Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Straight line mechanism — where it appears

A mechanism with a point that travels in a line, exactly or approximately, and the distinction between the two is the point of the subject. The distinction between exact and approximate is measurable to fourteen orders of magnitude, and the ninety years between Watt and Peaucellier is what that gap cost.

Named by 6 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How straight, over how much of the stroke. The deviation from a straight line, as a fraction of the traced span, against how much of each mechanism's stroke is used. The vertical axis covers fifteen decades. Watt's and Chebyshev's linkages are excellent over a short stroke and degrade as more is used; Peaucellier's sits at the bottom of the plot at every fraction, because it is not an approximation. The gap at full stroke is about fourteen orders of magnitude, and it is the difference between a mechanism that is nearly right and one that is right.

The straight-line problem

Before 1800 a long true flat surface was harder to make than almost anything else, so guiding a piston straight without a slide was worth solving. Watt's answer was an approximation. Measuring how good an approximation, over how much of the stroke, turns out to be a more interesting question than whether it is exact.

curves · Coupler The Sarrus linkage at 0°. Two three-joint chains in perpendicular planes, joining a fixed plate to a moving one. The left chain's three axes are all parallel, so it allows the plate to move in its plane; the right chain's are parallel to a perpendicular direction and allow the plate to move in that one. What both permit is a straight line, and only a straight line. Six revolute joints in a single loop: Kutzbach says 0 degrees of freedom, the screw system has rank 5 and says 1, and the plate rises. Measured over 24 positions, its tilt never exceeds 2.5e-14 radians and it never leaves the axis by more than 6.8e-14 — exact, from pin joints, with no approximation anywhere in it.

Sarrus, and the straight line that is exact

The planar answer to the straight-line problem took two hundred years and arrived as an inversion cell with eight bars. There is a six-bar answer that is also exact, that was published eleven years before Peaucellier's, and that works for a reason with nothing to do with inversion — it leaves the plane.

spatial · Spatial Ball's point at 66°. Two curves and one point. The circle is the locus of points whose path is momentarily straight; the cubic is the locus of points whose path curvature is momentarily not changing. A point on both has a path that is straight and staying straight — four-point contact with its own tangent line, one order better than anything else in the plane. That is Ball's point. Walking the circle and looking for a zero of κ′ turned up 1 sign changes here and 1 of them survived being checked for continuity — the others are the asymptote the pole itself produces. Its measured order of contact with the line is 3.95. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The straightest point there is

Where the circle of points going straight meets the cubic of points whose curvature is standing still, there is one point whose path is straight and staying straight. Neither Watt nor Chebyshev put their tracing point there, and moving Watt's to it more than halves the error over the whole stroke.

curvature · Curvature Two circles, and an exact straight line. The moving centrode of this motion is a circle of radius 1.5 and the fixed one is a circle of radius 3.0, measured to 8.9e-16. The small circle rolls inside the large one, and a point on its rim traces a diameter of the large one — exactly, with no error term. Watt's linkage is straight to nine per cent of its span and Chebyshev's to twelve; this is straight to 0.0e+0, and the difference is not one of degree. It is the difference between a curve that approximates a line and two centrodes whose rolling produces one. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

Exact because two circles roll

Watt's straight line is straight to nine parts in a hundred and Chebyshev's to twelve. Here is one that is straight to nothing at all — no error term, no working range, no approximation anywhere — and the reason is that its two centrodes are circles, one rolling inside the other at exactly half its radius.

curvature · Curvature Sarrus, as two planes meeting in a line. Each arm of Sarrus's linkage is three pins with parallel axes, so each arm holds the platform inside a planar group — the one whose normal is that arm's axis direction. The platform has to satisfy both, so what it may do is the intersection, and the intersection of two planar groups whose normals are not parallel is the one-dimensional group of translations along their common perpendicular. The platform goes up and down and does nothing else, and that is the exact straight line the spatial field measured to 10⁻¹⁶ of its span — arrived at here with no mechanism solved and no tolerance anywhere. Drag the arms towards each other: the answer is a translation at every angle but zero, where the two groups become one group and the intersection jumps to three dimensions. That is the linkage built flat, and it is the configuration in which it stops being a straight-line mechanism.

Two planes meeting in a line

Sarrus's linkage draws an exact straight line out of six pin joints, and the spatial field proved it by solving the mechanism sixty times and measuring a departure of 9.8 × 10⁻¹⁶. Here the same fact comes out of two planes and a cross product, with no mechanism solved anywhere — and the two routes are not redundant, because only one of them can tell you the linkage as built delivers it.

pairs · Pair Exactness is not bought with links. Five straight-line mechanisms, each measured over its own working arc — walked out to its dead centres and back a tenth — and each plotted at its own bar count. Watt's four bars are wrong by 9.0 per cent of the stroke and Chebyshev's by 12.4; Peaucellier's seven are exact. There is nothing in between, and adding bars to an approximation does not walk down the axis: the compiled machine is exact for the same reason Peaucellier is — an exact algebraic relation — and its extra bars buy generality rather than accuracy.

Exact costs more than close

Watt's four bars are wrong by nine per cent of their stroke and Chebyshev's by twelve. Peaucellier's seven are exact to 4 × 10⁻¹⁶, and a compiled machine is exact to 4.8 × 10⁻¹⁴ in five. There is nothing in between — adding bars to an approximation does not walk down the axis, and the four-bar in every beam engine ever built is on the wrong end of it.

computing · Compute

Named alongside it

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

ApproximationConstraintInflection circleOverconstraintPeaucellier's cellStrokeWatt's linkageBall pointCentrodeChebyshev's linkageCompiled linkageContact order

All concepts