Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Integrability — where it appears

Whether a velocity constraint is the derivative of a position constraint, decided by whether the permitted directions are closed under the Lie bracket. It is what separates a rail, which confines a trolley to a curve, from a wheel, which forbids a direction and confines nothing.

Named by 5 essays across 2 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 Which of these constraints is secretly about positions. How much of the bracket of two permitted directions lies outside the permitted directions, as a fraction of its own length. Frobenius' theorem says a distribution is the tangent field of a family of surfaces exactly when this is zero, so the test needs no integration and no recognition. The scale is logarithmic because the answers are seventeen orders apart: the rail returns nothing at all and everything else returns essentially the whole bracket. There is no mechanism in the middle.

One character apart

Two mechanisms with three coordinates, one constraint row of the same shape and two controls each. In one of them the angle in the row is a coordinate; in the other it is a constant. The first can be driven anywhere and the second can never leave a line, and Frobenius' theorem decides which is which without integrating anything.

rolling · Rolling Four legs that do not cancel. Drive forward, turn, drive back, turn back — each leg exactly as long as the one it is undoing. The mechanism does not come home. What is left over is 1149.9 mm at an amplitude of 1.10, and it points along the direction the wheel forbids. The gap and the computed bracket are 31.51° apart here and 3.15° apart at a tenth of this amplitude — the agreement is a leading-order statement and the departure is the third-order remainder, which falls with the manoeuvre rather than staying put. Every point on the path was reached by a permitted velocity, so nothing here cheats; the sideways motion is assembled out of motions that are not sideways.

The motion left over by going nowhere

Drive forward, turn, drive back the same distance, turn back the same angle. Every leg is undone by another leg and the mechanism does not come home — it has moved sideways, in the one direction it is forbidden to move in. The leftover has a name, a formula, and a measured exponent of 1.997.

rolling · Rolling What each of them can reach. Nine hundred control histories of four legs each, from the same starting configuration, with the resulting position plotted. The wheel's cloud is two-dimensional and fills the region; the trolley's is one-dimensional and lies exactly on its rail — the same number of coordinates, the same number of constraints, the same count of freedoms, and a reachable set of a different dimension. Nothing here is a matter of degree.

Not unreachable, only expensive

The sentence is false of every wheeled mechanism in this field and true of exactly one — the trolley bolted to a rail. A rolling constraint forbids a direction and reaches everywhere; the mistake is reading a statement about instants as a statement about intervals, and it is made in both directions.

wrong · Misconception Two pins, and what their bracket costs. The bracket, on the smallest case there is. Two revolute joints span a two-dimensional set of twists whichever way they are arranged, and no count on this site can tell the two arrangements apart. Their brackets can. Two parallel pins bracket to a translation, which was not in the span, and the span closes at three — planar motion, which is the group the pair of them lives in. Two skew pins bracket to something that closes at six: nothing smaller than the whole of the rigid displacements contains them. The defect column is how far the bracket lies outside the original span as a fraction of its own length, and in both cases it is of order one — which is the ordinary case, and is why a mechanism confined to a subgroup is the exception.

One bracket, two subjects

A wheel can be parked sideways because the forbidden direction is the bracket of two permitted ones. A mechanism's motion is a group when the brackets of its permitted twists are already permitted. Same operation, same two plateaux, and the two fields want opposite answers — which is why the two are named for different things here, with each one saying beside itself that the other exists.

rolling · Rolling

Named alongside it

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

NonholonomicRolling constraintConfiguration spaceDistributionLie bracketGrowth vectorInvariantMobilityPfaffian constraintReachable setVelocity freedomConserved quantity

All concepts