previous by date | index | next by date |
topic list |
>While I've got my mechanical hat on......
>There is one major "worry" about fixing the rails to the ∗top∗
>and ∗bottom∗ surfaces.
>Tolerances of cutting the wood!
>See, in the current 19" scheme, the 2 "prongs" at the end of the MOTM-19As
>are wider than 'normal'. This allows each rail to "wiggle" in a vertical
>slop of
>about 0.075".
>This allows for panel accumulated tolerances (ie Joe Pavone's rack-o-MOTM)
>to
>be accounted for.
>What has me worried is that wood is not "precision machined" to 0.002 inches
>like
>the panels and rails are! So, I can see mucho problems with a ∗fixed∗
>top/bottom
>rail (never mind Hendry's scheme of bolting 12 things in the middle). I
>can
>see the
>bottom set of panel holes, in the bottom rail being off with respect to
>the
>screwed-in
>bottom rail.
>The beauty of Moog's wood rails is "who cares?" As long as you allow slop
>in
>the ∗overall∗
>inside "lip-to-lip" dimension, you are home free (remember, he used black
>∗wood screws∗
>to hold the modules into the ∗wood∗ rail). You start at the bottom, screw
>those in flush to
>the bottom board, and the top edge of the top-row panels fall "where-ever"
>(as long as they don't
>overlap the top edge!) Who cares if there is a 0.040 gap? You'll never
>see
>it!
>You ∗will care a great deal∗ if there is a 0.040" mis-match in the mounting
>holes and the tapped holes
>in the rails!
>I am beginning to see that having 2 strong (oak, kiln-dried pine) wood
>rails
>is looking good.
>Now, you ∗still∗ need the center bar to joing the rows to each other.
>BUT...that can be side
>mounted.....