| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| 2.4 vs 5.8 http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=44173 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sprouseod [ Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I am really new to all this. If underrated it correctly, the 2.4 signal is for the video feed back to the uniy. The 5.8 is for the acual phantom, w or w/o video Is this correct or am i I missing something? Is this correct? Richard |
|
| Author: | Barry Daniels [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Are you talking about the flux capacitor? |
|
| Author: | Stuart Gort [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I believe that boy is going to be checking some video forum and then cursing the moderators for censoring him. |
|
| Author: | Flippo [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
no, no , NO sprouseod. You have it confused with the video inverted feed back loop. The signal for the video feed back to the uniy is 1.9 and the acual phantom is 3.8. Nuf said... |
|
| Author: | Eric Reid [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Flippo wrote: no, no , NO sprouseod. You have it confused with the video inverted feed back loop. The signal for the video feed back to the uniy is 1.9 and the acual phantom is 3.8. Nuf said... No, in English units, the acual uniy is 2' 54". The phantom is a function of the variability of random primes.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/do_the_math/2013/05/yitang_zhang_twin_primes_conjecture_a_huge_discovery_about_prime_numbers.html |
|
| Author: | doncaparker [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I thought the shadow knows what evil lurks in hearts of men. Anyway, it's 1.21 gigawatts. |
|
| Author: | Haans [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
42 |
|
| Author: | RustySP [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I don't know what this is all about, am I correct or am I missing something? Time for a goat picture. |
|
| Author: | Pmaj7 [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Keneth, what's the frequency? |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Eddie's in the space time continuum. |
|
| Author: | dzsmith [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I would just plug it in and see what happens. Wear safety glasses of course, and shield important body parts. |
|
| Author: | cphanna [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
...and don't forget to energize the cross-gonculating modulator.... |
|
| Author: | doncaparker [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
. . . or you might transmogrify the midichlorian ratio to its inverse . . . requiring a mythryllispanner wrench to correct . . . and those are a real bear to get these days (unless you know somebody). |
|
| Author: | cphanna [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
doncaparker wrote: . . . or you might transmogrify the midichlorian ratio to its inverse . . . requiring a mythryllispanner wrench to correct . . . and those are a real bear to get these days (unless you know somebody). ...wish I had said that... |
|
| Author: | Alex Kleon [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Well, the 2.4 if its supercharged, otherwise, I'd go with the 5.8 dbl 4 barrel. Alex |
|
| Author: | dzsmith [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Alex Kleon wrote: Well, the 2.4 if its supercharged, otherwise, I'd go with the 5.8 dbl 4 barrel. Alex My '95 Roadmaster had a 5.8 L supercharged. it weighed 4500 pounds, but could still give you whiplash when you gunned it. Sorry to stray off topic. |
|
| Author: | Wes Paul [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
I would say 2.4, less is more. |
|
| Author: | Bryan Bear [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
Alex, there is no replacement for displacement. . . |
|
| Author: | Alex Kleon [ Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2.4 vs 5.8 |
dzsmith wrote: Alex Kleon wrote: Well, the 2.4 if its supercharged, otherwise, I'd go with the 5.8 dbl 4 barrel. Alex My '95 Roadmaster had a 5.8 L supercharged. it weighed 4500 pounds, but could still give you whiplash when you gunned it. Sorry to stray off topic. Topic? What topic? I'm totally lost, but it was cocktail hour a while ago!  Alex |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|