:IDIOT!
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:I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>>>>>
one is VERY badly designed.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every >>>>>>>>> fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:I went for an interview in a place that designed industrial strength >>>>>>>>>> magnetron. There IS a block to absorb energy. A microwave oven >>>>>>>>>> without
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:IDIOT!
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:
I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
ain't nuttin that "absorbs" the energy.
Ask how the maggie works with highly mis-matched loads (hi SWR). >>>>>>>>>>
one is VERY badly designed.
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?
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every >>>>>>>>>> fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:IDIOT!
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:
I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every >>>>>>>>>>> fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:IDIOT!
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:
I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every >>>>>>>>>>>> fifty
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail..com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:IDIOT!
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:
I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 BaerRule of thumb or any commercial (= = volume) item is: for every
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:49:55 -0000, rickman <gnuarm@gmail..com>IDIOT!
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:
I interviewed with a place once that was doing something with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 61:52:21 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,274,515 |