Help with building sled

[GaryM]

Mike, I don't see any reason why you couldn't go 4 3/4" with no problems.

Gary

[mtylerfl]

Mike, I don't see any reason why you couldn't go 4 3/4" with no problems.

Gary

Gary,

Thanks again for your testing and report. I'll probably try a "deep sled" sometime now that you have discovered the machine cooperates with no ill effect!

[rengaw]

Somewhere is an LRH drawing of a scanning sled drawn Sept. '06 by Dave Jockim on C size sheets. Can't find it now, but the assembly drawing I believe is the same one as in the Probe manual.
The side rails were mistakingly drawn in at 2.125" when they should have been at 3", (using 3/4" material and mounted to the outside of base as shown).
But the point is that if you look closely, the top of the rails show 3 holes on top of both side rails.
If these holes were to be drilled equally spaced and on center, they could be transferred to spacers of almost any thickness and dowels glued into the spacers and mounted in pairs to attain any height required. Alternate hole patterns could make them stackable. If the dowels were only glued into the spacers, they would be removable and replaceable with different pairs.
Just a thought.
Steve

[mtylerfl]

Somewhere is an LRH drawing of a scanning sled drawn Sept. '06 by Dave Jockim on C size sheets. Can't find it now, but the assembly drawing I believe is the same one as in the Probe manual.
The side rails were mistakingly drawn in at 2.125" when they should have been at 3", (using 3/4" material and mounted to the outside of base as shown).
But the point is that if you look closely, the top of the rails show 3 holes on top of both side rails.
If these holes were to be drilled equally spaced and on center, they could be transferred to spacers of almost any thickness and dowels glued into the spacers and mounted in pairs to attain any height required. Alternate hole patterns could make them stackable. If the dowels were only glued into the spacers, they would be removable and replaceable with different pairs.
Just a thought.
Steve

Hello,

Here is a link to the pdf of sled plans I think you are referring to:
http://www.carvebuddy.com/PDFs/SCANN...AN_3-PAGES.pdf

(I don't see the 3 holes you mentioned on top of the side rails, though.)

I don't believe David "made a mistake" per se - I just think that was his particular design for a shallow-depth scanning sled. But, yes, you could make the siderails 3" tall instead of the specified 2.25" in the plans if using 3/4" stock for the sled platform. (That would yield a total depth of 2.25" for the "scanning item".)

[TIMCOSBY]

i have scanned up to 1.9" so far. as long as ther are no staight up and down sides for the body of the probe to hit it will be o.k.

[rengaw]

Thanks for the link...That's the one I couldn't find again. You're right, no holes on top of the rails in that drawing, but they are shown on page 7 of the Probe manual. I had supposed the 2 1/4" dimension was a commonality to both.
Thanks for the reply!
Steve