Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Pose selection — where it appears

Choosing which configurations of a mechanism to measure so a calibration recovers as much as possible. The gain from more poses flattens quickly because a pose contributes a direction in a space of fixed dimension, so where the poses are matters more than how many.

Named by 8 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What another measurement is worth. The smallest singular value of the identification Jacobian — the observability of the worst-recovered parameter — against how many poses were measured. The lower curve takes poses evenly round the crank; the upper one chooses each next pose to make this number as large as it can. Both rise steeply and then flatten: the 13 evenly-spaced poses already give four fifths of what 20 give. Chosen poses reach at 4 what even spacing needs 5 to reach. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy — it is the information in a pose being a direction in a three-dimensional space, which a handful of well-spread poses already spans. Everything after that is averaging noise, which is a different gain and improves as the square root.

How many poses are enough

Three readings determine a four-bar's shape and the thousandth adds almost nothing. The rank is reached at three because there are three parameters, and everything after that is conditioning — which is a different quantity, improves for a different reason, and stops improving much sooner than anybody expects.

metrology · Parameter The order the poses are chosen in. Each next pose chosen to make the worst-recovered parameter as observable as possible, numbered in the order it was taken, on the crank's own dial. The first three land 150° apart at the widest — they have to, since three parameters need three independent rows and nearby poses give nearly the same row — and every one after that bisects a gap. Nothing told the routine to spread them; it maximises a singular value and spreading is what that turns out to mean. The eighth pose is worth 7.4% more observability than the seventh.

Where a calibration should measure

Choose each next pose to make the worst-recovered parameter as observable as it can be, and something happens that nobody asked for: the first three land as far apart as they can get, and every one after that bisects a gap. Nothing told the routine to spread them. It maximises a singular value, and spreading is what that turns out to mean.

metrology · Parameter What another measurement is worth. The smallest singular value of the identification Jacobian — the observability of the worst-recovered parameter — against how many poses were measured. The lower curve takes poses evenly round the crank; the upper one chooses each next pose to make this number as large as it can. Both rise steeply and then flatten: the 13 evenly-spaced poses already give four fifths of what 20 give. Chosen poses reach at 4 what even spacing needs 5 to reach. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy — it is the information in a pose being a direction in a three-dimensional space, which a handful of well-spread poses already spans. Everything after that is averaging noise, which is a different gain and improves as the square root.

What another measurement is worth

The observability of a four-bar's worst-recovered parameter goes 0.118, 0.162, 0.188, 0.208 — and then keeps going up by less and less until adding a pose changes the fourth decimal place. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy. It is a space of fixed dimension being filled.

metrology · Parameter Four indices, four answers. Four of the five observability indices in use, each divided by its own value at 18 poses so their shapes can be compared: their absolute sizes differ by ten orders and a shared axis would draw three flat lines. They are five different questions about one list of singular values — the geometric mean, the smallest alone, the reciprocal condition number, and two normalisations of the smallest — and at eight poses they disagree by a factor of 1.50 about how much of the job is done. A pose set chosen to maximise one is not the set that maximises another, and the literature quotes the choice as a preference.

Four indices, four answers

Five numbers are in use for scoring how well a set of poses determines a mechanism's parameters. They are five different questions about one list of singular values, they rank pose sets differently, and the literature quotes the choice between them as a matter of preference. It is a matter of what the report has to carry.

metrology · Parameter Where a calibration measures. The four-bar drawn at the 6 poses a selection chose, one over another, with the tracing point marked at each. The largest gap between consecutive chosen poses is 150°. They are spread because rows of the identification Jacobian at nearby poses are nearly the same row, which is a statement about the matrix and reads here as a picture of a machine in visibly different configurations.

The pose the machine cannot reach

A measurement plan is drawn against the nominal machine and executed on the real one, and the real one does not go quite where the drawing says. A pose that falls outside the travel returns no reading at all — which is not an error, not a failure of the instrument, and not nothing: it is a measurement of the limit position.

metrology · Parameter The instrument's error, multiplied. The error in the recovered shape against the error in each reading, over four decades, each point the mean of six independent calibrations and the open marks the worst of the six. The slope is 0.9994 — the error is linear in the noise, with no threshold and no saturation — and the constant is 1.90. So a protractor good to a milliradian gives a shape good to about 1.9 milliradians' worth, and the factor belongs to the mechanism and the poses rather than to the instrument. The bound from the smallest singular value is 2.16, which the measurement sits under, as it must.

The instrument's error, multiplied

Repeat a whole calibration on independently noised readings at four levels three decades apart and the error in the recovered shape is linear in the noise, with a fitted slope of 0.9994 and a constant of 1.90. That constant belongs to the mechanism and the poses, not to the instrument — and it is bounded by one over the smallest singular value.

metrology · Parameter Reachable, and dexterous. A 3-link planar arm with links 1.6, 1.2, 0.7. The outer region is everywhere the tool can be put: an annulus from 0.00 to 3.50. The inner region is everywhere it can be put at every tool angle — from 1.10 to 2.10, which is 26% of the area. Both are measured by counting cells on a 260 × 260 grid and both agree with the area computed from the radii to 0.06%, which is what makes the picture a measurement.

An arm's parameters and its poses

A three-link planar arm has three lengths and a tool position that carries a length, so nothing about it is invisible to a measurement — and it is nevertheless the mechanism on this site where a calibration is hardest, because its parameter count is high, its poses are three-dimensional and its Jacobian is singular where a designer likes to work.

serial · Serial What each instrument recovers. The same twenty poses of the same four-bar, read three ways. A protractor on the output link recovers 3 of the four lengths and leaves the fourth exactly invisible, because its readings are dimensionless in the lengths and scaling the machine does not move them. A coordinate machine on the tracing point recovers all six parameters — the four lengths and the two that say where the tracer sits — at a condition number of 162.3. Using both recovers the same six at 26.1, 6.2 times better, which is the case for putting two instruments on one machine: not more parameters, better-conditioned ones.

Two instruments disagree about the worst

A protractor recovers three of a four-bar's parameters at a condition number of 5.2. A coordinate machine recovers six at 162. Neither number says which parameter is worst recovered, and when both are asked, they name different ones — because a condition number is a summary of a list and the list is what a report needs.

metrology · Parameter

Named alongside it

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

CalibrationIdentification jacobianIdentifiableNoise amplificationObservability indexSingular valueLeast-squaresDead centreMeasurement residualAssembly-modeGrashof's conditionLimit position

All concepts