Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Grübler's criterion — where it appears

A count of a planar mechanism's mobility from its links and joints alone, which knows nothing about the dimensions and can be wrong. Because it uses no dimensions it declares some perfectly good mechanisms immobile, which is why the site computes the Jacobian's rank as well and reports both.

Named by 27 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 Three bars and four bars. On the left, two bars to a common point: three links, three joints, and Grübler gives 3(3−1) − 2(3) = 0. The Jacobian agrees — two free coordinates, rank 2, nothing left over — and the shape cannot change without a bar changing length. On the right, one more bar and one more joint gives mobility 1, and the whole of this site follows from that difference. The triangle is why bridges are triangulated and the quadrilateral is why machines are not.

What decides whether it moves

Before a mechanism does anything it has to be able to. Two bars pinned to a point cannot move; three can. The count that separates them is one subtraction, it is the first thing anybody computes about a machine, and it can be wrong in a way that no amount of care with the arithmetic will catch.

constraint · Mobility 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 Mobility, counted and measured. Grübler's criterion counts links and joints and knows nothing about the dimensions; the rank of the constraint Jacobian measures the dimensions and knows nothing about the topology. They agree for four of these five. The parallelogram with a redundant third bar is the exception: the formula declares it a structure with zero degrees of freedom, and it moves. The formula is the one that is wrong, because it cannot see that the third bar's constraint equations are already implied by the other two.

Counting and measuring mobility

Grübler's criterion counts links and joints and never asks how long anything is. The rank of the constraint Jacobian measures the lengths and never asks what a joint is. Two calculations with no inputs in common, producing one number — which is the only arrangement under which agreement is evidence.

constraint · Mobility Grashof's classification, predicted and then swept. Four sets of link lengths. For each, Grashof's condition predicts from the lengths alone whether the input can rotate a full turn, and the solver then attempts all 180 positions and reports how many assembled. The prediction and the measurement agree in every case, which is what licenses quoting the classification for a mechanism nobody has swept.

Grashof, predicted and then swept

Add the shortest link to the longest. If the total does not exceed the other two, some link can turn a full revolution. It is a sentence about four numbers, it was published in 1883, and it is the kind of claim this site refuses to print without measuring — so every linkage here is also asked for all 360 positions and required to agree.

linkages · Fourbar 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 Three verdicts, and only one instrument can give all three. Every 10-link graph that satisfies Grübler's count, split by what is actually true of it. 230 are mechanisms with 10 links. 1,165 carry a subchain whose own count is exactly nought — and neither of the two standing routes can see them: the count returns one and the rank returns one, and both are right, because a rigid subchain removes exactly the freedoms it is supposed to. What is false is the description. 483 carry a subchain whose count is below nought, and those the rank does catch: the surplus pins repeat a constraint already imposed, the Jacobian loses rank, and the measured mobility comes out above the count. The third instrument — a count run over every subset of the links — is the only one that answers the question at all.

What a count cannot see

At ten links, 1,878 graphs satisfy Grübler's rule and 230 are mechanisms. The other 1,648 contain a subchain that is already a structure — and on 1,165 of them the count says one degree of freedom, the rank of the constraint Jacobian says one degree of freedom, and both are right about a mechanism that does not have ten links.

topology · Topology 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 point held by three strands may be. Three anchors, three strands of 130, 130, 120 mm, and a point tied to all three. A rigid link of those lengths would leave nothing to decide — three distance equations in two unknowns have no solution at all — and three strands leave a region, because each of them says no further than rather than exactly. The region is the intersection of the three discs; its area here is 2721.0 mm² and it has 3 corners. Inside it nothing is taut and the point has both its freedoms; on an arc one strand is taut and it has one; at a corner two are taut and it has none. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The strand that is slack

A rigid link removes a freedom wherever the mechanism stands. A strand removes one only where it is taut — so a point held by three of them has two freedoms in the middle of its region, one on an arc, none at a corner, and no single mobility count describes it at all.

strands · Strand A pin in a hole is a short link. Left: a pin of radius 0.86 in a hole of radius 1, so the clearance is 0.14. The pin's centre may sit anywhere within that of the hole's centre. Right: the same joint as it enters the kinematics — a binary link of fixed length 0.14 and free direction, with a revolute at each end. That is not an analogy. It is the same set of relative positions, so every count, every Jacobian and every solve on this site applies to it unchanged, and a four-bar with play at each pin is a mechanism with eight links and eight joints.

A clearance is a link

A pin in a hole is not a joint at a point. Its centre may sit anywhere within the difference of the two radii, so the two links it joins are connected by a body of fixed length and free direction — a binary link with a revolute at each end. That is not an analogy, and taking it literally makes a four-bar a mechanism with eight links, eight joints and five degrees of freedom.

practice · Clearance 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 Watt's chain. Six links and 7 pin joints, so Grübler counts 3(6 − 1) − 2(7) = 1 and the rank of the Jacobian measures 1. Two of the six links must carry three joints; they are shaded. Here they share a joint, which makes this a Watt chain. That adjacency is the entire classification, and it is read off the graph rather than off the picture.

Six bars, and what the extra dyad buys

Every linkage so far has had four bars, because four is the smallest closed chain that moves. The next one up is six, not five, and six is where the subject stops being one family and becomes a taxonomy — two chains, distinguished entirely by whether the two links carrying three joints happen to touch.

linkages · Synthesis The ring a count says cannot move. 8 pairs of angulated elements, each pair two mirror-image bent bars pinned at their kinks, with each pair joined to the next at two pins on a common radius. 16 bodies and 24 pins give Grübler's 3(n − 1) − 2j = 0: no freedom at all, a structure. The rank of the constraint Jacobian is 44 of 48, which leaves 4 — the three rigid motions of the whole ring and one deployment — and 4 constraints that repeat what the others have already said. The kink angle is not a style: it is 135.0000°, a half turn less the 45.0000° the ring subtends per pair, and any other value gives a ring that will not deploy. Inner radius 0.6876, outer 2.2688. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The ring that closes at every size

Two bent bars pinned at their kinks hold the angle between their connection lines at 135.000000° whatever you do to them, and two straight ones hold it at nothing. That is the whole difference between a scissor chain that grows in a line and a ring of eight that opens and shuts — and the count says the ring cannot move.

networks · Network The network where counting works. 5 scissor units, each two bars pinned at their middles, with consecutive units sharing their end pins. Sixteen bodies and twenty-two pins at eight units, and Grübler's 3(n − 1) − 2j gives 4 — three rigid motions and one internal freedom — against a measured nullity of 4 and no redundant constraints at all. That holds at one unit and at sixteen. The tong is here to make the field's point in the direction nobody expects it: a network is not a place where counting fails, it is a place where counting stops being checkable by hand, and one of the two assemblies that spans this plate is counted perfectly. Span 8.1388 mm at this opening, which is 5 times one unit's 1.6278. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

One input at one end

A lazy tong's reach is 2nL cos θ — exactly, to a part in a million million, over eight sizes and sixty openings — so it multiplies its input by the number of units. It multiplies everything else by the same number, including the part of the drawing nobody wanted multiplied: a unit cut a hundredth of a radian out puts a tong of thirty-two units 0.374 out at the far end.

networks · Network What each instrument returns, on each kind of graph. The 8-link census, three rows, and the same three questions asked of every graph in it. Grübler returns 1 in every row — it has to, because that is what the census selected on. The rank returns 1 in the first two rows and 2 in the third. Only the third column changes across all three rows, and it is the one this site did not have before this field: a mobility computed for every subset of the links rather than for the whole. Read down the middle two columns and the site's standing pair of routes is unanimous about 62 graphs, of which only 16 are what it says they are.

The count was right and the name was wrong

The constraint field has checked Grübler's count against a Jacobian rank since the foundation, and the two disagree only where the geometry is special. Here is an assembly where they agree, where both are correct, and where the mechanism does not have the number of links it is described as having.

constraint · Mobility A brace is one redundant equation, on purpose. The compiled machine, counted and measured, with and without 4 braces. The count says the braced machine has -3 degrees of freedom — it cannot move — and the rank of the constraint Jacobian says it has 1, the same as before. Every brace contributes exactly one equation the others already imply, which is what overconstraint is, and here it is being added deliberately: the redundancy is what removes the assemblies the count knows nothing about. This is Grübler being wrong for the useful reason rather than the embarrassing one.

A bar between two midpoints

In a parallelogram the midpoints of two opposite sides are exactly one side apart, and in the crossed assembly they are not. One bar between them admits the first and refuses the second — and it is one redundant equation per parallelogram, added on purpose, on a site whose constraint field is otherwise about overconstraint arriving by accident.

computing · Compute What it takes to build each of the twelve. The same twelve, read as a bill of materials. Six of them are one joint, because a lower pair permits the whole symmetry group of its surface and those six groups are exactly the symmetry groups surfaces have. The other five with a dimension take a chain: two slides for planar translation, three for Cartesian motion, a thread and two slides for the screw-in-a-plane group, and three parallel pins with a slide along them for Schoenflies motion — which is a SCARA arm, and is why a pick-and-place machine has four joints and not one. The group each chain produces is measured from four hundred sampled poses rather than declared, and every row agrees.

The freedom that is a set

Grübler's rule has been on this site since its first essay, and it adds up numbers. Each of those numbers is the dimension of a group of displacements, and the group has eleven siblings the number cannot distinguish. The count is not wrong; it is a projection, and this is what the projection discards.

constraint · Mobility 11 assortments are arithmetically possible and 7 contain a mechanism. The 10-link census organised the way every published table organises it: by how many links carry two pins, three, four and more. The assortments themselves are a small piece of arithmetic — the degrees must sum to twice the pin count and none may be below two — and it admits 11 of them. 4 contain no chain at all. Each of those 4 needs a link carrying six, seven or eight pins, and a link with that many pins in a chain this small always drags a structure in with it: the graphs exist, they satisfy Grübler exactly, and every one of them has a rigid subchain. That is a result the arithmetic cannot reach, because the arithmetic never looks at where a pin goes.

Eleven assortments and four that are empty

How many links carry two pins, how many carry three, how many carry four: two lines of arithmetic admit eleven answers at ten links. Seventy-eight graphs have degrees the last four of them describe, every one of those graphs satisfies Grübler's rule exactly, and not one of them is a mechanism.

topology · Topology 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 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.

Six things a network is not

A count that is right about a difference and read as an answer, a nullity taken for a mobility, a flat state that cannot tell a mechanism from a structure, a scissor ring that closes nowhere, a vertex that folds while its sheet does not, and a null space computed with an instrument whose floor is above the answer. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

wrong · Misconception 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 One, two, sixteen, two hundred and thirty. Every planar chain of mobility one, up to ten links, counted by enumeration rather than quoted. The pins column is forced: a chain of 10 links has one degree of freedom only if it has exactly (3n − 4)/2 pins, which is why no odd link count appears. Pass the count is how many graphs satisfy Grübler's rule, are connected, are simple and give every link at least two pins. Are chains is how many of those survive the fourth condition, that no proper subchain is already a structure — and the gap between the two columns is the whole of this field's first argument: at ten links 1,878 graphs pass a rule that 230 of them deserve. Mechanisms is larger again, because a chain is not a mechanism until a link is held still, and how many different mechanisms that gives is a question about the chain's own symmetry.

Six things a chain is not

A count read as a verdict, a rank trusted where it is blind, a fingerprint used as a proof, a list of five taken for a complete one, a solver treated as a convenience, and a census read as a catalogue of machines. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

wrong · Misconception 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 5 braces, and it is rigid. A 3×3 grid of squares with 5 of its cells braced by a diagonal, and no freedom left. The bipartite graph on the 3 columns and 3 rows, with one edge per braced cell, has 1 component — and the number of freedoms is one less than that, at every bracing there is. Nothing in the rank computation knows about columns, rows or graphs.

Which diagonal rigidifies a grid

A three-by-three grid of squares needs five diagonals and eighty-one of the hundred and twenty-six ways of placing five will do. Which ones is not a rank question at all: it is whether a graph on the grid's columns and rows is connected, and eighty-one is the number of that graph's spanning trees.

networks · Network The same patch twisted 17.2°: 35 mechanisms, all at the edge. A rhombus of 8 × 8 kagome cells — 192 joints, 346 bars — with every up-pointing triangle turned by 17.2° about its own centre. Each joint is drawn with an area proportional to its weight: its share of the diagonal of the projector onto the patch's mechanisms, which does not depend on how the mechanisms are written down and adds up over the joints to the number of mechanisms, 35. That number is Maxwell's count, 2 × 192 − 346 − 3, and the rank agrees with no redundant bar. The mean weight is 0.341 on the outermost ring of cells and 0.015 on the innermost. The twist kinks every line of bars at every joint, and the mechanisms fall away from the edge 23-fold in 3 cells.

The count says how many and not where

A kagome lattice has three joints and six bars in every cell and counts to exactly nothing, so a patch cut from it has as many mechanisms as its edge has lost bars: 5L − 5 for a rhombus of L cells a side, which the rank confirms at every size with no bar redundant. Straight or twisted, the number is the same. Where the mechanisms are is not: a straight patch keeps nearly half its edge weight in the middle, and a patch whose triangles are turned by 17° keeps a twentieth.

networks · Network Watt chain with 1 slide: 3 chains, 11 mechanisms. The same 6 links and 7 joints with 1 of the joints made a slide instead of a pin, drawn as a block astride the line. There are 7 ways to choose the joint, and the chain's 4 symmetries fold them into 3 that are genuinely different: with the slide at 0–3, 2 mechanisms; with the slide at 0–1, 6 mechanisms; with the slide at 1–2, 3 mechanisms. The mechanism count is the number of orbits of a held link and the slide set together, so a slide breaks symmetry the pin-only chain had, and links that gave one machine between them give two. The pin-only chain gave 2; one slide gives 11.

A slide turns nothing

Make one joint of a chain a slide instead of a pin and the graph has a second decision in it before any length exists. The symmetries that counted mechanisms count these too — Watt's chain with one slide is three chains and eleven machines — and two facts read off the graph say which placements still work: a loop of slides alone is freer than the count, and a pin in a group of links the slides hold at one orientation cannot turn. Across 102 placements on the three smallest chains, both agree with the rank of the constraint Jacobian.

topology · Topology

Named alongside it

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

MobilityRankRedundant constraintConstraintDegrees of freedomNetworkConstraint jacobianOverconstraintKinematic chainDeployableHigher pairJacobian

All concepts