Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Root-sum-square — where it appears

Combining tolerances in quadrature, on the assumption that they are independent and not all at their limits at once. It gives a band roughly a third narrower than adding the magnitudes, and whether that assumption is safe is a question about how the parts were made rather than about the mechanism.

Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two routes to the same derivative. How much the output angle moves when the coupler length moves, through one turn, computed twice. One route rebuilds the mechanism at b ± 10⁻⁶ and solves both from scratch; the other differentiates the constraint equations and solves one linear system against the analytic Jacobian. They lie on top of each other — the strip beneath plots the difference on a four-decade log scale, and its largest value anywhere in the turn is 2.9e-10 against a sensitivity of order 0.41. That is the only independent check there is of the Jacobian itself, whose coupler rows carried four wrong signs from the foundation phase to 2026-08-12 without ever drawing anything wrong.

A band with a direction in it

One whole direction of a four-bar's tolerance box does nothing. A machine made a quarter of a per cent too big all over has an output error of exactly zero — and an aluminium four-bar heated by a hundred degrees has an output error of exactly zero, while one with a steel frame has 0.076°.

practice · Tolerance Half a tooth, spent three ways. Each bar is one beat of the escape wheel: exactly half a tooth pitch, 6.0° on 30 teeth, whatever the faces are cut like. The dark part is the impulse, which is the only part that does anything to the pendulum; the pale part is the drop, in which nothing is touching anything; the short tail is the lock-in run, in which the arriving tooth drags the wheel backwards as it settles. On the arc with no draw that tail is exactly zero and the budget has two terms. On every other face it is not, and the three still sum to the half pitch to twelve figures — which is the check, since the three are computed from three different contacts.

What a drop cannot be smaller than

Two thirds of an escape wheel's travel is drop, and drop does nothing. The obvious economy is to cut it down, and it cannot be cut down, because every dimension it is made of has a tolerance and a drop smaller than the accumulated error is a tooth that does not clear the pallet it is leaving. The stack is 0.39°, and it barely moves when the tooth count triples.

practice · Tolerance Every joint's lever arm. The thin lines run from the tool to each joint's axis, meeting it square. Their lengths are what a radian of error at each joint costs the tool in metres — not a rule of thumb but the Jacobian column, which is ω × r and therefore that perpendicular exactly. The shortest of them belongs to the joint nearest the work and the longest to the joint furthest from it, which is why an arm's accuracy is decided at the shoulder and its resolution at the wrist.

Where an error at the shoulder ends up

The same angular error at every joint of an arm, and the tool is out by 0.156 mm because of the shoulder, 0.017 mm because of the wrist roll and exactly nothing because of the last joint. The numbers are not properties of the joints. Each one is the distance from the tool to that joint's axis, measurable off the drawing with a ruler.

serial · Tolerance Where the two analyses cross. The band on the output angle at a crank angle of 57°, with every hole on every part given a position error of 0.010, against how much of that error each pair of holes shares. The flat line is what an analysis on the four lengths gives, which is the same number whatever the answer to that question. They cross at 0.53 and nowhere else: below it the lengths-only answer is optimistic, reaching 1.414× at holes located independently, and above it pessimistic, reaching zero when the error is entirely common and the distance between two holes is perfect however badly the pair is placed. The crossing is at one half because two holes contribute √2 and the surviving fraction is √(1 − shared).

Where the two analyses cross

Tolerance the lengths and you get one number whatever the shop does. Tolerance the holes and you get a curve, running from 1.414 times that number when nothing is shared to zero when everything is. They meet at a shared fraction of exactly one half, and the crossing does not depend on the machine, the tolerance or which length is being asked about.

metrology · Parameter The same part, dimensioned two ways. Three holes at 0.00, 1.40, 3.50, each located to ±0.010 by the process. Dimensioned as a chain, each hole is placed from the last, so the two gaps are ±0.010 each and the errors accumulate over the whole span to ±0.0141. Dimensioned from a baseline, every hole is placed from H0, so the span is ±0.010 and the gap between H1 and H2 — which touches the datum at neither end — is ±0.0141. The two schemes are exactly √2 apart in opposite places. Nothing about the part decides this and nothing about the process does; the drawing does, and a tolerance analysis that starts from the lengths has already thrown the information away.

The same part, dimensioned twice

Three holes, one process, two drawings. Dimensioned as a chain the errors accumulate and the span is ±0.0141; dimensioned from a baseline the span is ±0.0100 and the gap between the second and third holes is ±0.0141. Exactly √2 apart, in opposite places, and nothing about the part or the process decides which — the drawing does.

metrology · Parameter

Named alongside it

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

ToleranceWorst caseSensitivityDerived lengthFeature toleranceSetup errorBeatCalibrationClearanceDatum schemeDropError propagation

All concepts