He said line width in the video, and he’s 100% correct. Minimum layer height is limited by your z steppers and extruder, and can generally go as low as you can smear out more plastic. In practical terms that’s about 0.1mm for a well tuned consumer grade printer. Commercial printers may perform much better than that.

Line width is constrained by the outer surface width of the nozzle for maximum width (typically about 2x stated nozzle diameter, though that won’t be the case for these airbrush nozzles), to the inner orifice diameter for minimum width.

The final print resolution is a combination of how line width and layer height. It’s not usually worth going below half the layer height of your minimum line width (i.e. nozzle diameter), because your poor x/y resolution will overshadow your good z resolution.

It takes both to make nice prints.

OK I misunderstood, I misread your comment about layer height as bead width. But I’m pretty sure the original comment was about bead width. There isn’t a minimum layer height vs. orifice. The real limiting factor is really bead width and that’s what a ‘smaller nozzle’ really allows.

Either your wording or your facts are wrong. It’s trivial to make your maximum bead width to be double the orifice diameter. I don’t know if there’s a maximum but it’s worth swapping nozzles for something larger before you get to double.

I think anybody didnt wondering about if the nozle hole shaped not like rount but somthing a bit more oval or very thin rectangular may have more fine details on the part.
but be avare of my messege coz it all ready an intelectual copyright idea from me.

+1 for the “E3D Pro sock”. My prints were terrible before I added this. And make sure you get the Pro sock because the other one does NOT cover the nozzle.

I’d be interested to see the results of a Pro sock in addition to this modified airbrush nozzle.

At core, the problem is the numeric relationship is reversed. That is, he’s saying the smallest reproducible feature/line height is no smaller than the nozzle bore diameter. But, we all know this is specifically untrue. Very often the MAXIMUM extrudate that can be put out by a nozzle is ~80-90/% of the nozzle bore diameter, and the nominal diameter is in the 40-60% range. Those values are, by definition, smaller than the bore diameter, in opposition to the comparative direction in the quote.

Unfortunately, as you try and reword the original, it all falls apart. But, the logical truth of the paint-roller does make sense. It just isn’t related to the numeric bore diameter in the manner indicated. It’s not the “nozzle size”, it’s more the “nozzle’s minimum unbroken thread diameter combined with Nyquist-style motion-system resolution (and other variables, like system flex, top-surface defects, etc.).” See…the pithy shortness kinda falls apart.

What do you mean? How is it wrong? Elaborate.