Nikuk

in my truck I have a "1/Ott" main holder. It's rated for 300 amps. I have a 500 amp ANL in there. When I was burping in my truck, I was passing UPTO 620 amps per burp. If I tried that for music, there would be no fuse holder left. -Nick

I have to ask though, Who's Civic in the background of the 1st pic? I'd hump You for a drive. -Nick

oh I agree that it's fine... I just said that its easier to work with. -Nick

what rating was the fuse and what rating was the fuse holder? Not all fuseholders are rated for above 300amps. You could also have a heat trap problem under the hood. -Nick

I heart claybar.

I heart claybar.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.p...y.ap/index.html

High court OKs personal property seizures Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT) Bankruptcy Attorney Free online bankruptcy evaluation by bankruptcy attorneys. See if Chapter 7 or... www.bankruptcyhome.com Low-Fee Bankruptcy Attorneys Looking for an experienced, affordable attorney to end your debt problems? Legal... www.legalhelpers.com Speak to a Personal Injury Attorney Now Contact an injury law firm about your injury. A local attorney will help you... www.injuryhelplineattorney.com Affordable Attorney Help in Your Area Get legal help for pennies a day from local attorneys. Request more info on how... www.autosender.net YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Supreme Court Connecticut or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue. Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

pervert.... I have an 18" ruler

I have an 18" ______

Definately the thin resin. Otherwise, wet out will be a pain in the ass, especially with 4:1. For sub enclosures I use 3:1 epoxy with 6oz "S" glass. I do exactly as CBFry mentions: Lay one layer of cloth (resin it and let it tack awhile), then lay another layer of cloth at a 45* angle. Depending on the actual shape of the box I use 4-6 layers as a minimum. If Your going to use 4:1 I'd suggest going up to 7.5oz to combat the brittleness (sp) of quick curing resin. $0.02 -Nick

+$6 for the MEKP, right?

http://www.uscomposites.com/epoxy.html $48.50 for a gallon / quart of 4:1. Pot time of 10 minutes, set time 1-2 hours, Full cure in 3-4. Shipping is ~$8 iirc (last time I bought a gal.). There is no hazardous charge or anything for two part. BTW - they are in FL somehwere. -Nick

make sure it;s thick enough? So use twice as much polyester and it's still cheaper? O.k.

lemme know what he says, I;ve got a couple of distributors lined up. -Nick

I only got charged for (4) 206's.. that's a $10 net freebie.

every pucking time I try to do something... WTF?

The 6028's are a small step up from the 206/4's... I only bought these to return the truck to a stock-like setup (yank my CDT's). I'm thinking that the 6028's in back & the 206's in front will prolly suffice...? I don't wanna bother shipping these back (cost on PE) and yadda yadda. Whatcha think?

alright... I've got (2) 6028's & (2) 206/4's

^Your right... ugh, wtf

hmmm, I ordered 4ohm, the box says 4ohm, the woofer says 8

For $10 each... why not? Gotta return the truck to stock. -Nick

Toppage

hol chit, I'm impressed. Ordered from PE Sunday Afternoon... UPS JUST dropped it off now. I think that's the fastet that I've ever gotten anything from them. :eek: