>>2938142
>You have introduced the consumer product requirement
It's never been a requirement. In context, any alternative to the current consumer products has to COMPETE with the current consumer products. This is 3D printing, a hobby where bespoke parts are found on nearly, if not every single printer. If custom parts can do the job better, great. But unless it's COMPETITIVE with existing products, it won't actually solve the issue because people won't use it. You know that people can use chunks of steel now, right?

>no answer.
Because the conversation is still up the page. The reply chains are hyperlinked, so you don't even have to scroll up. And everyone probably thought that was rhetorical, since you got the gist. Other Anon wants to explore the requirements for a PEEK-capable printer, and in the course of discussion, I pointed out that distortion from different thermal expansion is an issue (due to the high chamber temperature required for PEEK), which was being discussed when you chimed in with how easy it is to deal with.

>(You) are nor quoting me here.
Correct. As I said:>>2938140
>you entered the reply chain in response to this:
That is, that's what someone else said, and you REPLIED to that. Please try to read more carefully in the future. That may help you discern what people are talking about.

>(You)r thinking insists on ad hominem.
I'm curious. What do you think an ad hominem is such that it has anything to do with this conversation?

>I told you. A flexure for each bolt. 1 DOF.
That's not a geometry, that's a textual abstraction.

>You need a fucking sketch?
That would be nice, since it's supposedly so easy. Pic related is the design to beat.

>are you talking ambient or chamber temperatures?
"Ambient" refers to the conditions surrounding something of interest. An X gantry located within a heated enclosure experiences the ambient temperature of whatever the enclosure is.

>the fucking 500C oven
It's 130C+, as has been mentioned previously.