Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Network — where it appears

An assembly of many copies of one small unit, where the count of bodies is a parameter rather than a fixed number. Its mobility is the nullity of a constraint matrix rather than an arithmetic on the numbers of bodies and joints, and a unit that moves on its own can be rigid the moment it is joined to another of itself.

Named by 17 essays across 4 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 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 What a pattern that cannot fold leaves behind. The best a least-squares solve can do with the vertex closures, against the fold it is asked for. The Miura pattern closes at every angle, at the arithmetic's own floor — the line along the bottom is 10⁻¹⁵ and below. The same grid with its vertices moved by a tenth of a panel does not close at any angle at all: its residual starts at 5.9e-6 at the smallest fold and grows with it, and no seed and no number of iterations moves it. Both patterns have the same panels, the same creases, the same graph and the same developable vertices, and every one of those vertices folds perfectly well on its own.

Each one moves, and together they do not

Take the pattern a Miura sheet folds along and move every interior vertex by a tenth of a panel. Every vertex still folds on its own — each is a spherical four-bar with a freedom of its own — and the four of them together fold to no angle at all, with a residual that starts at six millionths and never falls.

networks · Network 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 A vertex is a spherical linkage, and the sectors are its link lengths. The four creases of one folded vertex, drawn as directions from the vertex itself, with the great-circle arcs between consecutive ones. Those arcs are the sector angles of the flat pattern — 80°, 60°, 100°, 120° — and they are those angles at every fold, to 8.9e-16 radians. That is the whole of the claim in the title: four axes through a point at fixed arcs from each other is a spherical four-bar, the object this site's spatial field built two phases ago, and a crease pattern's vertex is one of them with the arcs printed on the paper. The dihedral angle of the sheet at each crease is a half turn less that crease's fold angle, which here run 68.8°, 14.4°, 68.8°, 14.4°. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

Every vertex is a spherical linkage

Four creases through a point at fixed arcs from one another is a spherical four-bar — the object the spatial field is built on — with its link lengths printed on the paper as sector angles. The arcs hold to four parts in ten thousand million million at every fold, and on a flat-foldable vertex the half-angle tangents keep a ratio constant to nine figures.

networks · Network 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 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 The smallest mechanism that is not one. Two bars from a free joint to two pinned ones, with the three points in line. The constraint matrix has two rows and two columns, both rows are horizontal, and its rank is 1: one freedom left over, pointing straight up, and one dependency among the two bars. Move the joint up and neither bar changes length to first order, which is what the freedom says. To second order both bars get longer, by the same amount and in the same direction, and there is nothing to trade off against — which is what the dependency says. The obstruction is the dependency applied to the second-order stretch and comes to 1.414214; anything but nought there and the freedom is not the beginning of a motion. Lifted by 0.34 the bars are 0.05622 longer, which is the whole argument drawn to scale.

It moves to first order and not at all

Two bars from one joint to two pinned ones, all three in line: the rank leaves a freedom pointing straight up, and lifting the joint stretches both bars. The obstruction is 1.414214, the walk travels a millionth of what it is asked to, and how far it gets is a property of the tolerance rather than of the mechanism.

networks · Network 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 Two branches, meeting where the sheet is flat. The same vertex's two folding modes, plotted as one crease's fold angle against another's. Both curves pass through the origin, which is the flat sheet, and they cross there and nowhere else. That crossing is what a rank cannot see: at the origin the tangent directions of both branches are available to the constraint matrix at once, so the nullity there counts them all and the mechanism has only one of them once it has left. Every branch argument this site has made — a four-bar's assembly configurations, an arm's eight postures, the components a solve's paths turned out to run between — is this picture with different axes.

Where the branches meet

A flat sheet is the one configuration every folding of a pattern passes through, and it is the one configuration where the rank is wrong about all of them. Three of a three-by-three Miura sheet's four apparent freedoms are not motions — and a grid that folds to no angle at all reports exactly the same four.

networks · Network 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 What the repeated constraints cost the drawing. Move an interior vertex of the flat pattern and the folded state generally stops existing. It survives if the change to the vertex closures can be absorbed by a change in the fold angles — and the part that cannot be absorbed is exactly the part that lies along a dependency, because a dependency is a direction in residual space the fold angles cannot reach. So the number of conditions a pattern's shape has to satisfy is at most the number of dependencies among its constraints, and on the Miura family it is exactly that: one at three by three, four at four, nine at five, measured by taking the rank of the obstruction. A twelve-by-twelve sheet has a hundred conditions on where its vertices may be. That is why a grid whose vertices are anywhere at all does not fold, and it is the same number, read the other way round, as the amount by which the count is wrong.

What a pattern has to satisfy

Move an interior vertex of a crease pattern and the folded state generally stops existing. How many conditions the drawing has to meet is not a matter of taste: it is exactly the number of dependencies among the constraints, measured at one, four and nine on three sizes of sheet, and a hundred on a sheet of a hundred and forty-four panels.

networks · Network A network with no boundary at all. The kagome lattice, drawn out to 5 cells across and continuing for ever. The measurement is made on one cell: 3 joints, 6 bars, and a bar that leaves the cell comes back into it, written against the far end's position in the neighbouring cell. There is no boundary anywhere in the arithmetic, and the size of the network has gone from being a parameter to not existing. The highlighted triangle is the cell; every other line on the page is a copy of one of its six bars. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The cell that repeats for ever

Take the size of a network to infinity and it stops being a parameter. What is left is one cell, six bars, and a question nobody has to ask about a finite assembly: does the pattern's period count as a body? A square grid is rigid if it does not and shears if it does, and so does the kagome.

networks · Network 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 The same multiplier, applied to the error. A tong whose units are cut to an angle 0.01 radians away from the drawing. If one unit is out, the span is out by that unit's share and nothing more; if every unit is out the same way — which is what a machine setting or a worn tool produces — the error is multiplied by the unit count, exactly, to 7.6e-14. The third column is what would happen if the errors were independent and equally likely either way: the accumulation goes as the square root of the count instead, and the difference between the two columns at thirty-two units is a factor of 5.66. Which column applies is a question about how the parts were made, not about the mechanism.

The error that is repeated

Thirty-two units cut on one setting of one machine are thirty-two copies of one error, not thirty-two draws from a distribution — so a tong's span is out by thirty-two times a unit's, not by the square root of thirty-two times it. The two estimates differ by a factor of 5.66, and the second one is the comforting one.

practice · Tolerance

Named alongside it

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

MobilityRedundant constraintRankGrübler's criterionNull spaceDeployableRigid origamiConstraint jacobianCrease patternDesign ruleInfinitesimal flexScissor linkage

All concepts