Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Compiled linkage — where it appears

A mechanism produced from a polynomial by a fixed procedure rather than found by a search. Its bar lengths are determined by the curve's coefficients, its tracing point satisfies the polynomial everywhere it moves, and its size grows as the fourth power of the curve's degree.

Named by 12 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The machine compiled from a rectangular hyperbola. xy − 0.5, compiled: 20 bars and 20 joints, painted by what each part is for. The two-link arm at the pivot carries the tracing point; the reflectors and means build each term's angle; the rigid offsets fix the constant φₖ and the amplitude; the translators carry those directions out along the summing chain, whose last vertex is held on a line. That last constraint is the equation. Every joint drawn is the output of a Newton–Raphson solve on 36 equations, converged to 4.2e-16, and the polynomial at the tracing point is 2.2e-16.

The machine, compiled

Twenty bars, twenty joints, and one degree of freedom. Every position is a converged solve on thirty-five equations, none of which mentions the polynomial — and the polynomial at the tracing point reads 1.3 × 10⁻¹⁴ across the whole working arc.

computing · Compute Every curve in the catalogue, compiled and counted. The bar count is not a formula: it is the number of bar constraints the compiled mechanism actually carries, asked of the object rather than predicted. A line costs five bars and a quintic four hundred and thirteen, which is the field's central number — exactness is paid for in size. The all-revolute column replaces the one prismatic pair that closes the chain with a Peaucellier cell, which costs seven bars whatever the curve, so it is more than half the machine on a line and a rounding error on a quintic. The last column is the polynomial evaluated at the traced point, worst over each machine's working arc.

Five bars for a line, four hundred for a quintic

Nine curves compiled and counted: a line at five bars, a circle at eleven, a lemniscate at fifty, a general quintic at four hundred and thirteen. The growth is a fourth power of the degree, and three quarters of the largest machine is not computing anything at all.

computing · Compute One linkage, two curves. The same bars, the same lengths, the same driving angle — assembled two ways. One trace is where the polynomial vanishes and the other is not: the worst value of xy − 0.5 along the second is 8.7e-1, against 4.7e-14 along the first. Every position on both was solved to 9.5e-14. Nothing about the second linkage is defective; one of its parallelograms is a crossed one, so a direction is being carried wrongly, and the machine is faithfully computing a different function.

The proof drew more than the curve

Sixteen ways to assemble one linkage. Eight of them close. Four put the tracing point on the curve and four put it somewhere else — at a closure residual of 9.6 × 10⁻¹⁵, which is the same floor the right ones reach. No tolerance on the closure could ever have told them apart.

computing · Compute One freedom, whatever the count says. Every one of these machines has exactly one degree of freedom, measured as the number of unknowns minus the rank of the constraint Jacobian. Unbraced, the count agrees. Braced, the count says the largest machine has -153 — that it cannot move, by a wide margin — and the rank says it still turns exactly as it did. The gap is one equation per brace and every one of those equations is implied by the others. This is the constraint field's oldest example, at a scale nobody would try by hand: a count that is wrong by a hundred and fifty-three about a mechanism that works.

One freedom and four hundred links

Braced, the machine compiled from a quintic has 1,249 equations in 1,096 unknowns and a Grübler count of minus a hundred and fifty-three. It turns. The rank of its constraint Jacobian is 1,095, so its mobility is one — and every one of the hundred and fifty-four surplus equations was added deliberately.

constraint · Mobility What a singularity does, and what it does not do. The reflector driven straight through the configuration at which its two placements merge — here θ = 0.800, where the rhombus flattens onto its own mirror. Two numbers are plotted. The closure residual is how well the bars are satisfied, and it does not move: 8.3e-14 on both sides. The departure is how far the output is from the angle the gadget is supposed to produce, and it goes from the floor to order one at 0.800. Nothing breaks. The gadget goes on being a perfectly good linkage and stops being the function it was built to be.

Where the machine stops being the function

Drive a reflector through the angle at which its rhombus flattens and it comes out computing something else. Nothing breaks: every bar is the length it was, the closure residual stays at 8 × 10⁻¹⁴, and the machine goes on turning. That is why every compiled machine in this field works over an arc and not a turn — the quintic's over a tenth of a radian.

computing · Compute Exactness is not bought with links. Five straight-line mechanisms, each measured over its own working arc — walked out to its dead centres and back a tenth — and each plotted at its own bar count. Watt's four bars are wrong by 9.0 per cent of the stroke and Chebyshev's by 12.4; Peaucellier's seven are exact. There is nothing in between, and adding bars to an approximation does not walk down the axis: the compiled machine is exact for the same reason Peaucellier is — an exact algebraic relation — and its extra bars buy generality rather than accuracy.

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.

computing · Compute What each curve costs, in cosines. Every polynomial in the two arm angles is a constant plus a sum of terms A cos(mα + nβ + φ) with whole-number m and n, and the number of those terms is what a machine has to build. The count is not the degree and not the monomial count: a circle costs one term, a general line two, and a lemniscate — degree four — costs five, fewer than the cubic above it, because its symmetry cancels frequency pairs the cubic keeps. Each row's expansion was checked against a direct evaluation of its own polynomial at random angles, worst disagreement 1.8e-14.

Prescribing a curve rather than points

A four-bar can be made to pass through nine prescribed points and no more; past nine the problem is over-determined and the answer is an optimiser's. Prescribe the whole curve as an equation instead and there is no counting to do — but the mechanism that comes back has four hundred bars where the four-bar had four.

synthesis · Synthesis Bars against terms, over the whole catalogue. One mark per compiled machine. The bar count rises much faster than the term count, and the reason is the summing chain: term k has to have its direction carried to the k−1th vertex of the chain, one parallelogram per hop, so the carrying costs a translator for every pair of terms. Nine curves, from five bars to four hundred and thirteen, on a term count that goes from one to eighteen.

What universality is worth

The linkage exists, it is four hundred and thirteen bars, and it draws ten degrees of its curve. All three are true and only the first is in the theorem — which is the ordinary shape of a result about what exists, and the reason it was worth building one to find out.

computing · Compute A machine with one thing in it that must be solved at once. Each compiled machine's joints, walked in the order they can be placed: a joint goes down as soon as two things already placed decide where it is. Every one of these machines unwinds completely, and each contains exactly one pair that has to be solved together — the arm and the parallelogram that carries its second angle back to the pivot. Nothing larger than a dyad appears in a machine of two hundred and forty joints. The topology field's four-bar, at four, has no such decomposition at all; a compiled linkage is enormous and structurally trivial, which are not the same axis.

A machine with one dyad in it

Two hundred and forty joints, and two hundred and thirty-eight of them can be placed one at a time from parts already positioned. The whole of what has to be solved simultaneously is a single pair — the arm and the parallelogram carrying its second angle home. Size and structural depth are different axes, and a compiled machine is extreme on one and trivial on the other.

topology · Topology Every way the same bars can be put together. The machine compiled from a rectangular hyperbola has 4 parallelograms, and a parallelogram's four bars also close as an antiparallelogram — so there are 16 ways to assemble it. One mark per way. 4 of them put the tracing point on the curve, 4 put it somewhere else, and 8 do not close at all. The ones that are wrong are not broken: they satisfy every bar to 9.6e-15 while the polynomial at their tracing point reads 1.5e-1. This is the gap in Kempe's original argument, and no tolerance on the closure could ever have found it.

Six things a compiled linkage is not

A closure residual read as a verdict, a theorem read as a design, an exact answer read as an accurate one, a degree read as a cost, a construction read as a search, and a neighbourhood read as a turn. Six claims, each of them what a careful person would say, each answered with a number.

wrong · Misconception A rectangular hyperbola, compiled from a multiple of its equation. The machine compiled from p · (1 + x² + y²) for a rectangular hyperbola, with the translators — the parallelograms that carry a direction from where it is produced to where it is needed — in their own colour. The factor 1 + x² + y² is at least one at every real point, so every equation here vanishes on exactly the same curve. The machines do not agree: 20 bars at p, 75 bars at p · (1 + x² + y²), 144 bars at p · (1 + x² + y²)². This one solves 29 positions over an arc of 0.508 radians, and at every one of them the original polynomial reads 4.93e-14.

The price is on the equation

A line costs five bars. The same line, written as its own equation multiplied by a factor that is never zero, costs fifty — and the machine compiled from the longer equation draws the same line just as exactly. Every cost this field quotes belongs to a polynomial and not to a curve, and the cheapest equation of a given curve is a quantity nobody here has.

computing · Compute One bar made 0.0001 too long, one bar at a time. Every bar of the machine compiled from a lemniscate lengthened by 0.0001 in turn, the machine re-solved, and the polynomial read at the tracing point. It is no longer zero anywhere. The worst bar takes it to 9.1e-3 — an amplification of 91 — and the median bar to 2.8e-4. The bars that matter are the reflectors, which are the cheapest part of the machine; the translators, which are most of it, barely move the answer at all. Size and fragility live in different parts.

Exactness a micron destroys

Lengthen one bar of a compiled machine by a ten-thousandth and its tracing point leaves the curve. On the smallest machine the error comes out smaller than it went in; on a fifty-bar one it comes out ninety times larger — and the bars that matter are the reflectors, which are the cheapest part of the machine.

practice · Tolerance

Named alongside it

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

Working arcUniversalityCost modelLoop closureAssembly branchExact mechanismAlgebraic curveDegreeKinematic synthesisSingularitySumming chainTolerance

All concepts