Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Constraint jacobian — where it appears

The matrix of a mechanism's constraint equations differentiated with respect to its coordinates, whose rank is the number of freedoms the constraints remove. It is the measured half of every mobility question here, and its rank is what a formula that counts joints is trying to predict without looking at any dimensions.

Named by 19 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A rolling wheel, where it was driven to. The mechanism at a configuration nothing wrote down: it was reached by integrating permitted velocities from the start of the trail, and there is no equation here whose root it is. The barred line at each wheel is the direction that wheel forbids — the subject of the whole field, and the one thing a photograph of a car cannot show. The constraint residual along the drawn history is 0.0e+0.

A constraint that takes nothing away

A rolling wheel forbids one direction of motion and removes no coordinate from the mechanism's description. It cannot slide sideways and it can still be brought to any position at any heading — and the gap between those two sentences is the whole of this field, because in every mechanism built of pins and slides the two agree.

rolling · Rolling Six assemblies, one routine, three disagreements and one accident. Every row is the same three steps: write down the constraint Jacobian, take its rank, and subtract it from the number of unknowns. The representations differ — bars between points, bodies joined by pins, panels joined by creases, one cell of a pattern that repeats for ever — and the routine does not. The counted column is the arithmetic on the numbers of bodies and joints; the measured column is the nullity of the matrix. They agree on the lazy tong and on the kagome cell and disagree on the other four, most sharply on the deployable ring, which the count declares immobile and which is sold as a mechanism that opens. The right-hand column is the reason: constraints that repeat what another constraint has already said, which the count has no way of seeing and the rank cannot help seeing. The fourth row is worth reading twice: the count says nothing can move and nothing can, so the two agree — and they agree for the wrong reason, because that pattern's flat state shows four freedoms and not one of them is a motion.

Many loops, one freedom

A scissor lift, a folded sheet and a deployable ring are one small unit repeated thirty times, and three things change at once: the count of bodies becomes a parameter, mobility becomes the rank of a matrix, and a unit that moves can be rigid the moment it is joined to another of itself.

networks · Network The coupler's motion at 66°. Every point drawn as a stub is a point of the coupler's own plane, and the stub is that point's velocity — solved, not sketched. They all point different ways and they are all consistent with one statement: at this instant the whole plane is turning about a single point, the pole, marked with a cross. It is off this frame at 1.5 coupler lengths from the crank pin, which happens whenever the coupler is close to translating. The arrow through it is the pole's own velocity, which is a quantity about the motion rather than about any point of it, and half of everything in this field follows from its direction and its size. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The mechanism drops out

Every other field here is about a machine. This one is about the motion a machine makes — a plane sliding over a plane — and near any instant that motion is a handful of numbers with no linkage in them. Two mechanisms that agree on those numbers make the same motion, and one of them can always be thrown away.

curvature · Curvature A 3-stage stack at 35°. Every bar is the same length and every stage is at the same angle, which is a consequence of the solve rather than an assumption in the drawing: the pins at the crossings and the roller on the ground leave one freedom, and it has been used. The platform is at 1547 mm and the ram — the heavy line from the ground pin — is 428 mm long. Moving the ram one millimetre from here raises the platform 5.0 mm; at the bottom of the travel the same millimetre is worth 17.6 mm.

A roller is not a slider

A scissor lift has one degree of freedom, at every height and for any number of stages. Grübler's criterion agrees — if the rollers under it are counted as pins in slots. Count them as slider blocks, which is how every textbook draws a slider, and the same formula declares a machine holding a car in the air to be a structure with minus one.

applied · Mobility The mechanism, and the graph that decides how many loops it has. A lazy tong of 5 scissor units drawn over its own joint graph: a node for every body — 10 of them — and an edge for every pin, 13 of those. The number of independent loops is e − v + 1 = 13 − 10 + 1 = 4, which is how many closure equations somebody writing this mechanism out by hand would have to find and is the one quantity in the field that can be read straight off a drawing. It is also all the count knows: Grübler's 4 is 3(n − 1) − 2j and contains no geometry at all, which is why it is right here and wrong four rows further down the ledger. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The loops are in the graph

Before a network is a mechanism it is a graph, and the one quantity that can be read straight off a drawing is how many independent loops it has: edges less nodes plus one. Grübler's count is that arithmetic and nothing else — which is why it is right about a tong at every size and says a deployable ring cannot open.

networks · Network Two routes to the same derivative. How much the output angle moves when the coupler length moves, through one turn, computed twice. One route rebuilds the mechanism at b ± 10⁻⁶ and solves both from scratch; the other differentiates the constraint equations and solves one linear system against the analytic Jacobian. They lie on top of each other — the strip beneath plots the difference on a four-decade log scale, and its largest value anywhere in the turn is 2.9e-10 against a sensitivity of order 0.41. That is the only independent check there is of the Jacobian itself, whose coupler rows carried four wrong signs from the foundation phase to 2026-08-12 without ever drawing anything wrong.

Two routes to a sensitivity

How far the output moves when a link length moves can be found by rebuilding the mechanism and solving it again, or by differentiating the constraint equations and solving one linear system. The two agree to two parts in a hundred million across a whole turn — and the second route is an independent test of the constraint Jacobian itself, whose coupler rows had carried wrong signs unnoticed.

practice · Tolerance Two things that are not the same configuration. The mechanical advantage of a four-bar, from the velocity solution: for a lossless mechanism it is the reciprocal of the output-to-input speed ratio, so wherever the output momentarily stops the force ratio diverges. It reaches 1673 at 222° — a toggle, where crank and coupler line up, and the reason a knee-joint clamp holds with almost no effort. The transmission angle is at its worst somewhere else entirely: 46.5° at 0°, 222° away, where coupler and rocker line up instead. Both get called "the mechanism jamming" and they are opposite situations — one is enormous force output, the other is force going into the bearings.

Two things called jamming

A four-bar's mechanical advantage peaks at 1,673 in one configuration and its transmission angle collapses in another, 222° away. Both get described as the mechanism jamming. One is enormous force output and the other is force disappearing into the bearings, and they are opposite situations.

wrong · Misconception Six sizes, one freedom, and a count going the other way. Creases and constraints both grow as the square of the sheet's side, and they grow at different rates: two per panel against three per interior vertex. So the counted column runs (n − 1)(3 − n) and is positive at two, nought at three and increasingly negative after that, while the measured mobility is one on every row. The redundant column is the difference and it is exactly (n − 2)² — one at three, four at four, nine at five, thirty-six at eight. A twelve-by-twelve sheet of a hundred and forty-four panels is counted at minus ninety-nine and has a hundred repeated constraints, and it is the same mechanism as the smallest one on this table.

The freedom that survives repetition

A Miura sheet has one freedom at four panels and one at a hundred and forty-four, and the count runs the other way: plus one, then nought, then minus three, minus fifteen, minus ninety-nine. The gap between them is exactly (n − 2) squared, which is a hundred repeated constraints on a sheet with one degree of freedom.

networks · Network What each kind of joint takes away. Grübler's formula is M = 3(n − 1) − 2j₁ − j₂, and the 2 and the 1 in it are not conventions. A lower pair — a pin or a slide — holds two bodies together over a surface and leaves one relative freedom, so it costs 2. A higher pair — a cam against a follower, a wheel on a rail — touches at a point, the contact travels along both surfaces, and it costs 1. Five chains, each built and each measured from the rank of its constraint Jacobian, which has never heard of the formula. The last row is the one worth having: count that cam contact as a pin, as is very easily done, and the formula returns 0 where the mechanism has 1. The Jacobian does not move.

What each joint takes away

Grübler's formula has a 2 in it for pins and a 1 for cam contacts, and those numbers are not conventions to be memorised. They are the number of constraints each kind of joint imposes, they are measurable as the rank of a matrix, and miscounting one of them is the commonest way the formula is got wrong.

constraint · Mobility Where a tolerance stack-up stops meaning anything. The ratio between the first-order tolerance estimate and the band measured by building every corner linkage, for two four-bars at ±0.002 on each length. The crank-rocker's ratio is 1 at all 180 positions — a stack-up is exactly right for it, everywhere. The parallelogram is a change-point linkage, where all four bars can lie on one line, and at that position the estimate exceeds the measurement by a factor of 4.8e+5. The difference is not in the arithmetic, which is identical; it is that a derivative describes a map that can be inverted, and at a change point the map cannot.

Where a stack-up stops working

On a crank-rocker the first-order tolerance estimate matches the measured band at every one of 180 positions, to eight parts in ten thousand. On a parallelogram it exceeds it by a factor of 475,512. Same arithmetic, same tolerance, two linkages that differ only in their proportions — and nothing in the calculation says which one it is being run on.

practice · Tolerance What the count is right about. Freedoms minus dependencies, against what the count predicts, on seven assemblies from three different representations. The difference is exact every time and it is exact for a reason that has nothing to do with mechanisms: the count is unknowns minus constraints, the rank is a number no larger than either, and the two nullities are what each of them has left over. So a count is not wrong in the way a mismeasurement is wrong. It is a statement about a difference being read as a statement about one of the terms — and on four of these seven rows both terms are large and the difference is nearly meaningless.

A constraint that has been said already

Every constraint matrix leaves two null spaces, and a mechanism only lives in one of them. The other is the set of combinations of constraints that come to nothing — and its dimension is exactly the amount by which the count is wrong, on a deployable ring, a Miura sheet and a framework with twelve bars and six joints.

networks · Network Two numbers, and where they differ. Every mechanism in this field, with what its constraints leave and what its brackets fill. On every mechanism without a rolling contact the two columns are the same number, which is why nobody had to say which one mobility meant. Here only the rail agrees with itself — and the rail is the one mechanism in the table that cannot go anywhere new.

The count that counts the wrong thing

Mobility has meant one number for six fields, because until a wheel appeared no mechanism could tell two questions apart. A rolling wheel has two velocity freedoms and a three-dimensional reachable set, and the formula that gives 2 is not wrong — it is answering the question about instants when the question anybody asks is about intervals.

constraint · Mobility How much each set of wheels forbids. Every wheel contributes the same row, and whether it is a constraint or a drive is one factor of sin γ in it — γ being the angle the rollers make with the wheel's own axle. At γ = 0 the row says the body may not move across the wheel and the wheel's speed drops out of the statement; at γ = 45° the row says nothing about the body at all and fixes the wheel's speed instead. The whole difference between a machine that shuffles and one that slides sideways is in that factor.

The wheel that forbids nothing

Every wheel contributes the same row to the same matrix, and whether that row is a constraint on the vehicle or a statement about the wheel's own speed is decided by one factor of sin γ. At γ = 0 the vehicle may not move across the wheel; at 45° the row says nothing about the vehicle at all, and sideways costs exactly what forwards costs — to the last digit, and at no other angle.

rolling · Rolling The framework Maxwell's count calls a structure. Six joints and twelve bars in space. Three coordinates each gives eighteen unknowns, six rigid motions come off, and twelve bars is exactly twelve constraints — Maxwell's count is 6 against six rigid motions, which is the definition of isostatic: no mechanism, no redundancy, every bar carrying its own share and nothing spare. The rank is 11, not twelve. There is one dependency among the bars and one freedom left over, and the freedom is a genuine finite motion: walked here with every bar held to 4.4e-16 of its own length. The reason is a symmetry — three pairs of joints exchanged by a half turn about one line — and it is built into the coordinates rather than asserted about the result. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

Twelve bars and a symmetry

Six joints and twelve bars in space is Maxwell's count exactly: no mechanism, no redundancy, nothing spare. Place three pairs of the joints so that a half turn about one line exchanges them and it moves — a finite motion, walked with every bar held to five ten-thousand-billionths of its own length, on a framework the arithmetic calls a structure.

spatial · Spatial Every axis through one point. Four wheels on one rigid body, each rolling without sliding. Each turns about some point on its own axle line, and a rigid body has one such point, so every axle line has to pass through it. That is the whole of steering geometry, and it is a rank condition rather than a formula: here the four rows have rank 2 of 3, leaving a one-dimensional family of twists, and the centre they agree on is 12.000 m to the side. The scrub is 3.2e-17 m per metre — zero, to the last digit.

Every axis through one point

Bolt several rolling wheels to one rigid body and they impose one condition between them: every axle line must pass through a single point. The familiar steering formula falls out of it as a consequence rather than being quoted — cot δₒ − cot δᵢ = 0.574074 at a turn of six metres, of eight, of twelve and of twenty, on a track of 1.55 m and a wheelbase of 2.7.

rolling · Rolling Where enumerating the corners stops being affordable. The two routes to a tolerance band, costed against the number of toleranced lengths. Enumerating every extreme combination is 2ⁿ mechanisms at every crank position; differentiating the constraints is n linear solves. A four-bar is 16 corners and a Watt six-bar is 128, which is still cheap — 142 solves for one position — and the curve is the point rather than either number: at twenty parameters, which is an ordinary spatial mechanism, the corner route is a million mechanisms and the derivative route is twenty. Both are drawn because the corner route is not merely slower, it is the one that assumes nothing, and its answer is what the cheap route has to be checked against.

Seven lengths and a hundred corners

Nothing in a tolerance analysis is about four. A Watt six-bar has seven lengths, its corner enumeration is 128 mechanisms rather than 16, and the two routes still agree to a hundredth of a per cent — but the costs have separated — 142 solves against seven. At twenty parameters, which is an ordinary spatial mechanism, it is a million against twenty.

practice · Tolerance A geared five-bar at 3 : 2, its coupler pin traced over 2 input turns. Two cranks of length 1 on pivots 3 apart, meshed through gears whose pitch circles, dashed, have radii 1.800 and 1.200, so the second crank turns 1.5000 times for every turn of the first and the other way. Coupler bars of 3 and 2.5 join them at the pin C, and the thin curve is where C goes over 2 turns of the input. The two crank pins are always between 1 and 5 apart and the bars can span 0.5 to 5.5, so the chain never meets a dead position. After 2 turns the machine is exactly where it began and the curve is closed.

One freedom, and a motion that never repeats

Mesh a gear on each crank of a five-bar and the count and the rank agree that one freedom is left, at every gear ratio. Whether the machine ever comes back to where it started is a different question, and neither instrument can see it: at 3 to 2 it is home after two turns, at 37 to 23 after twenty-three, and at the golden ratio never, with its nearest returns at the Fibonacci numbers.

constraint · Mobility Nine bars joining two sets of three joints, at three placements of one motion. Joints B₁, B₂ and B₃ lie on the horizontal line at -2, 1, 3, joints W₁, W₂ and W₃ on the vertical line through the same point at -1.5, 1, 2.5, and every joint of one set is barred to every joint of the other. Counted, nine bars on six joints leave no freedom. Drawn here at three placements, the joints have slid along their lines — B₂ at 0.632 and W₂ at 1.265; B₂ at 1.000 and W₂ at 1.000; B₂ at 1.265 and W₂ at 0.632 — and every one of the nine bars has the same length in all three, to 4.4e-16.

Nine bars that ought to be rigid

Join each of three joints to each of three others and the nine bars leave no freedom, by the count and by the rank, wherever the joints are. Put one set on a line and the other on a line at right angles and the framework moves, all the way round a loop, with no bar repeating any other: take away any one of the nine and the motion is unchanged, take away any two and it gains a freedom. Tilt the lines by a degree and it still has a freedom by rank and cannot move at all.

constraint · Mobility A framework built off square, and the play it asks for to move at all. The nine bars with their two lines 4° from perpendicular, as built and after the first joint has been pushed 0.2 along its line. The framework has a freedom by rank and no motion, so the push cannot be taken with the bars at their lengths. With every bar allowed to be wrong by 1.509e-4 — which is a radial clearance of 7.547e-5 at each end — a placement exists, and the worst bar in it is out by 1.509e-4. The same push on the perpendicular framework needs no allowance at all, because there it is a motion.

The right angle as a tolerance

Dixon's nine bars move only when their two lines are exactly perpendicular, and a framework built a degree off square has a freedom by rank and no motion at all. Give its joints clearance and it moves a bounded distance: the play each bar needs is proportional to the tilt and to the square of the travel, one constant serves every tilt, and all nine bars end up at that play exactly. Then the framework reaches its first crossing and the law is left three hundred times behind.

constraint · Mobility

Named alongside it

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

MobilityRankGrübler's criterionRedundant constraintOverconstraintConstraintJacobianNetworkDegrees of freedomRolling constraintToleranceConfiguration space

All concepts