Hello All,
After a much delayed start I'm finding that assembling the Archivist is real pleasure. Its gone fairly smoothly. The one thing I'm left wondering about at this point is how tight the Cradle Angles should be in the Cradle Base slots? The fit is no where near as tight as with the Cradle Leaves, but I couldn't force them in by hand and had to resort to the dead blow hammer. I had the impression that the Cradle Angles should be able to slide back and forth without much effort. If it should be looser, I should probably sand the down the pegs a little so that they fit in the slots with more freedom -?
Is there a video up that would show how much freedom of motion the Cradle Angles should have? With the current tightness in my kit, I don't see what influence the bicycle skewers would have.
thanks!
-Daniel
Archivist: Snugness of Cradle Angles in Base Slots?
Moderator: peterZ
-
- Posts: 388
- Joined: 01 Jun 2014, 17:04
- Number of books owned: 1000
- Country: United States of America
Re: Archivist: Snugness of Cradle Angles in Base Slots?
The angles should fit only loosely in the cradle base. They should move back and forth in the slot fairly smoothly with no stickiness. The clamps act as a brake. If they are tight, you will have trouble moving them out or in to work with thicker or thinner books. It is much better that they be too loose than too tight because the brake will keep them in position for actual scanning. I would definitely suggest that you sand them down. You might even consider using a power sander (like the triangle-head detail sander) if you have one.
-D
-D
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 13 Sep 2015, 18:25
- E-book readers owned: Kindle, Kindle Paperwhite
- Number of books owned: 500
- Country: USA
Re: Archivist: Snugness of Cradle Angles in Base Slots?
I can report that working with a triangle head detail scanner worked just fine. Fun learning a new tool that will come in handy later. For process improvement, I'd like to recommend testing the fit of these slots out before shipping a kit.
thanks again,
-Daniel
thanks again,
-Daniel