As built

The output is a band, not an angle. The rocker's angle through one turn of the crank, for a four-bar whose four lengths are each specified to ±0.01. The line is the nominal mechanism; the band is where the output of an actual one lies, found by building all sixteen extreme combinations of the four lengths at every crank angle and solving each. The band is not a constant width: it is 0.73° at its widest, near 30°, and 0.36° at its narrowest — a factor of 2.0. Which of those a designer is told depends entirely on where the mechanism was measured.

A length is a range

What a manufacturing tolerance does to a four-bar's output, computed by building all sixteen extreme linkages at every crank angle and solving each one.

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.

Two routes to a sensitivity

The sensitivity of a four-bar's output to each of its lengths, computed by finite differences on the solve and by implicit differentiation of the constraints, and why the agreement matters.

The four lengths do not matter equally

Which of a four-bar's four lengths deserves the tight tolerance, computed from the sensitivity of the output to each, and why the answer is not the one intuition gives.

Worst case and the square root

The two rules for combining tolerances, the exact ceiling on what the statistical one can save, and the assumption that pays for it.

Where a tolerance stack-up stops meaning anything. The ratio between the first-order tolerance estimate and the band measured by building every corner linkage, for two four-bars at ±0.002 on each length. The crank-rocker's ratio is 1 at all 180 positions — a stack-up is exactly right for it, everywhere. The parallelogram is a change-point linkage, where all four bars can lie on one line, and at that position the estimate exceeds the measurement by a factor of 4.8e+5. The difference is not in the arithmetic, which is identical; it is that a derivative describes a map that can be inverted, and at a change point the map cannot.

Where a stack-up stops working

Why a tolerance stack-up is exactly right for most mechanisms and meaningless at a change point, and the cheap comparison that tells the two apart.

A pin in a hole is a short link. Left: a pin of radius 0.86 in a hole of radius 1, so the clearance is 0.14. The pin's centre may sit anywhere within that of the hole's centre. Right: the same joint as it enters the kinematics — a binary link of fixed length 0.14 and free direction, with a revolute at each end. That is not an analogy. It is the same set of relative positions, so every count, every Jacobian and every solve written for linkages applies to it unchanged, and a four-bar with play at each pin is a mechanism with eight links and eight joints.

A clearance is a link

The clearance-link model of a real joint, and what it does to the mobility count, the output band and the coupler curve of an ordinary four-bar.

How far the crank turns before the rocker does. With a clearance of 0.01 at each pin, the crank must be turned this far on reversal before the rocker moves at all. Through most of the cycle it is about 2.8°, and at its best 1.44°. At the two positions where the rocker reverses — marked — it is unbounded: the output velocity passes through zero there, so no amount of crank rotation moves the rocker out of its clearance band. The peak in a plot like this is therefore a property of the sampling and not of the mechanism; it reads 402° at 96 samples and grows without limit as the sampling is refined. The number worth quoting is the plateau.

How far the crank turns first

Lost motion in a linkage with joint clearance, why it has poles at the output's limit positions, and why the number worth quoting is the plateau between them.

The same error, twice, in two directions. A Sarrus linkage with one axis of one chain tilted off true, and the motion range that survives. Tilted within the plane the chain works in, it does not care: at 0.2 radians — eleven and a half degrees, which is not a manufacturing error by any standard — it still drives through a full turn. Tilted out of that plane, 0.001 radians stops it dead. Two hundred times the error, in the other direction, for no cost at all. What separates them is whether the perturbation lies in the screw system the mechanism leaves unconstrained — so "an overconstrained mechanism must be exact" is not merely crude, it is wrong about the case it is usually said of.

Fragility has a direction

Why an overconstrained mechanism is destroyed by some manufacturing errors and completely indifferent to others, measured on the Sarrus linkage and on Bennett's four-bar.

Why a hinge works

How joint clearance absorbs the misfit that a manufacturing error creates in an overconstrained mechanism, with the amount of play required computed rather than assumed.

The transmission angle through one turn. μ is the angle at B between coupler and rocker, computed from each solved position rather than from a formula. It runs from 54.3° to 100.3° for these lengths. The shaded band is the usual design rule — keep μ between 40° and 140° — and this linkage stays inside it throughout. The rule is about geometry alone: nothing here knows about friction, and a mechanism with a comfortable μ can still be a poor machine.

What is still outside

The explicit boundary of what Machine Kinematics computes — what the practice field brought inside it, what remains outside, and what bringing each of those in would cost.

Where enumerating the corners stops being affordable. The two routes to a tolerance band, costed against the number of toleranced lengths. Enumerating every extreme combination is 2ⁿ mechanisms at every crank position; differentiating the constraints is n linear solves. A four-bar is 16 corners and a Watt six-bar is 128, which is still cheap — 142 solves for one position — and the curve is the point rather than either number: at twenty parameters, which is an ordinary spatial mechanism, the corner route is a million mechanisms and the derivative route is twenty. Both are drawn because the corner route is not merely slower, it is the one that assumes nothing, and its answer is what the cheap route has to be checked against.

Seven lengths and a hundred corners

The tolerance band of a Watt six-bar computed both ways, and where enumerating every corner stops being affordable.

A band with a direction in it

The scale null direction read as a tolerance result: which manufacturing errors are harmless, why uniform thermal expansion produces none, and what a mixed-material machine costs.

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

The tolerance stack behind an escapement's drop, measured by re-solving with each dimension perturbed, and the tooth count at which a finer wheel stops being buildable.

Which pin's play costs the most. Each pin's clearance taken one at a time, at 0.01 on links of 1 to 4, with the direction swept rather than assumed. The ranking runs A 32%, B 25%, O₂ 22%, O₄ 21% — a spread of 1.52 against the 3.43 the four lengths spread over. Clearances are more evenly weighted than length tolerances because each pin joins two links and so enters two of the four sensitivities, which is why the best bearing buys less than the best-held length does — and why it still goes somewhere the load path does not suggest.

Which pin to buy

Ranking a four-bar's joints by what their clearance costs the output, why the ranking is flatter than the length ranking, and where the good bearing actually goes.

Where the boundary moved again

An update to the site's own boundary: what came inside with the metrology field, what stayed outside, and why the test for the line has not changed.

What preload takes away, and what it leaves. The same four-bar with 0.01 of clearance at each pin, driven so that the load through every joint keeps one sign. The upper line is the lost motion it had before: about 2.80° of crank rotation thrown away on every reversal, unrepeatable, and not removable by calibration. The lower curve is what is left once the pins are held against one side of their holes — a fixed offset of between -0.330° and 0.013°, which is a dimensional error rather than play, so its average of -0.136° comes out in a calibration and only the 0.343° of variation survives. A factor of 8.2, bought with a permanent parasitic load that is not modelled here.

Taking up the play

What preloading a mechanism does to its joint clearances, why the answer is exactly zero lost motion rather than less, and what is left behind instead.

Tolerancing the holes

Why a tolerance analysis on link lengths is answering the wrong question, and what changes when the features the lengths are derived from become the variables.

What a belt ratio's tolerance is made of. The three ways a variator's ratio can be wrong when the parts are wrong, at a nominal ratio of 1.848: a belt 0.3% long, a centre distance 0.2 mm out, and a sheave 0.15 mm from where it was commanded. Worst case they add to 2.98% and combined in quadrature they are 2.04% — the two conventions the practice field already argues about. The last row is a gear train's ratio under the same treatment, and it is empty: there is no length in a tooth count for a tolerance to be on.

The ratio that has a tolerance

A tolerance stack on a ratio, which is only possible when the ratio is a length: the variator's sensitivity to belt length in closed form, the three-term stack, and the gear train's empty table.

The square a robot thinks it drove, and the two it drove. A differential drive with wheels one per cent apart in radius, sent round a four-metre square twice — once clockwise and once anticlockwise. What it believes is the square; what it did closes 1.60 m out one way and 1.40 m out the other, and the errors point different ways. A wrong track width instead gives 0.177 m and 0.177 m — the same both ways round. That difference is why the test is run in both directions: one run cannot tell the two errors apart and two runs can.

The error that is an integral

The tolerance stack of a rolling mechanism, where the error accumulates rather than bounding, and the bidirectional square test that separates the two systematic errors by which of them reverses.

The error that is repeated

What a tolerance does to an assembly of repeated units: why worst case is the honest model, and what an error does to a closure that has to come back to where it started.

The same links and pins, and between 12 and 15 link lengths in the stack-up. Every closed loop in a mechanism is one equation a tolerance analysis has to satisfy, and the equation involves every link the loop passes through. All 16 chains here have the same number of independent loops — 3, which is pins minus links plus one and is fixed by the two totals — but not the same shortest set of them. The bars are the total length of a minimum cycle basis, and they run from 12 to 15. So the smallest number of link dimensions that any stack-up on this mechanism can involve is decided by the graph, before a single dimension has been chosen, and two topologies a count cannot tell apart differ by 3 of them.

Where the shortest loops are

The minimum cycle basis of a kinematic chain: why a stack-up is a loop, how many link lengths the shortest independent set of loops involves, and what the graph decides about a tolerance problem.

Every surface tried, and the group it permits. The census the six lower pairs come out of. Each row is a surface, sampled at 240 points; the freedoms column is six minus the rank of a matrix with one row per point, saying that the velocity a twist gives that point is tangent to the surface. Nothing is fitted and no shape is recognised — the surface's own normals write the matrix down. Three different surfaces of revolution give the same group, which is the content of the classification; two surfaces give nothing, which is what almost every surface gives. Eleven surfaces, six groups. The last column is the ratio of the smallest singular value kept to the largest discarded, so a row reading 10¹⁵ is not near being reclassified by anybody's tolerance.

The pair a catalogue sells

Real bearings read as kinematic pairs: which surfaces decide the group, where a catalogue's name and the pair disagree, and what clearance does to a group that is exact.

One bar made 0.0001 too long, one bar at a time. Every bar of the machine compiled from a lemniscate lengthened by 0.0001 in turn, the machine re-solved, and the polynomial read at the tracing point. It is no longer zero anywhere. The worst bar takes it to 9.1e-3 — an amplification of 91 — and the median bar to 2.8e-4. The bars that matter are the reflectors, which are the cheapest part of the machine; the translators, which are most of it, barely move the answer at all. Size and fragility live in different parts.

Exactness a micron destroys

What a tolerance does to an exactly-compiled linkage: the amplification measured bar by bar, why it grows with the machine, and why the fragile parts are not the numerous ones.

a crank rocker with a post: the closest pair at one position. The same four-bar with a post bolted to the frame, just clear of the coupler's path. Every joint is where the solver put it, exactly as in the linkage field; the material is the only thing added. The heavy segment joins the two closest points over every pair of parts that is tested — which excludes pairs sharing a pin, since their material surrounds that pin by construction — and its length is the gap: 0.1809 here, between coupler · post. A negative value is a penetration depth, the distance the pair would have to be moved apart, and it is drawn in the warning colour.

Where the boundary moved

The site's boundary essay revisited: the one item that was filed as an omission rather than an exclusion, what closing it took, and what is still outside afterwards.

A clearance that has a sign, over a tolerance box. The same machine at each of the sixteen corners of a ±0.02 band on its four lengths, with the smallest gap over a whole drive computed at each. The nominal machine clears by 0.1041; the worst corner clears by 0.0763 and the best by 0.1321, a band 0.0558 wide from a tolerance of 0.02 on each length. Every other quantity computed from the lengths becomes an interval when the lengths do. This one has a sign, and an interval that reaches zero is not a wider answer to the same question — it is a different answer, because on that side of it the parts do not go together. 24 random draws inside the box beat no corner, which is the check that the extremes are where they are assumed to be.

A clearance inside a tolerance box

The worst gap over a drive, computed at every corner of a tolerance box on four lengths: an interval whose position relative to zero is the whole of what it says.

The bores, and the one line that has to pass through all of them. A hinge of 6 knuckles, its bores drawn at the distance each was made from the nominal axis in units of the bore tolerance. The leaf is a rigid body, so its pins are on one straight line — two parameters of position and two of direction — and it assembles when some line passes within the clearance of every bore. The line drawn is the one whose largest miss is smallest, and that miss is 0.875 of the tolerance. 2 of the 6 bores are at that distance and hold the fit; the rest are slack and could have been bored anywhere inside it without changing the answer.

A piano hinge is not forty door hinges

The play a coaxial knuckle stack needs, as a Chebyshev fit of a line to n bore centres: nought at two knuckles, 0.409 of the bore tolerance at three, 0.966 at forty, saturating at one; a pure ratio across four decades of tolerance; and two or three bores holding the fit however long the hinge.