Approximation — where it appears
Named by 20 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The straight-line problem
Before 1800 a long true flat surface was harder to make than almost anything else, so guiding a piston straight without a slide was worth solving. Watt's answer was an approximation. Measuring how good an approximation, over how much of the stroke, turns out to be a more interesting question than whether it is exact.
Where a strand leaves a body
A taut strand meets the surface it lies on at a right angle, and every book draws it that way. It is not a rule about strands: it is what being shortest looks like, and a family of paths that were never told about tangency has its minimum exactly there — 200.64346 mm against the construction's 200.64346.
Peaucellier and the exact answer
Eighty years after Watt settled for an approximation, a French army officer found a linkage that draws an exactly straight line from pin joints alone. It works by inversion in a circle, the product it holds constant is measurable, and on this site it comes out straight to 10⁻¹⁶ of its span.
A ratio that is a derivative of a length
A tackle is sold by counting the parts of line holding the moving block: four parts, four to one. Differentiate the strand's own length instead and a four-part tackle gives 3.927 with its blocks 220 mm apart and 3.617 at 90 mm — and the integer it is named for is a limit it reaches nowhere.
The drum that is not round
The only thing about a body a strand can feel is the perpendicular distance from the axis to the tangent it leaves along. Ask for a rate and you have asked for that distance at every angle — and the shape comes back from it with no solve at all, unless the demand exceeds 1/(n²−1), at which point there is no shape.
The steering that is never right
For four wheels to roll without scrubbing, the two front wheels must point at different angles, and the relation between them is a cotangent condition no four-bar can satisfy. The trapezoid under every car meets it at straight ahead and, if the arm angle is chosen well, at exactly one other angle — 0.34° out at worst instead of 2.06°.
A ratio with no steps in it
Push a variable pulley's sheaves together and the belt rides further out. The other pulley's radius is then not a choice — the belt has a fixed length — so it is the root of an equation, solved rather than set. The rule of thumb that says the two radii add to a constant is true to first order and wrong by 7.4% of the ratio at full shift, and the departure has a closed form.
The radius a winch works at
Line speed per turn is 2πr, and r is not a property of the winch. It is the radius of whichever layer is being wound, so a six-layer drum runs from 207.35 mm per turn to 395.84 — a factor of 1.909 with nothing about the machine changed, and a length that is quadratic in the turns rather than proportional to them.
A chain is not a strand
A chain has a smallest piece, and two things follow that no continuous model can have. Its pins sit on a polygon, so the radius that matters swings by 4.05% within every tooth of an eleven-tooth sprocket — and its loop must contain a whole number of pitches, so the centre distance that closes it comes in steps of 6.4834 mm.
A clock is a factorisation
A going train's job is a ratio and its parts are tooth counts, so whether a clock can be built is whether a number factorises inside the counts a wheel-cutting engine will cut. Sixty has 404 answers in two pairs and none at all in one. The ratio between a sidereal day and a mean one has none in any number of pairs, and the best two-pair train is out by a sixth of a second a day.
Holding an axle still
A Panhard rod moves the axle 3.56 mm sideways over 80 mm of travel and a Watt's linkage moves it 34 microns — a hundred times better, and by a higher power. The Panhard's error is quadratic in the travel and the Watt's is fifth order, which is a much stronger statement than "the Watt is better" because it says how the comparison changes with the suspension.
The chain is a polygon
A chain's pins sit on a polygon, so the radius that matters swings by 1 − cos(π/n) within every tooth: four per cent on an eleven-tooth sprocket. The quoted 53/11 is the mean of that, exactly — and how much of the fluctuation reaches the back wheel is decided by the fractional number of pitches in the taut strand, which nobody adjusts and which can take the drive from perfectly uniform to two per cent.
Exact costs more than close
Watt's four bars are wrong by nine per cent of their stroke and Chebyshev's by twelve. Peaucellier's seven are exact to 4 × 10⁻¹⁶, and a compiled machine is exact to 4.8 × 10⁻¹⁴ in five. There is nothing in between — adding bars to an approximation does not walk down the axis, and the four-bar in every beam engine ever built is on the wrong end of it.
Where a strand stops touching
A body joining a run costs length as the square of how far it intrudes — exponent 2.0000, measured over four decades — so at the moment contact begins the strand's length is stationary. That is why a tensioner set at the edge of its own contact takes up 0.000245 mm of belt per millimetre it travels.
The gap is a straight line in the metal
Thickening every link by the same amount subtracts the same amount from every clearance, exactly, and moves the angle at which the worst one occurs by nothing at all. So a whole swept check can be done once on bars of any width and every other width read off by subtraction — until the closest pair changes hands, and never past zero.
The wrap that walks along the axis
Every figure in this field is drawn in a plane, and a strand that goes round twice cannot be: the second turn has to lie beside the first. The plan view of the helix that results is a planar wrap exactly — so every wrap angle survives and the length does not, by five hundred parts per million on a real rope.
Which numbers survived
Fourteen machines were measured against the numbers they are sold with. Three survived exactly, and all three are counts. One is false by a stated bound, two are exact means of things that vary, three are honest values at a stated position, and six name quantities their mechanisms do not have. The pattern is not about honesty; it is about what kind of thing a number is.
A tooth that lives on a sphere
Every tooth in this field so far has been a curve in a plane, forced by the law of gearing and exact. A bevel tooth's profile lies on a sphere, no piece of a sphere flattens without stretching, and so the shape a bevel gear is actually cut to is an approximation — the only one in the field.
A strand in a tube
A Bowden cable's inner runs inside a sheath with a little clearance, and pulled it takes the shortest path the tube allows — a strand over pulleys of radius R − c at every bend. So its lost motion is the clearance times the total angle the sheath turns through: no bend radius in it, no route shape, and the S-bend that turns nowhere net loses as much as the U that turns back. Steering a handlebar changes it by exactly c times the change in angle.
The dip that buys the dwell
A symmetric coupler curve's six-bar dwells longest a little below the angle that makes its error sixth order, and three bands gave three numbers. Across three and a half decades of tolerance the best angle's distance from that angle grows as the cube root of the band, both dwells as its sixth root, and their ratio is (27/4)^(1/6) = 1.3747 at every band — because the best machine spends the whole band on one dip and ends its dwell where the output comes back.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Design ruleStrandVelocity ratioDerivativeWrap angleTangencyChebyshev's linkageConstraintCoupler curveInextensiblePitchRoot-finding