Linear program — where it appears
Named by 10 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The test is a program, not a rank
Three independent routes to one yes-or-no: enumerate the escape cone's extreme rays by cross products, take the convex hull of the contact rows and ask where the origin is, or hand the whole thing to a simplex. They agree on every arrangement — and the first version of the third one reported a disc as held, which is the one part in the field that no number of contacts holds.
Where the jaws put it
Three jaws closing on a bar put its axis at −⅔ Σ h(u_k) u_k, which vanishes exactly when the section's support function is unchanged by a 120° turn. So a three-jaw chuck centres round, triangular and hexagonal stock perfectly and a square bar by up to 17.3 per cent of its own circumradius — and the workshop rule about symmetry that predicts this is wrong, because a six-jaw chuck centres a square.
Held is not located
Back every obstacle off by a clearance and the permitted poses become a polyhedron — bounded exactly when the arrangement is a hold, since an unbounded direction of it would be a ray of the escape cone. So whether a part is held is whether its pose set is finite, the clearance is what gives that set a size, and the two questions have to be settled in that order because no tolerance settles the first.
Which contact to make accurately
A hold turns a set of contact tolerances into one linear inequality, and the weights in it are the coefficients of the combination that cancels — a quarter each on a square held by four, and 0.144 to 0.424 on a hexagon held by five. Above that line the part goes in and below it there is no pose it can take at all: not badly located, not out of position, no fit.
Two jaws and a coefficient
Every hold in this field has been frictionless, and two of its essays say what that leaves out. Put friction back and a part is held by two contacts in the plane instead of four and by three in space instead of seven; a disc, which no frictionless fixture can hold at all, is held by two jaws at any friction above nought; and an odd polygon needs a friction of exactly tan(π/2n). What friction takes away is the thing that made a frictionless hold a fact about geometry: a frictional hold is a hold per unit of squeeze.
A hold the load squeezes shut
A cam cleat bites harder the harder the rope pulls, and a wedge dragged by a bar into a narrowing gap squeezes the bar harder the harder it is drawn. Neither needs a screw: the load supplies its own squeeze, if the geometry lets it. A cam on a free pivot can push only along the line to its pivot, so it holds exactly while that line leans from the contact's normal by no more than the friction angle. A wedge's squeeze passes through two contacts, and it jams while its angle is no more than the sum of their friction angles — twice the figure usually quoted. And the set of loads either one holds does not shrink towards its threshold. It is lost there, all at once.
A constant pull holds the band for less
A spring with free length was the obvious way to make the rocking slide's spring cheaper, and it does nothing: offered one, the lightest design takes none, at every arm point tried. The spring's law never mattered to where it may hang, because the walls depend only on which side of each crank pin the spring's line passes, and that cuts the attachment points to a polygon whatever the spring is. What the law decides is the price. Three poses bind at the lightest attachment point, and a spring whose tension follows its length must pay for the longest of them. A pull that is the same at every pose pays for none of them, and holds the band from nought to the design load for 44.6 units against 52.0. Designing for the band directly halves the hundred units the earlier essay read off by scaling.
A free length is absorbed where the springs attach
Give every spring of the smallest balanced desk lamp 2 cm of free length and refit the stiffnesses, and the lamp is left with 0.093 N·m of unbalance, growing in exact proportion to the free length. The spare fourth spring that ideal springs had no use for recovers under three per cent of it, and moving the head spring beyond the threshold only makes it worse. What absorbs a free length is a spring whose length barely changes. Re-chosen attachment points buy back a third of the unbalance that way, and pay for it with four times the pull.
A grid that loses two crosses every cell
To stay rigid when any two of its cables go slack, a cable-braced grid needs three arrows into and out of every row and column of cells. On three by three that is eighteen cables, both diagonals of every cell, and no placement of seventeen survives. On four by four it leaves 576 placements of 24, and for once the count is the whole rule. Pretensioned for the intact grid, 570 of them lose a cable outright to some pair of losses. Pretensioned for the pairs, all of them keep something, and the bracings with no empty cell keep the most, up to 0.198 of the largest pretension.
The first pull goes to the spring the lamp did without
Give every spring of the balanced desk lamp 2 cm of free length and let it have more pull, and the worst moment it is left with falls from 0.086 N·m at 62 N to 0.052 at 227 N, the most any attachment points inside the outline can do. Half of that improvement costs the first 18 newtons; the second half costs the next 147. Spent on stiffness alone, with the attachment points held, extra pull buys nothing at all. And the first place it goes is the upper arm's spring, the spare that ideal springs had no use for, hung lower on its bracket while the head spring moves out past the threshold. The wrist spring, which carried almost all of the earlier re-attached design's cost, takes the largest share only after 140 N.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
FixtureForm closurePositive spanClearanceClosure marginContact normalMinimaxConvex hullEscape coneFour-barFrictionLeast-squares