On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:08:58 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 03:54:32 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > > > > > > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > lol. anyone can see what you did. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why are you so insecure & so desperate? 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't recognise myself in that description. 
> > > 
> > > doesn't surprise me 
> > More text-chopping. 
> > 
> > What I actually posted was. "I don't recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting."
>
> Yes, it's normal to snip material one is not replying to in newsgroups. Speaking of which, your future time wasting here is now snipped.

Tabby seems to want the admiration he can't earn - which is also John Larkin's problem - and resents the criticism that he does earn, so he snips it without marking the snip. Posters normally mark the snip when they find parts of the post they are responding to be irrelevant  to their response.

Text-choppers like Tabby just leave out the bits they can't answer.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 03:54:32 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > lol. anyone can see what you did. 
> > > > 
> > > > > And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Why are you so insecure & so desperate? 
> > > 
> > > I don't recognise myself in that description. 
> > 
> > doesn't surprise me
> More text-chopping. 
> 
> What I actually posted was. "I don't recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting." 

yes, it's normal to snip material one is not replying to in newsgroups. Speaking of which, your future time wasting here is now snipped

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 

<snip>

> > > > > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > > > > 
> > > > > lol. anyone can see what you did. 
> > > 
> > > > And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it. 
> > > 
> > > Why are you so insecure & so desperate? 
> > 
> > I don't recognise myself in that description.
>
> doesn't surprise me

More text-chopping.

What I actually posted was. "I don't recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting."

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote: 
> > On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That really was pathetic. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny. 
> > > > 
> > > > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > > > 
> > > > lol. anyone can see what you did. 
> > 
> > > And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it. 
> >
> > Why are you so insecure & so desperate? 
> 
> I don't recognise myself in that description. 

doesn't surprise me

In article <tvaibb$3mmqs$1@dont-email.me>,
Don Y  <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
>of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
>normal to the laminations.  Is this a significant difference
>(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
>over another)?
>
>Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
>Or, some moreso than others?
>
I have made several practical things printing 3D.
My brother used parts for a dog cart. They have held up plenty.
I have made a protector for the spindle from my lathe, there is
no doubt that it functions  well.
Organ pipes? Works okay.

So 3D printing is not only for decorative pieces.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning.            - the Wise from Antrim -

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That really was pathetic. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny. 
> > > 
> > > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > > 
> > > lol. anyone can see what you did. 
>
> > And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.
>
> Why are you so insecure & so desperate?

I don't recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
> > > > 
> > > > > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That really was pathetic. 
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny. 
> > 
> > > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 
> > 
> > lol. anyone can see what you did.
> And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it. 

why are you so insecure & so desperate?

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
> > > 
> > > > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > > > 
> > > > That really was pathetic. 
> > > 
> > > I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny. 
>
> > It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).
>
> lol. anyone can see what you did.

And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > > 
> > > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
> > 
> > > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > > 
> > > That really was pathetic. 
> > 
> > I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny.
> It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish). 

lol. anyone can see what you did.

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I wouldn't expect the same performance as an injected molded 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >problem, then I'm probably better off pursuing a different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >technology. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > money is not your first problem. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It's not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Tabby's ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No need. I've seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn't work in terms of improving strength. It's not hard to work out why. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The fibres won't cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don't bond any better to the next layer. 
> > > > > > What's required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn't effective, meaning the fibres are too short. 
> > > 
> > > He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That's funnily pathetic. 
>
> > Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I'd pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn't argue the point - just made it less salient. 
> > 
> > That really was pathetic.
>
> I didn't waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny.

It wasn't any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).

-- 
Bill Sloman,