About Spool & Slice
A filament site that compiles published specifications instead of claiming a test lab. Here is who writes it, what we actually do, and what we deliberately do not claim.
Who writes this
Scooter M.. I'm Scooter, an enthusiast who's genuinely into this. I read the manuals, compile the published specs, and do the math. No lab coat.
That is the whole byline and it is deliberately modest. There is no engineering degree behind this site, no test lab, no years of professional experience in polymer science, and no panel of experts. Claiming any of those would be easy to write and impossible to substantiate, and it is the first thing a competitor or a careful reader would check.
What we do instead
Manufacturers publish a surprising amount of real technical information and almost nobody puts it side by side. Prusa Research publish nozzle and bed ranges for every common material and per-material drying figures. Overture publish their own drying numbers, which disagree with Prusa's by up to ten degrees. E3D publish measurements of nozzle wear from abrasive filament. Bambu Lab publish how long a dried spool stays print-ready in different humidity.
Each of those is genuinely useful and each is sitting on a different website in a different format. What we do is compile them into tables you can compare, cite each figure at the point it is used with the date we retrieved it, and do the arithmetic in the open so you can check it.
- Compile. One table for material parameters, one for drying, one for nozzle wear. Every row sourced.
- Cite in place. Not a bibliography at the bottom — the source is next to the number it produced.
- Show the disagreements. Where two manufacturers publish different figures for the same material, we show both rather than averaging them into a number nobody stands behind.
- Say when we do not know. Several pages on this site decline to publish a comparison because the published data does not exist.
The site, in numbers
77 content pages, 54 products in the ledger, and 79 individual specification figures carrying a citation to the document they came from. Those are computed from the site's own content rather than typed in, so they cannot drift into being a claim that is no longer true.
Why this is worth reading anyway
The obvious objection is that a site which has not tested anything cannot tell you which product is best. That is fair, and it is why we are careful about what our scores claim: they are an editorial fit rating for a stated use, based on published specifications and on reasoning we show. They are not measurements and they are not customer ratings, and they never enter our structured data as a product rating.
What a published-specification approach does well is the thing the testing sites mostly do not: it is reproducible. Every figure has a link. If a manufacturer revises a data sheet, our figure is wrong and you can see exactly how. That is a different kind of trust from “we printed twenty spools”, and it is one you can verify without taking our word for anything.
Who publishes it
Spool & Slice is published by Slate Mill Group, founded 2026. It is funded by Amazon Associates commission and by nothing else — no sponsored posts, no paid rankings, no free products accepted. The full arrangement is on the affiliate disclosure page and the rules we hold ourselves to are on the editorial policy page.
Corrections
If a figure here is wrong, tell us. Corrections get read first, the fix is dated on the page it affects, and we would rather be corrected than be consistent. Use the contact form or email info@spoolandslice.com.
Where to start reading
The master material ledger is the page this site exists to publish. The drying and storage hub has the numbers that change the most outcomes for the least money, and the methodology page sets out exactly how a pick gets made.