I can understand arguments against ABS, ASA, PC, PA, etc. They're more difficult to print, need enclosed chambers, etc. But that doesn't apply to PETG; it's super-easy to print (IMHO, easier than PLA). And basically any modern printer can handle it. And it's cheaper. So I simply do not understand the people still sticking with PLA so much (beyond a desire to be more environmentally conscious, or wanting a very specific product that doesn't have a PETG equivalent).

I've never experienced any sort of "sagging" with PETG, and honestly don't even know what you mean by that (and I generally print very hot). Do you mean printing overhangs without support? That's not great with anything. Do you mean elephant foot? Never experienced it. I make primarily functional parts, not decor, so dimensional accuracy is key; zero problems. And concerning sagging, let me tell you, PLA *really* sags if it sits in the hot sun long enough...

To get PLA to be "tough" (impact resistant) on the order of PETG you have to load it up with PU microplastics, which makes it worse for the environment than PETG so you lose that advantage. And it gets rid of its stiffness, which is the main thing PLA had mechanically on PETG. You basically make PLA be "not as crap" by making it... have increasingly low fractions of PLA, and higher fractions of "other stuff".

The criticism that many people still use PLA even when there's far better options available is an argument not exactly responded to with "X community overwhelmingly uses it". Yes, and for them too there are far better options available. Unless you like your guns melting in a hot car, being brittle (or being loaded with PU), not entirely water stable, etc etc.

And if we're doing the "X community overwhelmingly uses" argument, let me point to where things are made for critical function, not for fun: the war in Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Russia extensively use 3d printed parts. And almost none of them are PLA - it's overwhelmingly PETG.

There's plenty of corruption in Spanish politics, but it doesn't work by direct open donation. If a direct donation is made, it's in secret in a brown envelope. Alternatively, companies with a viewpoint to push might hire a company with connections to a politician to, say, produce and run their stand in an industry expo at a very generous rate.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that this is what Russia wants.

We know about Israel sniping journalists despite their sniping journalists. You think there's a good reason for us not to know about people in Iran being killed?

PLA blends like PLA+es can be just as tough as PETG but without the sagging. (You can get the sag out of PETG, but that commonly means reducing layer adhesion by reducing temperature.) PLA+ parts can handle a lot of abuse, e.g. the gun printing community overwhelmingly uses it.

It's acceptable where it's applicable, and there's a shitload of racists out there. Defining "racist" is now a politically complex process. The word used to mean someone who believes that race is real and who further believes that some races are inherently genetically superior to others. The only useful distinction is that "a racist" (as opposed to someone who "is racist") should only be applied to people who are willfully perpetuating racism, not to suggest that only privileged people can be "racist" which is the current academic status quo — because the idea of internalized racism contradicts that idea directly, and ideas which are internally contradictory must be at least partly false. It might be hard to see that from atop an ivory tower, though.

ok, if the teddybear eyes were not made in one country the fur made in another the stuffing made in another the packaging made in another then all assembled in yet another.....it would cost 20 times more.. because we can't afford to pay workers to do so..... we would need to find an alternative to the teddybear. like a block of wood or an old sock. do you understand that.....?

Really?

It really wasn't THAT long ago that in the US we did precisely that...we make pretty much EVERYTHING in country....go back to look at the 70's and 60's...etc.

We make most of what we consumed....no reason we couldn't do it again...

Yeah, you can hardly do better than becoming POTUS twice.

It's just a hobby (and content for his channel). Everyone has their own :) Right now I'm working on a CO2 capture system to take atmospheric CO2 and pump it into my greenhouse.

I imagine a standard thickness is probably something like 9.5mm.

It's not all resin printing, he only used resin printing for one part in the video. Most was FDM printing. Though I did find it strange that he was using PLA. If it's parts facing repeated impact, you think he'd at least go with PETG, if not something like ABS/ASA or a nylon. I really don't get why so many people are so averse to non-PLA polymers. I guess PLA is more "eco-friendly"**, and yeah, there's a ton of PLA options out there, but that's mainly just because people are buying so much PLA.

** I'm actually thinking about switching some of my prototyping back to PLA, even though it costs more than PETG, because I can break down my PLA waste in sodium hydroxide at home. But I almost never make production parts in PLA unless that's the only practical option (for example, a given type of material only being available in PLA). Who wants parts that break if you look at them wrong, or melt in a hot car?

By "quite a large scale" you mean 1.3m long. He certainly could have made it longer than that. Honestly, I mainly think he just wanted an excuse to do more 3d printing and electronics work ;)

As per the principle in this article, that would make it worse if applied to the Reynolds regime in question. This is not about "general roughness", but specifically shaped roughness. In particular, a very sparse roughness on an otherwise smooth surface.

Sanding a hull is dealing with entirely different things. Sanding in general first off gets rid of microprotrusions and broader undulations. There is no question that this helps. The question to whether to polish to a matte or smooth surface is less obvious. Matte probably is better in general, as it helps make the surface more hydrophilic (there is also argued to be some potential to be making something like "riblets", although in practice you're unlikely to get the geometry right (true riblets are extremely thin walled).

This comment section is jam packed full of people mentioning the same misconceived and inapplicable thing, over and over. A thing that was actually discussed in the article, which they did not read.