[Oldmanandhistoy]

The main purpose of this design was to eliminate the axial loads and have the bearings only carrying radial loads. I would think that the 4 bearings should be able to carry far more weight than I would need them to. The only drawback is that the table needs to be suspended, to allow the gantry sides to be pulled together under the table.

What about adding one more set of bearings in kind of a G set up instead of your C; the rail would be an L shape turned 90 degrees clock wise? If that makes sense, you would not need to suspend the table.

John

[ger21]

What about adding one more set of bearings is kind of a G set up instead of your C; the rail would be an L shape turned 90 degrees clock wise? If that makes sense, you would not need to suspend the table.

John

I've thought of trying to do that, but it gets a lot more complicated, and seems like it would be a bit weaker, having to warp around underneath.

Now you've got me thinking what if I mount the rail near the bottom, and have the gantry side straddle the rail. One problem might be that a "trough" would be created that might fill with dust and chips. I'll think about this for a bit.

[Oldmanandhistoy]

One problem might be that a "trough" would be created that might fill with dust and chips. I'll think about this for a bit.

Adding brushes to either end to sweep the chips out may work; you could have small openings at intervals for the chips to fall through.

John