Maybe to avoid such a huge moment in the toolhead, changing the where the rail mounts will provide more clearance. Mounting a single MGN12 to the top of the x beam allows more room in the positive y direction to mount the toolhead (10mm to move the whole toolhead back), but it will require a lot of modification to adapt well to the 2.4 motion system. The XY joints take up a lot of room on the top of the extrusion and the belt paths are offset in the y direction, which requires belt holders to be offset relative to the toolhead anyways. I'd probably look into a different motion system to create a dedicated toolchanger, because of the major space constraints in the 2.4 x-y motion system, but feeel free to add your thoughts to that. Also, maybe a pcb klicky would help in reducing the footprint of the probe as everything is constrained to the pcb board, resulting in a more compact cooling duct system.
Yes, I agree that the rail on the X-beam top will reduce the total length in the Y-direction. However, with the fixing on top, I need some parts to adapt the tool head to the front side, which affects its rigidity. The mounting also affects the swapping motion, which pulls when detaching. Based on these, I don't plan to modify the motion system too much. For the Klicky probe, I'll source about the PCB one, making it a more compact solution.
![[Tool changer] Sketch to prototype: build the first printhead](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3eq_4Aj2HlI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Tool changer] Which reduction unit do you prefer?](/img/n.gif)
Maybe to avoid such a huge moment in the toolhead, changing the where the rail mounts will provide more clearance. Mounting a single MGN12 to the top of the x beam allows more room in the positive y direction to mount the toolhead (10mm to move the whole toolhead back), but it will require a lot of modification to adapt well to the 2.4 motion system. The XY joints take up a lot of room on the top of the extrusion and the belt paths are offset in the y direction, which requires belt holders to be offset relative to the toolhead anyways. I'd probably look into a different motion system to create a dedicated toolchanger, because of the major space constraints in the 2.4 x-y motion system, but feeel free to add your thoughts to that.
Also, maybe a pcb klicky would help in reducing the footprint of the probe as everything is constrained to the pcb board, resulting in a more compact cooling duct system.
Yes, I agree that the rail on the X-beam top will reduce the total length in the Y-direction. However, with the fixing on top, I need some parts to adapt the tool head to the front side, which affects its rigidity. The mounting also affects the swapping motion, which pulls when detaching. Based on these, I don't plan to modify the motion system too much. For the Klicky probe, I'll source about the PCB one, making it a more compact solution.