Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Branch ambiguity — where it appears

Two assemblies of one set of link lengths satisfying the same input-output relation. Freudenstein's relation was derived by squaring, which forgets the branch, so measured angle pairs identify the lengths exactly and say nothing about which way the linkage goes together.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A fit converging onto noise. The sum of squared residuals through a calibration of a four-bar built 3% long on the coupler and 1% short on the rocker, started from the nominal dimensions. It falls by a factor of 1.2e+3 in 19 steps and then stops, at 4.05e-5 — which is the noise, not the machine. The readings were given 1.00e-3 radians of error each, and no fit can go below what its data contains. The last two steps fall faster than the ones before them, which is what a Gauss–Newton descent does when the Jacobian has full rank on the directions it is allowed to move in.

Reading a residual

A residual that falls to the instrument's noise and stops means the model is right. A residual that stops above it means something is missing, and which something can be read off how the leftover is distributed over the poses — as a constant, as a pattern in the crank angle, or as one bad reading.

metrology · Parameter One set of lengths, two machines. Three measured input–output pairs, marked, and the linkage Freudenstein's relation returns from them — which is the truth's four lengths to fourteen figures. The relation is a statement about the two angles and it holds on both assembly branches, because it was derived by squaring and that is the step that forgets which one the mechanism is on. So the identified linkage assembled the way the data was taken passes through every reading, to 2.53e-14 radians, and assembled the other way misses them by up to 268° — at the first precision point it reads -111.6° where 98.8° was wanted. That is not a near miss and not a failure either. It is the other answer.

One set of lengths, two machines

Three measured input–output pairs return a four-bar's four lengths to fourteen figures. Assembled the way the data was taken, that linkage reproduces every reading to 2.5 × 10⁻¹⁴ radians. Assembled the other way — which the same four lengths permit — it misses them by 268°, and no equation in the identification knows the difference.

metrology · Parameter What each instrument recovers. The same twenty poses of the same four-bar, read three ways. A protractor on the output link recovers 3 of the four lengths and leaves the fourth exactly invisible, because its readings are dimensionless in the lengths and scaling the machine does not move them. A coordinate machine on the tracing point recovers all six parameters — the four lengths and the two that say where the tracer sits — at a condition number of 162.3. Using both recovers the same six at 26.1, 6.2 times better, which is the case for putting two instruments on one machine: not more parameters, better-conditioned ones.

What this field cannot measure

Every field on this site has a boundary and this one has three: a direction the readings cannot span, an alternative no derivative detects, and a model nobody thought of. The first is computable exactly, the second needs a search, and the third is not detectable from data by any method at all.

metrology · Parameter

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

CalibrationMeasurement residualIdentifiableUnmodelled parameterAssembly-modeCognate ambiguityFreudenstein equationIdentification jacobianKinematic solveLeast-squaresNoise amplificationPrecision position

All concepts