David,
I'm impressed by your job!

As engineers, it is our obligation to eliminate as many "things" that won't or very difficult to implement from reaching the paper. ;)

You can always try to perfect the design. With enough time, effort & perseverance, they will definitely work eventually.

Its another philosophical thingy...

Normally, these multi-million dollar project can afford the time & money, yours salary & your crews'... NOT when build for own use especially to generate income, i.e. put on the business man cap.

I always keep the two very distinctive from each other.

I meant to say look into the scaffolding joints for inspiration, but if really tight with time, just use them untill a better solution arises.

Moving the four jacks independantly will be frought with problems and lifting it with hydraulics could be just as troublesome, the four jacks driven by one chain and motor WILL work - have a close look at any large wide belt sander - very solid table moved vertically with four jack screws driven by one motor and I have seen some very big ones move effortlesly (see Heeseman machines). All this proposed system needs is some small refinements to the locking/consolidating mechanism.

Philosophy again...

My idea for the lift is to move the bed to a close proximity of the latching position. Then latch & lock at precise location, using tapered shaft/ dovel pin or what ever that fits the purpose to mate the locating holes on the bed & the frame then secure them with bolting through or other methods.

By doing so, we eliminate headache of having a "precision" height adjustment. Only require precision height locking which is a lot easier & cost effective.

But really, if the height need to be adjust after every single job... You then need to surface the spoil board after every shift.... Unless you make sure the positioning holes are accurate within o.1mm i.e. +/-0.05mm.

Why not buy a knee mill or something else convert it? All will be precision. Milling machine can be a lot larger then 10' x 40', with Z-stroke of over 6' and used one can be found with a little digging.
Just my opinion, one has their own.

If I look at the sketch plans in this thread, the moving table has become heavier than the static x-rails. And that leads to the question; Why not make the table static and do the height adjustment on the x-rails?

AAAAAHHHHHH!
That a good approach too.
Or just make the gantry wheels move up/down?

Dave, I assume that once you've finished the fun part of design brainstorming, you're going to step back, sort out what design you're using for an extended Z if necessary, and do at least an armchair evaluation of what the forces will look like in the more challenging cutting positions. Then check this carefully against the types and shapes of materials you plan to cut, and see if your overall design will really work better than the original.

Brainstorming is great, and I encourage you to continue, but to my eye, you're already flirting past the boundary of K.I.S.S. if the actual requirements are just a table with an 8-10" cutting range that can be adjusted for materials from 0" to 20" or so, and not use more than it's own envelope for storage inside the shop.

All I can say is WOW, the gears are smoking' now:).

Ken- One main thing I forgot to mention regarding my field of work and working on high-end multi million dollar homes or not high-end at all, the homes were not new, but remodels. Remodeling a home is a different animal. I wish they were new, you would have a clean slate to work from when ever the architect, engineer and/or designer adds, changes anything. But when you have an architect and engineer want to put an elaborate steel skeleton inside an 80 year old home and you're not allowed to knock it down because it's 'grandfathered' into the site, that's were I excelled the most. Figuring out how to put a square peg in a round hole. This has always been my mode of seeing things, always trying to figure out a good solution to a difficult or near impossible idea. When I walk into someones home, whether new or falling apart, I don't see paint, trim, furniture, etc., I see framing, wiring, piping, structure, etc. Strange, but that's the way I see things.

This is how I see this part of the project, as a challenge to an idea and criteria. The criteria? a)Trying to eliminate as much play in the extended z axis as possible for smaller more precise projects, b) Create a deep cavity for use of an indexer and c)no space in the shop to allow for other components to help alleviate a and b above.

The main reason for this particular design because I have seen it work. Like Alan pointed out, this concept is used many times in woodworking and other stationary tools. My own Dewalt Thickness Planer uses this exact engineering, much compact machine, but same principle. I agree that a hydraulic system would be too complicated for the infrequent use of the table, however a chain and sprocket system is very simple and effective, either by means of an electric motor or simple hand crank.

The discussion here is to see how to take a conceptual idea and take it through a working machine. From the beginning of this topic, the original sketch has progressed and evolved thanks to the many innovative members of this forum.

As far as Gerald latest opinion to keep the table static and move the gantry to the work, I'm not so sure. This would require more precise engineering to make the gantry move to a precise and exact location. At that point you may have to introduce linear guides and ball screw with anti-back lash nuts. Keeping the base and gantry static would allow for a better job if the gantry were already level and tuned to the base. Its as simple as a 20 ton shop press: the jack, gantry, legs and base are stationary and static, but the working table moves up and down and held at any location with pins. In this case the pins are replaced with bolts and require better precise hole locations.

This still leaves us with the original idea, move the table a general distance from the gantry. Still locking/bolting the table to the static base (which so far has been the most effective and simple solution for this). The thought of the spoil board being perfectly level at any position has crossed my mind and would require precise hole locations to achieve this. I believe the additional material under the table is to keep it as rigid and stable as possible and then transfer this rigidity to the base once it is locked in place.

I believe that some minor adjustments, leveling, shimming may be required every time the table is moved. But it would be infrequent and the time required to do this is a trade off I have to live with for both point a and b above. If in the future this becomes a problem due to productivity, then and only then I will have to make a decision: move from my current home to a place I can build a bigger shop and at that point build one or two more CNC machines to do a specific role.

As always thanks for the opinions, thoughts and ideas from Gerald, Alan, Ken and all you guys. It's an enjoyable topic going on here and look forward to more.-David

like the scissor lift concept,
as i'm pondering i thought of your bolting system and it came to me that in order for the table to bolt up tight it has to be a perfect fit all the way around or its going to pull on your x rails and the rigidity of your adj. table looks like it would win, so my question is would it be better to have your table come up and run into stop/bolting blocks same with going down however in the down position add adj(slotted) angle iron over to your side rails, that way they won't pull and you will be tight, drawing a concept and welding it up are two completely different animals (which great drawings by the way ) I think if your tie in were up and down it would give alot more tolerance on the table
side note Harbour Freight sells those scissor tables fairly cheap
I wrote this before I updated all the posts HOPE it still pertains i need to go back and read to catch up!!!! good luck

Table: Adjustable/Lift Design-Version 4
 

Jim- Thanks for the comments. Yes below shows a pin setup using 3/4" bolts w/nuts onto holes vertically 2" OC. As you mentioned about the guide blocks having a perfect fit all the way around would probably be next to impossible to achieve during welding.

So I made the guide plates to have adjustment or play in the y-axis as the table is being raised or lowered. Once its to height the top two bolts are tighten and then the 3/4" bolt assembly is inserted through the side of the guide plate and into the guide rail. At this point after tightening, there will be eight points tightening the table to the base.

I have been giving some consideration into the scissor lift table idea, it's sounds like a cleaner and simpler way of vertical adjustment. I'll have to do some more homework on that. As mentioned before the chain and sprocket idea has not been finalized, just trying to work the structure and mechanics of the table first.

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT18.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT19.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT20.jpg

Brad- the cutting range will be 22" not 8-10". As mentioned before this is the reason for the adjustable table and also to create a deep cavity for the indexer.

And yes, after all the brainstorming, I will step back and see what works and what needs to be changed. I pass the KISS boundary the day I decided I prefer a longer z-axis and an indexer. There's no turning back now.

I'm trying to build a machine that will allow me to perform a variety of projects. Before someone post a response to this comment, I know there's a price to pay for it in the design. This is something I want to do and need to do.

Thanks-David

Not disputing your choice but this is too complex to achieve a simple goal.

Why not just make the gantry bracket a feet taller & make the Z-slide long enough to drill for oil. that should meet your needs.

If you are worried about precision, don't. Anyway you already knew that a multi-purpose machine is a compromised machine....

BTW, The way you construct your location holes will be impossible to be near to achieve "precision". Why? the lef itself is not precise, the hole drilling also won't be precise & you can't find a reliable datum to work around...
You should have a precision machined plate which you will bolt on after the table is constructed.

Have you seen Art's thread for his version of the MechMate?

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174

It sounds to me like you want something similar to what he built.

Not exactly, but he focus on achieving his need & he wasn't greedy for a multi purpose machine. He did it real simple & I like his modification a lot.

My brain storming question for you is.
Must you move your spoil board around to achieve your 22" cavity?

Hi Dave,
Interesting design,using four screw jacks to lift the table with an adaptable impact wrench,would be easy but you could end up racking the table as well.Turning the
screws by ratchet,well that would be a long day.The scissor jack in the center of the table seems beneficial.The real challenge of your design,isn't so much the movement
of the table.The real technical challenge is how to move the table without disturbance of the rail alignment.If your design takes those rails out of parallel alignment as little as .004 ,the result is technically ,your vee rollers are trying to climb out of the track.
Heres on option that might work for you,using linear guides or even a crude guide system,having mechanical stops at both destinations,make the table a 64th of an inch undersized all the way around.The intended gap is for shim stock and through bolting at corners only. On the top position use the gantry as the tram (distance
between guides) shim and through bolt.Why the bolts? To help solidify the moving table to the to the outer frame.Dave, at faster speeds your operating no less than a jack hammer;).You can get those linear rails on eBay at 20-25 cents on the dollar.

Dave,
on the scissor jack,I have one on my late model GMC truck.It has plenty of stroke,payload not much issue. It also has 90 degree strait up throw(neutral).It can be used with an impact.At a junk yard,like brand new ---pocket change.How to implement?Rid yourself of jack screws,mount 4 linear guides,one per corner 20mm
no larger.One shoe per corner. Build the bed,find the exact balance point before
frame installation.This is where you mount the jack.You might be wondering if you
could get bound up in one of the corners?Only if you leave the table substantially out of balance.Its simple,cheap and should work very well.

Ken- Gas around here just jumped 15 cents per gallon in the last week alone. You have a point, if I hit oil under my basement I can then take the money and buy several cnc'c already built to my specs. I'm still trying to source a well drilling bit to fit inside my 1/2" collect for my router.:rolleyes:

The taller gantry will not work also, I already covered that limitation due to the 7'4" ceiling height in my SMALL, did I mention SMALL, shop. As drawn with the 22" z the setup is at almost 7' from floor to top of up most z travel.

Many have here on this forum made multipurpose machines with great success, either with a tall z and/or indexer while still having the original machine some where in the build. The major compromise to this idea would be the setup every time the table is adjusted. The manufacturing and assembly of this idea is, to me at least, a challenge and relaxing part of it.

On a better note, I do agree with the precision drilling for those plates. I may have to at least get those sourced out at a local machine shop. I don't think that any amount of measuring I do, I'll be able to get the spacing tolerance to an acceptable level.-David

Ron- I'm beginning to see the light here. Like stated before just ideas thrown out there for others like yourself to help with a better solution. I went this morning to my local steel supplier/surplus dealer and I saw this lift table below for $260, normally sells for $400 online. It's new, never used, and has a 600 lb capacity. I do agree this setup will make construction a lot quicker and the travel more efficient.

With the last two revisions I made, I always had the thought of using a type of linear guide or rail. However I couldn't find a cheap source for this idea, that's why I first had the clamping block riding behind an angle steel as a guide rail and the last idea was that the guide blocks would just ride loosely in front of the guide rail and then get bolted together.

If you can point me in the direction to examples of those linear rails you mention, I would greatly appreciated. Again thanks-David

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...0403001151.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...403001151a.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...403001151b.jpg

Dave,
I like very much where your heading, great visual on drawings.
I would love to see a dual bolting in all positions on the vertical legs even if they are only 4 or 5 inches apart (i don't know how but you seem to be great at taking theory and putting it on paper) keep going even if you get more opinions ( like mine ) then you ask for
Good job
harbor freight has 1500lb atv lift for 80 dollars
500 lb table lift 139.00
1000 lb for 199.00

Jim-thanks for the input and comment. There's a Harbor Freight right here in town, I'll have to stop by there a see what they have. I did a rough weight calculation of the table with 1-1/4" MDF and it comes to about 475#. The 500 lb would do, but the 1000 lb might be safer. I don't think that items at Harbor Freight hold up to their specified capacity, so the 1000 lb unit may have a safer tolerance.

Yeah, I can just add more length to the vertical side of the guide block in order to accommodate another bolt at 4"OC. The guide rail still has plenty of room at the bottom to allow for two more 3/4"D holes for this concept. Though, that's a lot of bolting, 16 total now, but like I stated before the table would be moved very little.-David

Dave,
Go to ebay site,search( thk linear) look for shs or hsr style rails and blocks. 25mm
to large 15mm to small 20mm just right according to the three little bears.The lift you have pictured ,quite nice.How much manual control at top would you have--hole alignment?Pistons can hang up in the seal,making it difficult to precisely control elevations.If the jack pressure isn't controlled at the top of the lift,you may risk damage to the table. Between pressure control and limit switch issues they would need to be sorted out.Personally I would consider it doable. Also make sure that its
travel is straight up and down.

Ron- Jim gave me a good lead for a 1000lb capacity table lift at Harbor Freight for $199. There's one in town, so I can wait for a possible sale to go on to pick it up at that time.

I realize that the one I had pictured with the air hydraulics could pose a problem if it traveled too far. It would definitely damage the machine and getting into limit switches will be complicating things further. I had the same scenario when my first design was to use a motor to drive the sprockets. I saw the potential of the motor going to far without a sought of electronic control to stop it, that's why I later opted for a manual hand wheel.

I'll look into ebay with your suggestions. Starting to see a much simpler solution to this. Thanks-David
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...borFreight.jpg

i think if you raise slightly past holes on this design you can pick holes off on the way back down ( one at a time )
and Dave I agree with double size as per harbor freight specs I just didn't know what the beastly table would weigh in at

You looked too far outside of the box ;)

Look closer at 1020456 & 1020251.
Extend 1020456 by 1' while keeping the mounting hole location relative to the rail as original.
Make 1020251 larger but keep the motor mounting holes relative to the V-wheels same as original
If you think the overall height of the machine is too much, you can increase the gantry height by 1' ft & lower the bed by 1' or which ever ratio that is convinient to you.

BTW, is your shop a container box? the dimension sure do look like one.

This is definately do-able, more economical, meets your needs & still keep the distinct MM identity. Most importantly, fail safe.

Wish I can model the drawings as fast as you could....

Table: Adjustable/Lift Design-Version 4
 

Here's another crack at it based on some of the recommendations of some of you guys. The most effective, simplest and economical design is using a scissor lift table. The one so far chosen is the one on post #61. I didn't draw the scissor lift because I don't have it in front of me for detailed measurements. However it will be somehow attached directly underneath or within the table.

Also now changed to the previous design are four THK SR20 linear rails. These will replace the thread assembly to better guide and keep the table in alignment with the static base.

The details are not final, they will greatly depend on once I start purchasing parts and steel. At that point I will have to possibly reverse-engineer certain components and details to suite the parts at hand. At least the drawings will give me an idea of what I need to buy and how to go about the build.
Thanks-David

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT21.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT22.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT23.jpg

Dave,
Go back to your 1st design,look at the difference in weight on the moving table.The last design is not only overly designed, but puts all that weight in the worst possible place on the top---top heavy.Wheres the foundation to keep those rails properly
adjusted at both elevations?Think about keeping 60 -65% in the frame were it belongs.Consider a sub box frame that would cradle a table landed.A strong sub box frame is key to your design concept.The table itself can be rather simple,using rectangular tubing.Choosing the right size steel and wall thickness,It can be a flat
rectangle weldment. As for as center deflection goes,if its not to your own satisfaction add a couple of 5/8 tie rods along the beams for adjustments.
On a side note the sr are designed for vertical travel.The shs,hsr at the same price,
handle multi-directional loads.Excellent design work.

Ron- I'm trying to absorb your opinions here, so please bear with me, thnaks. Are you referring to the first sketch in post#1?

As far as, "Wheres the foundation to keep those rails properly adjusted at both elevations?". Do you mean how they tie in to the side base? If so, the linear rail blocks are attached via a bracket to the horizontal L3x3x.5, which is then attached/connected to the side base. All these points are stationary while the table and linear guide rails move up and down.

The weight issue of the table you mention: Basically reduce the steel/weight of the c-channel sub-assembly to something similar to the 1" steel tube in the truss system below it?

I didn't mention it before but the reason for the c-channel is so I can have access to screwing the MDF from below. That way I wouldn't have any exposed screw head at the top of the MF board as I plane the board down over continuos use. Insted of the C3 c-channel, I can get a smaller profile like a C2. Basically 2" tall by 1" wide c-channel. You have a good point since the larger C3 will not improve the rigidity of the table any more than the C2. This change to the steel may reduce the weight at that point about 30-40%.

As far as the vertical C3 you see in the last design: First I need that size for the bolt plate guides to accept the bolts, washers and nuts. However I can reduce the ones that the linear guide rails are on to the smaller C2 c-channel size.

"if its not to your own satisfaction add a couple of 5/8 tie rods along the beams for adjustments." Can you please clarify or markup on one of my sketches?

So they SR I spec are good, right?

Thanks for everything Ron, great help.-David

A simpler option?
 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this in this thread yet... have you had a look at what Greg did for his mechmate #19?

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showt...9&postcount=34

Michel

Table: Adjustable/Lift Design-Version 5
 

Ron- Let me know if I followed you correctly based on Post #66 I wrote above. Still need some clarification on the last line. -David
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT24.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT25.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT26.jpg

Yes, the idea is very similar to mine with the deep Z axis. However, he only built for a deep axis and not for a possible indexer that would require the table (or cavity) to be deeper. At least what I would like my specs to be.

Thanks, it's difficult for me to read every build done so far, I missed that one. Very interesting.-David

Dave,
Greg's pictures are exactly what I'm suggesting.The table itself,A simple flat platform,that goes up and down.The foundation that I'm referring to is also just like Greg's,note the stiff box welded frame.The box bottom helps to keep the outer posts
plumb and unified.Yes, this in principal is very similar to what I was suggesting.
I didn't know that this design existed,but cheers to Greg.I don't know that Greg ever
actually changed elevations (stage 2).Imagine in principle this same design with,
A.much larger rec steel for the table.
B.a centered mount scissor jack
c.adjustable linear guides.
D.mechanical stops top and bottom.
E. Incorporating a 4th axis that has yet to be discussed.

From you it would be helpful to know on a 100 x53 cut table, what is the distance between guides?How long are the guides?Is the distance between guides based on a prefab gantry or is this adjustable?
Tie rods if needed ,run length wise to the table platform.They can remove deflection in the table (sag).
If you contact Art in Texas,He should be able to give you valuable advise on that tall gantry.

Sr s should be fine .The rails can be cut .

Table: Adjustable/Lift Design-Version 6
 

Ron- After carefully studying Greg's build, I understand your comments now. I've made some major changes from the previous sketch loosely based on the original one posted in the beginning.

1-You will notice the additional two cross members (1.5"x3" tube) in the center that tie both side bases together.
2-Linear guide rails and bolt guide rails are now attached to the side base, and the linear truck/block and bolt block are now attached to the table.
3-The table was changed back to the original C4 c-channel.
4-The hydraulic scissor table has been added with two C4 c-channels running alone the y-axis welded to the two longer x-axis C4 c-channel of the table. The scissor table is represented by the lower box (base unit) and the upper smaller box (moving part of the scissor table top).

As far as Greg's build, I didn't see mechanically how the table would be lifted or adjusted to the next higher level. No holes, steel, nothing. I'm thinking he might just place a large spacer between the cross members and the table to get the correct height and then either bolt or clamp in place. Great concept and design.

Indexer is another story, the empty or non-cutting area toward the rear will be dedicated for the indexer. The other business end will be bolted to the table and slide alone the x-axis depending on the length of the project.

Thanks for the inputs-David

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT27.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT28.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT29.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT30.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT31.jpg

If you could run a finite element analysis on your structure to check for deflection under load.

Ken-you're going to have to step into this question above. I have no means of figuring this out. Most of my work/design here has been purely based on mechanical drawings using Sketchup and a lot of know-how. I do have access to Solidwork and understand it will analyse various criterias but I am not fluent in using the program.

If you wish to give advice or guidance, I am always willing to learn something new. If not for just the enjoyment of experiencing it once. Thanks-David.

I'm no guru, giving advice or guidence way over stated., discuss is more appropriate.
I mention the simulation because at the first glance, your latest structural rigidity bothers me & I could be wrong too. Also, just by saying "its not rigid enough" isn't going to help, so some numbers would be unbias.
I'm not familiar with Solidwork, but Acad, will see if I have time to run a simulation.
I too enjoy experiencing everything once ;)

Ken- I have a friend who has Autocad 2010 in his office. I may be able to borrow a copy for personal use only (like this). Is it the same as yours by Autodesk. I am (or was) very fluent in Autocad. Is it possible to maybe get a few ideas on how to make this happen on my end so I can get an analysis? You now have my curiosity.

Dave good job,
Yes , this is very similar to what I was trying to describe.A modified thought was rather than leaving the tops of the vertical rails floating,bolt it on to a adjustable
bracket for fine tuning,at which time,with some confidence it can be pend top and bottom.Diagram #2 shows the table at the top floor,Here's where you can use horse shoe style shim and through bolt table to rails to help solidify the table to frame
in addition to stabilizing X axis rails.I think you will find the jack will weld into the base table just fine.If you decide to forgo the shim idea, then use thk 25shs on the vertical guides.I'm not sure that Greg ever changed elevations.It appeared that he was going to attempt to do so in a manual fashion.With regards to the jack, You might also consider a ball-bearing plate under the table,driven by the jack.
There's a lot of bolts shown here,how about the welding?
If you can get those measurements, I can help with a steel schedule.
Your looking good.

Ron- In the previous post I omitted certain details off the sketches and description. As a new note I increased the previous C3x4.1 c-channel to C5x6.7 c-channel to have two purposes, see image 3.

1-The THK linear rail guides will be attached to the vertical C5x6.7 c-channel.

2-The THK linear guide blocks/trucks and bolt plate blocks will be attached to the table itself. The bolt plate block will have horizontal movement in the y-axis via two bolts. This will allow fine tuning to fit snug up against the bolt plate guides at the base.

I believe that no matter how careful I am with layout and measurements and decide to weld these, they will never be perfectly parallel to the opposite side, as the table moves up and down. By just loosening the top bolts the bolt plate blocks will have some play horizontally as the table is raised or lowered via the scissor lift and linear guide rails. Once the table position has been determined, two side bolts can be inserted and bolted to the side base and then the top two bolts can then re-tighten to remove the horizontal play from the table.

3-Also notice in the third image, that with the table at the top position the bolt plate blocks are directly below the TS5x2 tube steel (X rail beam). I believe that the table will be in this position the majority of the time. I hope I understood your comment _{(Diagram #2 shows the table at the top floor,Here's where you can use horse shoe style shim and through bolt table to rails to help solidify the table to frame)}, and this clarifies that. In your opinion, do you still think that the THK 20mm will work or should it be increased to 25mm?

My only concern is that in this latest sketch, I omitted the diagonals in the side bases. As you mentioned about welds, everything is welded except where you see bolts/bolt plates. I need to be able to disassemble this machine if I build it in my basement and decide later to move.

KenC is seeing into a deflection analysis or maybe guiding me somewhat to do it myself. As far as your comment regarding a steel schedule, do you mean a list of materials for this part? If so, I have that under control and familiar with the various steel sections and weights. If I'm wrong with your comment, please advise.

My decision to remove the diagonals is because the side base will be completely welded and there are plenty of heavy vertical steel members within. However I am not sure if this is somewhat true considering the heavy C5 channels I updated to the side bases. Some of the measurements in the table are not final and I cannot input them until I purchase the scissor table and the THK linear guides. At that point I will have to reverse-engineer some of the details and measurements based on detailed measurements of these two items.

Again thanks to you and the others for the great information and help. This part has not only been a design challenge for me but very enjoyable discussion here.

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT32.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT33.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT34.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT35.jpg
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...ABLELIFT36.jpg

Just a thought
 

Your table is looking good! I just had a thought.

You are going to spend a lot of time coping both ends of those c-channels to fit into your table sides (red circle). Why not invert the channel so you can just butt them together?

Please excuse my amazingly crude drawing.:eek:

As I said, it's just a thought. I totally understand if you want to leave it as is for aesthetic reasons.

Its been a long while since I last did any FEA, there are many free software out in the net, have a look at here
I am not recommanding any particular software as there are far more choices then when I need/have to do such analysis.