Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Theme

The thread: Solved, not drawn

Every mechanism on this site is positioned by solving its loop-closure equations, not by placing the links where they look right. A figure that could not be solved is not published, which means a linkage that would jam cannot be drawn moving.
Seven arrangements, one routine, and the two that hold. Every row is the same three steps: write down one row per contact — the moment of its normal about the origin, then the normal itself — take the convex hull of those rows, and ask whether the origin is inside it. The parts differ, the numbers of contacts differ, and the routine does not. Two of the seven hold. The other five leave the part something, and the interesting column is what: four rays of rotation for the pinwheel, a translation straight out of the vee, and for the last two a whole line rather than any number of rays, which is what a rank below three means and is the case a reader has to be warned about. Note that the four contacts of the second row are the four of the first row, on the same four edges of the same square, at the same distance along each. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

A constraint that only pushes

Every constraint on this site so far has been an equation: a pin holds two points together, a bar holds two apart, a mesh holds a ratio. A part resting against another part says only *do not come closer* — so what it may do is a cone rather than a subspace, and whether it can move at all stops being a rank.

 A rolling wheel, where it was driven to. The mechanism at a configuration nothing wrote down: it was reached by integrating permitted velocities from the start of the trail, and there is no equation here whose root it is. The barred line at each wheel is the direction that wheel forbids — the subject of the whole field, and the one thing a photograph of a car cannot show. The constraint residual along the drawn history is 0.0e+0. Wheels, and where they may not go

A constraint that takes nothing away

A rolling wheel forbids one direction of motion and removes no coordinate from the mechanism's description. It cannot slide sideways and it can still be brought to any position at any heading — and the gap between those two sentences is the whole of this field, because in every mechanism built of pins and slides the two agree.

 What the machine draws, against where the polynomial vanishes. Two objects, found two ways. The thin line is the set where x^4 + 2x^2y^2 + y^4 − 1.2x^2 + 1.2y^2 is zero, walked over a grid with no mechanism involved. The marks are where the compiled machine's tracing point went, one per converged solve, over the 147 positions of its working arc. The machine's constraint set never mentions the polynomial, so evaluating it at each traced point is an independent check: the worst value over the whole arc is 3.7e-13. The arc is 1.30 radians of the driving angle and not the whole turn, and past that arc it draws something else. The curve as an equation

A demand that is an equation

Every field on this site is handed its demand geometrically — three positions, a sampled path, a ratio at each angle — and hands back a mechanism that is right at those places and approximately right between them. This one is handed a polynomial, and the mechanism that comes back satisfies it everywhere it moves.

 Six surfaces, six groups, six pairs. The six lower pairs, drawn as the surfaces they are. A lower pair is two bodies touching over a surface rather than at a point or along a line, and that is the same thing as saying the surface slides on itself — so what the joint permits is the surface's own symmetry group. Each caption is computed from the surface's normals and not from the pair's name: a plane gives three freedoms and planar motion, a sphere gives three and spherical motion, a plain cylinder gives two, a shaft with collars gives one rotation, a prism gives one translation, and a thread gives one screw whose pitch comes back as the thread's own lead. Eleven surfaces were tried and six groups came out, which is where the number in every textbook's table comes from. What a joint is

A joint is a surface that slides on itself

Twenty-two fields of this site have declared their joints and then counted what those joints take away. A count cannot tell a pin from a slide — both are one. What a joint actually permits is a set of displacements closed under composition, and it can be computed from the shape of the surface: one linear condition per point, and the answer is a null space.

 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. As built

A length is a range

Every figure on this site so far has been drawn from four numbers. No four numbers were ever cut. Give each of them a tolerance of ±0.01 and the rocker's output stops being an angle and becomes a band 0.73° wide at one part of the turn and 0.36° wide at another — and which of those a designer is told depends only on where somebody measured.

 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: 0.2561 here, between rocker · 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. Links with a width

A link that takes up room

For twenty-three fields a link on this site has been a distance between two points, and a distance cannot collide with anything, because it is not anywhere. Give every link a body and a question arrives that none of the constraint equations can ask.

 One routine, six strand systems. Every row is the same function: a list of bodies, each with a sense, handed to a routine that returns the tangent runs between them, the arcs on them, and the total. Nothing in it knows what a belt is, what a tackle is or what a tendon is. The right-hand column is what each row was checked against — a textbook formula, an integer, a convex hull's perimeter, a second route to the same length — and it is the reason the middle column can stay the same all the way down. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

A member with no length of its own

Every link of a pin-jointed machine holds two points at a distance, in both directions, and a configuration is the root of an equation. A belt, a rope and a tendon do neither: a strand's path is decided by the bodies it touches, and its constraint is an inequality that does nothing at all until it is taut.

 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 of one thing

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.

 A cycloidal cam at 60°. A 20-unit rise over 120°, a dwell, a return and a dwell. The dashed curve is the pitch curve — where the roller's centre travels — and the solid one is the surface that has to be cut, which is the pitch curve offset inward by the roller radius along its own normal. The pressure angle at this instant is 25.5°: the angle between the follower's direction of travel and the normal to the surface, and the number that decides whether the follower jams in its guide rather than sliding. Prescribed motion

Prescribing motion

A linkage gives the motion its geometry allows. A cam gives the motion it was asked for, which sounds like an improvement and is a trade — the displacement becomes free and the derivatives stop being.

 Kutzbach's count against the measured mobility. Five closed loops of revolute joints. The count is 6(L − 1) − 5j, a statement about how many links and joints there are; the measurement is the number of joints minus the rank of the loop's screw system, which knows only where the axes point. They disagree for four of the five, and the one they agree on is the generic seven-joint loop — so the formula is not broken, it is blind to the special geometry that makes the other four work. The universal joint is counted at -2 degrees of freedom and is in every car built. Out of the plane

Six freedoms, not three

Every mechanism on this site so far has been flat, and flatness is not a simplification made for teaching — it is a special case that hides the most interesting thing constraint counting does, which is get the answer wrong about mechanisms that are in daily use.

 elbow arm at a posture. elbow arm, drawn from 6 joint values through a product of 6 exponentials — no equation is solved anywhere in this picture, because an open chain has none to solve. The thin lines are the joint axes at this configuration, which are also the columns of the arm's Jacobian: the tool's velocity is a sum of turns about exactly those lines. Here the smallest singular value of that Jacobian is 0.3674 and the largest is 2.407, so the arm is comfortably away from a configuration where a direction of motion is lost. Drag θ₂ shoulder. One path to the tool

The chain that does not close

Every mechanism on this site so far has been a loop, and a loop is why a configuration here is a solve. An arm has no loop. Its pose is a product of six transforms, evaluated, with nothing to converge and nothing to refuse — and the difficulty does not disappear, it moves to the other end of the problem.

 A four-bar at 60°, solved. Ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5, rocker 3. Every joint position here is the output of a Newton–Raphson solve on the loop-closure equations, converged to 0.0e+0 — not a placement that looked right. Grashof's condition classifies these lengths as a crank rocker, and sweeping the crank through 360° confirms it: 120 of 120 positions assemble. The transmission angle at this instant is 66.9°. Linkages

Four bars and four pins

The smallest interesting machine there is. Four lengths decide everything about it — which link can turn all the way round, how hard it pushes, where it stops and whether it can be assembled at all — and every one of those is a number that falls out of a solve rather than a judgement about a drawing.

 The coupler's motion at 66°. Every point drawn as a stub is a point of the coupler's own plane, and the stub is that point's velocity — solved, not sketched. They all point different ways and they are all consistent with one statement: at this instant the whole plane is turning about a single point, the pole, marked with a cross. It is off this frame at 1.5 coupler lengths from the crank pin, which happens whenever the coupler is close to translating. The arrow through it is the pole's own velocity, which is a quantity about the motion rather than about any point of it, and half of everything in this field follows from its direction and its size. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

The mechanism drops out

Every other field here is about a machine. This one is about the motion a machine makes — a plane sliding over a plane — and near any instant that motion is a handful of numbers with no linkage in them. Two mechanisms that agree on those numbers make the same motion, and one of them can always be thrown away.

 One, two, sixteen, two hundred and thirty. Every planar chain of mobility one, up to ten links, counted by enumeration rather than quoted. The pins column is forced: a chain of 10 links has one degree of freedom only if it has exactly (3n − 4)/2 pins, which is why no odd link count appears. Pass the count is how many graphs satisfy Grübler's rule, are connected, are simple and give every link at least two pins. Are chains is how many of those survive the fourth condition, that no proper subchain is already a structure — and the gap between the two columns is the whole of this field's first argument: at ten links 1,878 graphs pass a rule that 230 of them deserve. Mechanisms is larger again, because a chain is not a mechanism until a link is held still, and how many different mechanisms that gives is a question about the chain's own symmetry. The chain before the lengths

The mechanism is the graph

Twenty-one fields of this site have been handed a mechanism and asked what it does. Take the mechanism away and keep only which link is pinned to which, and there is still a finite list of answers: one chain of four links, two of six, sixteen of eight, two hundred and thirty of ten — and 1,878 graphs at ten links that pass every count and are not among them.

 Every way of stopping, on the same four questions. Six mechanisms that all turn a continuous input into an output that moves and then waits. Index is how far the output steps. Moving is the fraction of the input's turn the output is actually going for; the rest is dwell. From rest says whether the output starts and stops at zero velocity, and acceleration whether its acceleration is a number at all. Every entry is computed from the mechanism's own library, which matters for two of them: a Geneva's moving fraction is (n − 2)/2n and not 1/n, and its entry rate is zero in closed form rather than to the accuracy of a sampled sweep. The three rows whose acceleration is not a number are not badly made — they are mechanisms whose output velocity has a step, and no tolerance improves that. Motion that stops

The mechanism that waits

Every mechanism in this collection so far moves whenever its input moves. A ratchet, an indexer and an escapement do not: they are still for most of a turn and moving for the rest, and what decides which is not an equation running out of answers but a tooth arriving at a face.

 Three legs, one platform. A 3-RRR planar parallel mechanism at (0.20, -0.15) turned 11.5°, elbows up/up/up. The three actuator angles were computed one leg at a time and independently, which is what makes this direction cheap. The dashed lines extend each leg's second link: those are the three forces the legs can transmit to the platform, and the mechanism is controllable exactly while they stay independent. Here they miss one another by 0.651, and the smallest singular value of the three is 0.9550. At this position the platform can be turned through 206° in all before a leg runs out of reach. Several legs, one platform

The easy problem and the hard one change places

For a robot arm, working out where the hand is takes a walk down a chain and working out what the joints must be to put it somewhere is the hard part. Connect the platform by three legs instead of one and both statements reverse — and the reversal is not a matter of degree.

 Three prescribed positions of a rigid body. The whole of the design problem, before any mechanism exists. A body has to occupy these three positions — each one a place and an angle, three numbers — and what carries it between them is not yet decided. A forward analysis starts from link lengths and finds the motion. This starts from the motion, and the lengths are what has to be found. The marked points are the poles: any planar displacement is a rotation about one point, so each pair of poses has one, and the arcs show the turn each represents through the body's own origin. A pole is a property of the displacement and not a mechanism — nothing has been chosen yet. 1 of the 3 poles lies outside this frame and is not drawn; near-parallel displacements push their pole a long way off. The problem backwards

The problem the other way round

Every essay before this one starts from link lengths and finds the motion. That is the reader's problem, because lengths are what a drawing shows. It is not the designer's problem, which is the reverse — and the reverse is hard enough that for a century the practical method was to look the answer up in a book.

 A ratio that is not a number. The output-to-input angular velocity of a four-bar, computed from the velocity solution at every position. It runs from -0.398 to 0.333 — it changes sign, because the rocker turns back — with a mean of 0.000 that no instant of the cycle actually exhibits. Quoting a single figure for a linkage's ratio is quoting the average of that curve. A gear pair is the case where the same phrase is honest: its ratio is 0.5000 and stays there, which is not a coincidence but the property the involute was invented to guarantee. Drawn wrongly

The ratio that is not a number

A four-bar's output-to-input speed ratio runs from −0.29 to 0.51 through one turn and changes sign on the way. Quoting a single figure for it quotes the average of that curve, which the mechanism never exhibits. A gear pair is the case where the same phrase is honest, and it is honest by construction.

 One contact, and the point the normal has to pass through. Two wheels on fixed centres, turning in the ratio 24 : 36, with one flank of each drawn. The contact is found by solving n·(v₁ − v₂) = 0 along the first flank — the two velocities are formed from the two rotations and subtracted, and nothing in that calculation knows where the pitch point is. The pitch point, marked with a cross, is computed separately as the one place where the two bodies' material points have the same velocity. The common normal misses it by 8.44e-15 of a millimetre, which is the law of gearing arriving as a measurement rather than as an assumption. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

The second shape is not a choice

Two bodies on fixed centres, told to stay in contact. Give one of them a shape and the other one's shape is no longer available to be designed — it is the envelope of the first one's positions, there is exactly one of it, and one routine computes it for a gear, a cam and a rotary engine alike.

 Two circles, four answers, two of them nowhere. A four-bar with its crank held at 52° is two circles: the coupler pin is 3.5 from the crank pin and 3 from the far ground pivot. Two quadratics in two unknowns, so Bézout's number is four — and the tracker finds two. The other two paths run off to infinity, and they do so for every pair of circles ever drawn: two circles meet the line at infinity in the same two points, and those are what the fourth and third answers are. How many answers

Two circles, four answers

A four-bar with its crank held still is two circles, and two circles meet twice. Bézout's theorem says four. The two missing answers are not a rounding error and are not special to these link lengths — they are the same two points for every pair of circles ever drawn, and they are the beginning of a way of counting that has so far been done by hand.

 A bevel differential, turning. cage in, hold left, with every member's speed taken from the train's null space and every angular position that speed integrated. The teeth are marked at the pitch points rather than cut as involutes — the flank is the teeth field's subject — but the count is the tooth count and the positions are the solved ones, so what turns and how fast is real. Drag it and watch which way each member goes: left 0.000 · right 2.000 · cage 1.000. More than one input

Two inputs and one output

Every mechanism in this collection so far has had one input, and its output has been a function of that input. A differential does not. Its cage turns at the mean of two wheels, so knowing one of them tells you nothing at all about where the third shaft is going — and that is not a complication of the mechanism, it is a different kind of object.

 Five points on one coupler. The same four-bar, with a tracing point rigidly attached to the coupler at five different places. Each curve is a sextic — degree six — and moving the attachment point a little changes it a great deal. That sensitivity is the reason coupler-curve synthesis was done with atlases of printed curves for most of the twentieth century: there is no simple inverse, so the practical method was to look one up. The paths points trace

What a coupler point draws

A point rigidly attached to the coupler of a four-bar traces a curve of degree six. Move the attachment a little and the curve changes a great deal. For most of the twentieth century the practical way to find the linkage that draws a wanted curve was to look it up in a book of printed atlases.

 Three bars and four bars. On the left, two bars to a common point: three links, three joints, and Grübler gives 3(3−1) − 2(3) = 0. The Jacobian agrees — two free coordinates, rank 2, nothing left over — and the shape cannot change without a bar changing length. On the right, one more bar and one more joint gives mobility 1, and the whole of this site follows from that difference. The triangle is why bridges are triangulated and the quadrilateral is why machines are not. What can move

What decides whether it moves

Before a mechanism does anything it has to be able to. Two bars pinned to a point cannot move; three can. The count that separates them is one subtraction, it is the first thing anybody computes about a machine, and it can be wrong in a way that no amount of care with the arithmetic will catch.

 The identification Jacobian of a four-bar, read by protractor. One row for every number the instrument reads and one column for every parameter that might be wrong. Each cell is the derivative of that reading with respect to that parameter, drawn to the right of its centre line when positive and to the left when negative, with the largest entry in the whole matrix at 4.09e-1. 14 rows against 4 columns: far more equations than unknowns, which is what makes an identification a least-squares problem rather than a solve, and what makes the question of which combinations of columns cancel a real one. These are the same derivatives the tolerance field computes one at a time — the same matrix read down instead of across. Numbers that were measured

A dimension is a measurement

Every library on this site takes the numbers on the drawing as given: chosen by a designer, cut by a machinist, and thereafter known. They are not known. This field runs the same kinematics with the parameters as the unknowns and the motion as the data, and the first thing that appears is a question with an exact answer — which of them can be recovered at all.

 Peaucellier's cell: the closest pair at one position. Eight links, ten pins and an exact straight line — the site's densest planar loop. 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: 0.1983 here, between long arm A · crank. 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. Links with a width

A gap is a number

A collision test that answers yes or no cannot say by how much, and therefore cannot say what would fix it. The quantity this field is built on is one signed number: positive is a gap, negative is how far the parts would have to be moved to stop overlapping.

 A 12-tooth ratchet, holding. A ratchet wheel with a 8° tooth face and its pawl. The long line is the face extended; the short one through the contact is the normal the tooth pushes along, and both belong to the wheel and turn with it. The pawl holds, and the reason is which side of those two lines its pivot is on: 1.080 wheel radii from the face's line and 0.495 from the normal's, and on opposite sides of them. Nothing about how hard anything pushes enters the question: a normal is a direction and a moment arm is a length with a sign. Dragging turns the wheel the way it may go, and the pawl's tip is solved onto the wheel's surface at every frame: it is lifted up a tooth's back and dropped into the next notch, once per click. Motion that stops

A joint that works one way

A pawl either holds a ratchet or is levered out of it, and which one happens is decided by two lines through the contact. One of them is the rule a workshop quotes. The other is the boundary that rule leaves out, and a check written to confirm the quoted rule turned out to be incapable of failing.

 A simple planetary, as a graph. Members are vertices and meshes are edges. Each edge carries the two tooth counts and the body the two axes are stationary in — its carrier — and that third label is the whole of what makes an epicyclic different from an ordinary train. Write the mesh relation relative to the carrier and one formula covers both: an ordinary train is the case where every carrier is the frame. This train has 2 meshes across 5 members and 2 freedoms. More than one input

A ratio is a null space

Write a gear train as a graph — bodies for vertices, meshes for edges, and on every edge the body the two axes are stationary in — and one formula covers a countershaft gearbox, a planetary, a harmonic drive and a car's differential. The ratio is the null space of a matrix whose entries are tooth counts, so it comes out as a fraction and not as a number that is nearly one.

 A flank nobody would draw, and the partner it forces. On the left, a driving flank made up on purpose: a rising curve with a nine-cycle wobble on it, chosen to be nothing in particular. On the right, in the driven wheel's frame, the shape that has to mate with it. There was a contact at all 121 sampled positions and the worst residual of the meshing equation was 3.13e-10. Conjugate action does not single out the involute — every profile has a partner that holds the ratio exactly, and the reasons for preferring one tooth form over another are all somewhere else. Generating back the other way returns the original flank to 2.33e-5 mm over 61 points. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

Any shape has a partner

Conjugate action does not pick out the involute. Hand the construction a flank invented on purpose to be nothing in particular and it returns a mate that holds the ratio exactly — so the question a tooth form answers is not whether it can transmit motion, and every real reason for choosing one is somewhere else.

 A 3-stage stack at 35°. Every bar is the same length and every stage is at the same angle, which is a consequence of the solve rather than an assumption in the drawing: the pins at the crossings and the roller on the ground leave one freedom, and it has been used. The platform is at 1547 mm and the ram — the heavy line from the ground pin — is 428 mm long. Moving the ram one millimetre from here raises the platform 5.0 mm; at the bottom of the travel the same millimetre is worth 17.6 mm. Machines you have met

A roller is not a slider

A scissor lift has one degree of freedom, at every height and for any number of stages. Grübler's criterion agrees — if the rollers under it are counted as pins in slots. Count them as slider blocks, which is how every textbook draws a slider, and the same formula declares a machine holding a car in the air to be a structure with minus one.

 Mobility, counted and measured. Grübler's criterion counts links and joints and knows nothing about the dimensions; the rank of the constraint Jacobian measures the dimensions and knows nothing about the topology. They agree for four of these five. The parallelogram with a redundant third bar is the exception: the formula declares it a structure with zero degrees of freedom, and it moves. The formula is the one that is wrong, because it cannot see that the third bar's constraint equations are already implied by the other two. What can move

Counting and measuring mobility

Grübler's criterion counts links and joints and never asks how long anything is. The rank of the constraint Jacobian measures the lengths and never asks what a joint is. Two calculations with no inputs in common, producing one number — which is the only arrangement under which agreement is evidence.

 A point, its pole, and the centre it is turning about. The tracing point is on the coupler at (0.45, 0.5) of its length. The cross is the pole, the faint curve is the path the point traces over a whole turn, and the circle is the one that path is momentarily on — centre marked, radius 0.267. The point, the pole and the centre are collinear, which is not an accident of this position: a point's centre of curvature always lies on its own ray from the pole, and Euler and Savary's relation says where on it. Here that relation puts the centre 5.6e-16 of a unit from where differentiating the loop equation three times puts it. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

Every point has a centre

A point of a moving plane traces a curve, and near an instant that curve is a circle. Which circle is decided by one relation with two numbers in it — the same relation for every point of the plane at once, and it was written down in 1830 with no derivatives visible anywhere in it.

 Every path, in the plane of one unknown. The 16 tracked paths of the 3-RPR platform, projected onto the complex plane of x. Each curve starts at a solution of the start system and ends at a solution of the target or leaves the frame on its way to infinity. This run is γ random, start constants complex, and it found 6 solutions. How many answers

Following a root from a problem already solved

Homotopy continuation solves a system nobody can solve by deforming one that anybody can, and following every root as it moves. The whole method rests on the deformation being generic, and the folklore says that is what the γ-trick is for. Running all four combinations says the folklore names one of two places the randomness can live, and either will do.

 Grashof's classification, predicted and then swept. Four sets of link lengths. For each, Grashof's condition predicts from the lengths alone whether the input can rotate a full turn, and the solver then attempts all 180 positions and reports how many assembled. The prediction and the measurement agree in every case, which is what licenses quoting the classification for a mechanism nobody has swept. Linkages

Grashof, predicted and then swept

Add the shortest link to the longest. If the total does not exceed the other two, some link can turn a full revolution. It is a sentence about four numbers, it was published in 1883, and it is the kind of claim this site refuses to print without measuring — so every linkage here is also asked for all 360 positions and required to agree.

 Losing a freedom and gaining one. Left, the nearest inverse-kinematic singularity: a leg is straight to 1.1e-5 and cannot reach further, so the platform has lost a freedom. That is the workspace boundary and it is a serial arm's singularity. Right, the nearest direct-kinematic singularity: the three leg lines pass through one point to 0.0001, so the three forces the legs transmit are no longer independent and the platform can turn about that point with every actuator locked. It has gained a freedom, and it is 1.97 from the other configuration and nowhere near the edge of the reach. Several legs, one platform

Locked, and still moving

A serial arm goes singular at the edge of its reach, where it loses a freedom, and the failure is visible as an arm gone straight. A parallel mechanism has a second kind with no serial counterpart — it gains a freedom, in the middle of the workspace, at poses nothing about the legs' reach marks out.

 Which of these constraints is secretly about positions. How much of the bracket of two permitted directions lies outside the permitted directions, as a fraction of its own length. Frobenius' theorem says a distribution is the tangent field of a family of surfaces exactly when this is zero, so the test needs no integration and no recognition. The scale is logarithmic because the answers are seventeen orders apart: the rail returns nothing at all and everything else returns essentially the whole bracket. There is no mechanism in the middle. Wheels, and where they may not go

One character apart

Two mechanisms with three coordinates, one constraint row of the same shape and two controls each. In one of them the angle in the row is a coordinate; in the other it is a constant. The first can be driven anywhere and the second can never leave a line, and Frobenius' theorem decides which is which without integrating anything.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 One moving pin, and the pivot it turns about. Choose any point of the moving body — this one at (-0.55, 0.5) in the body's own frame. In the three prescribed poses it lands in three places, and three points that are not in a line lie on exactly one circle. That circle's centre is where the fixed pivot has to be and its radius is how long the link has to be: here 1.0860, and all three images sit at that distance to within 10⁻¹². There is no iteration and no tolerance in the construction, because three points determine a circle exactly. The freedom is entirely in which point of the body to pick. The problem backwards

Three positions, and a circumcentre

The whole of three-position synthesis is one observation: a moving point occupies three places, three points that are not in a line lie on exactly one circle, and that circle's centre is where the fixed pivot has to be. No iteration, no tolerance, and every point of the coupler is a candidate.

 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. As built

Two routes to a sensitivity

How far the output moves when a link length moves can be found by rebuilding the mechanism and solving it again, or by differentiating the constraint equations and solving one linear system. The two agree to two parts in a hundred million across a whole turn — and the second route is an independent test of the constraint Jacobian itself, whose coupler rows had carried wrong signs unnoticed.

 20 teeth driving 32. Both flanks generated from the involute, not approximated, at a pressure angle of 20°. The orange line is the line of action — tangent to both base circles, and the only place contact happens. Its length between the two tip circles divided by the base pitch is the contact ratio, 1.612 here, which means that for 61% of the cycle two tooth pairs are carrying the load and for the rest just one. The velocity ratio is 0.6250, and it is constant because the common normal never moves. The dashed extension runs between the two base tangency points, which are 8.89 mm apart; the heavy part is where contact actually happens. Teeth

What happens in a mesh

Contact between two gear teeth happens only along one straight line, and only over part of it. How much of that line lies between the two tip circles, divided by the base pitch, is the contact ratio — and if it drops below one the drive periodically stops being driven.

 What one contact forbids, drawn as a place. A single contact on one edge of a square, and the whole plane coloured by what it permits. A rotation about a point is a twist, and a twist is permitted when it does not drive the part into the obstacle; because a rotation about (x, y) is affine in the point, the condition is a half-plane and the boundary is a straight line — the line through the contact along its own surface. On one side of it only anticlockwise rotations are permitted, on the other only clockwise, and the two together are the whole plane bar the line itself. So one contact rules out exactly half of what the part could do and leaves the other half untouched, which is why the count of contacts a hold needs is one more than the dimension rather than equal to it: the first 1 of them cannot leave nothing over. The picture is exact — the regions are clipped polygons, not a sampled grid. Contacts that only push

What one contact forbids

A rotation about a point is a twist, and a twist is affine in the point — so what a single contact permits is a half-plane of centres, with the boundary being the contact surface's own line. Reuleaux drew it in 1875 and it is exact rather than sampled, which is why every figure in this field is a picture of the plane rather than of a cone.

 Four tangents, and the two signs that choose between them. Two circles admit four common tangents, and a strand takes whichever one its two wrap senses name. Same sense at both ends — both centres on the same side of the strand — gives the two outer tangents, each 169.0444 mm long. Opposite senses give the two that cross between the circles, each 154.9193 mm. There is no search and no case analysis anywhere in this: the run's length is √(D² − Δ²) with Δ the signed radius difference, and changing one sense changes Δ from -18 to 70. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

Where a strand leaves a body

A taut strand meets the surface it lies on at a right angle, and every book draws it that way. It is not a rule about strands: it is what being shortest looks like, and a family of paths that were never told about tangency has its minimum exactly there — 200.64346 mm against the construction's 200.64346.

 The identification Jacobian of a four-bar, read by protractor. One row for every number the instrument reads and one column for every parameter that might be wrong. Each cell is the derivative of that reading with respect to that parameter, drawn to the right of its centre line when positive and to the left when negative, with the largest entry in the whole matrix at 4.07e-1. 12 rows against 4 columns: far more equations than unknowns, which is what makes an identification a least-squares problem rather than a solve, and what makes the question of which combinations of columns cancel a real one. These are the same derivatives the tolerance field computes one at a time — the same matrix read down instead of across. Numbers that were measured

The matrix a calibration inverts

One row for every number an instrument reads, one column for every parameter that might be wrong. Every entry is a derivative the tolerance field has been computing since its first essay — so this field's central object arrived already built, and what is new is which way it is read.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 Of 1176 exactly correct syntheses, 176 could be built. Every pair of points on a 7×7 grid over the moving body, each pair synthesised into a four-bar and each four-bar verified by the forward solver as reaching all three prescribed poses. 1176 of them do, exactly. Then each is swept from the first pose in both directions, carrying the branch the way a built mechanism must: 810 cannot reach all three without being taken apart and reassembled, and 190 reach them in the wrong order. 176 — 15% — are mechanisms rather than theorems. Nothing in the construction distinguishes them. Drawn wrongly

Exactly right, and unbuildable

A linkage synthesised through three prescribed positions reaches all three. That is a theorem and it holds exactly. Whether it reaches them in one piece, without being taken apart, and in the order asked for, are separate questions the construction says nothing about — and of 1,176 exactly correct solutions, 176 could be built.

 Peaucellier's cell: exact straight-line motion from pin joints. The rhombus and the two long arms hold |OP| · |OQ| constant at 16 = 5² − 3², which is inversion in a circle about O. Inversion carries circles through the centre to straight lines, and the link CQ makes Q run on exactly such a circle — so P travels on a line, with no approximation anywhere. Measured over 160 solved positions the deviation is 6.5e-16 of the span, which is arithmetic noise rather than a small error. The paths points trace

Peaucellier and the exact answer

Eighty years after Watt settled for an approximation, a French army officer found a linkage that draws an exactly straight line from pin joints alone. It works by inversion in a circle, the product it holds constant is measurable, and on this site it comes out straight to 10⁻¹⁶ of its span.

 Two surfaces in contact, sliding everywhere but one place. The sliding speed at the contact of an involute pair, formed by taking the velocity of each body's material point at the contact and subtracting. It is zero at exactly one position — the instant the contact is at the pitch point, measured here at 7.30e-15 mm per radian — and grows linearly on both sides of it, at the rate the relative angular velocity says. Gears roll at one point of the tooth and slide everywhere else, which is why a tooth wears into a shape with a band of polish across it rather than uniformly. What is not claimed is any consequence of the sliding: friction, wear and heat need forces, and there are none here. The shape is the unknown

Rolling at one point only

Two wheels in mesh are usually described as rolling. Their pitch circles are — those are centrodes, and centrodes roll — but the surfaces that are actually touching slide against each other everywhere except at one instant, and the sliding is the largest velocity in the mechanism.

 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. Out of the plane

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.

 kelvin: 6 contacts, 6 of the six freedoms taken. A plan view of the arrangement, with each contact drawn where it acts and an arrow along the direction of the force it can carry. A ball's contact force passes through the ball's centre whatever surface it rests on, so the whole constraint system is these points and these directions and nothing else. Written as wrenches — a force along a line, which is a screw of zero pitch — their rank is 6. Six independent wrenches leave nothing free: the part has one place to be, and putting it down twice puts it in the same place. Machines you have met

Six points and no more

A ball resting on a surface is a joint: it takes one freedom away, and the force it can carry is a line through the ball's centre. Six of them, arranged well, take all six freedoms and leave a part with one place to be. Six arranged badly take five, and the sixth freedom is a screw with an axis this site can name.

 The circle of points going straight, at 66°. Every point on this circle is, at this instant, travelling in a straight line: its path has zero curvature there. The circle passes through the pole — where the point is not moving at all — and its diameter is 47.64, which is the pole's own speed divided by the plane's angular rate. Nothing here was assumed to be a circle. The locus is the zero set of a quadratic whose |w|² coefficient is φ′³, a real number with no cross term and no difference between its two square terms, and a general conic fitted to the sampled locus returns those coefficients at 8.1e-15 and 6.4e-15. At this position the coupler is close to translating, the pole has run off the canvas and the circle with it — the figure is the size of the mechanism, and δ here is 13.6 coupler lengths. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

The circle of points going straight

At any instant some points of a moving plane are travelling in a straight line. They form a circle — not nearly a circle, a circle — and the reason is one real coefficient in a quadratic. A coupler curve has an inflection exactly when that circle sweeps over the tracing point, which turns out to be rare.

 The lever of a simple planetary. Each member sits at a position on the lever fixed by the tooth counts alone, and its speed is the height of one straight line over that position. The line here is drawn through sun and ring; every other member is plotted where the train's null space puts it, and lands on the line exactly — the residual is zero in rationals, and 2.2e-16 once the coordinates have been rounded to doubles for the drawing. Where the line crosses the axis is the member that is standing still, and that is what a brake does: it pins the line to the axis at one position and leaves it free to pivot there. The planets are on the lever too, off the end of it, which is where they belong — they are members of the train and are not shafts anybody can reach. More than one input

The lever that is the gearset

The lever diagram of an epicyclic is usually offered as a mnemonic. It is exact, and the reason is a fact about the null space: a gearset whose frame carries no teeth can turn as a block, and that one motion supplies the coordinate every member is plotted at. Where the line crosses the axis is the member standing still, and the ordering of the members on the lever settles which gears are reductions and which run backwards, without a formula anywhere.

 Four legs that do not cancel. Drive forward, turn, drive back, turn back — each leg exactly as long as the one it is undoing. The mechanism does not come home. What is left over is 1149.9 mm at an amplitude of 1.10, and it points along the direction the wheel forbids. The gap and the computed bracket are 31.51° apart here and 3.15° apart at a tenth of this amplitude — the agreement is a leading-order statement and the departure is the third-order remainder, which falls with the manoeuvre rather than staying put. Every point on the path was reached by a permitted velocity, so nothing here cheats; the sideways motion is assembled out of motions that are not sideways. Wheels, and where they may not go

The motion left over by going nowhere

Drive forward, turn, drive back the same distance, turn back the same angle. Every leg is undone by another leg and the mechanism does not come home — it has moved sideways, in the one direction it is forbidden to move in. The leftover has a name, a formula, and a measured exponent of 1.997.

 What became of Bézout's paths. four-bar coupler pin: 2 of 4 paths arrived at a solution and 2 went to infinity; 3-RPR platform: 6 of 16 paths arrived at a solution and 10 went to infinity; Gough, generic: 80 of 1458 paths arrived at a solution and 1378 went to infinity. The surplus is not merely wasted — it is cheap: a path on its way to infinity is abandoned in a handful of steps, while every path that arrives is tracked in full. How many answers

The paths that leave

Bézout's number over-counts, and the over-count is enormous — 1,458 tracked paths for 80 solutions. The obvious response is to find a method that tracks only the paths that arrive. That method exists, it was built, and it is four times slower, because the surplus paths are not merely surplus. They are cheap.

 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. Linkages

The transmission angle

The angle at which the coupler meets the rocker decides how much of an applied force becomes useful output torque and how much goes into the bearings. It is pure geometry, it is computed here from every solved position rather than from a formula, and it is the number a linkage is judged by after Grashof has said it turns.

 What the wraps add up to, and what decides it. Four runs this field draws, with every wrap angle signed by the way the strand goes round its body. The right-hand column is their sum divided by a full turn, and it is a whole number every time — the turning number of a closed plane curve, arrived at by adding up a handful of angles that were computed one at a time from tangent lines. It is 1 for a loop that goes round its pulleys once and 0 for a crossed belt, whose two wraps are equal and opposite whatever the two radii are. The serpentine's idler contributes -25.3°, and the total is still exactly one turn: a tensioner lengthens the path without changing what the path is. Members that pull

The wraps add up to a turn

Every wrap angle in a closed run is computed on its own, from a pair of tangent lines that knows nothing about the others. Signed by which way the strand goes round, they add to exactly one turn — or to exactly nothing, for a crossed belt — and the integer is decided by the route rather than by any of the geometry.

 Three verdicts, and only one instrument can give all three. Every 10-link graph that satisfies Grübler's count, split by what is actually true of it. 230 are mechanisms with 10 links. 1,165 carry a subchain whose own count is exactly nought — and neither of the two standing routes can see them: the count returns one and the rank returns one, and both are right, because a rigid subchain removes exactly the freedoms it is supposed to. What is false is the description. 483 carry a subchain whose count is below nought, and those the rank does catch: the surplus pins repeat a constraint already imposed, the Jacobian loses rank, and the measured mobility comes out above the count. The third instrument — a count run over every subset of the links — is the only one that answers the question at all. The chain before the lengths

What a count cannot see

At ten links, 1,878 graphs satisfy Grübler's rule and 230 are mechanisms. The other 1,648 contain a subchain that is already a structure — and on 1,165 of them the count says one degree of freedom, the rank of the constraint Jacobian says one degree of freedom, and both are right about a mechanism that does not have ten links.

 Burmester's curves, contoured rather than drawn. With three poses, every point of the moving body works: three images, one circumcircle. With four, a point's four images are concyclic only if it lies on a particular cubic — the circle-point curve — and the fixed pivots those points want lie on a second cubic, the centre-point curve. Both are drawn here as contours of a measured quantity: at each point of a 150×150 grid, how far the fourth image misses the circle through the other three, contoured at zero. Points refined onto the contour are concyclic to 3.8e-15; points 0.47 away from it miss by at least 2.0e-1. The two curves are keyed in the legend and the four prescribed poses are drawn faintly for scale. Three poses leave a designer the whole plane; four leave a curve. The four prescribed poses are outlined faintly for scale, and both curves are clipped to the frame: the centre-point curve is a cubic with unbounded branches that reach 360 units on a mechanism three units across, and the part worth looking at is the part near the machine. The problem backwards

What the fourth position costs

With three prescribed positions every point of the coupler will do, and a designer is spoilt for choice. Add a fourth and the whole plane collapses to a curve — only points on a particular cubic have four images that lie on a circle, and the cubic is Burmester's.

 6 ways to assemble the same three actuator angles. The actuators are at 216°, 48°, 144° in every panel, so the three elbows are at the same three points throughout and only the platform differs. Each pose satisfies all three legs to 6.7e-16. Found by reducing the problem to one equation in the platform angle and scanning it at 0.100° — exhaustive to that resolution and no further, which is the honest thing to say about a root count. Over a survey of 6750 actuator triples this mechanism ranges from none to 6. Several legs, one platform

One command, six answers

Lock the three motors of a planar platform and the platform can be in as many as six different poses, every one of them satisfying every leg exactly. Which one it is in was decided by how it was assembled and where it has been since — and the number of answers is not a property of the mechanism but of where the motors happen to be.

 Bennett's four-bar at 40°. Four bars, four revolute joints, and axes that are not parallel — a spatial four-bar, which Kutzbach counts at -2 degrees of freedom. Bennett's condition, sin α / a = sin β / b, makes the screw system rank 3 instead of 4, so the mechanism has 1. Driving the first joint through a full turn, 48 of 48 positions assemble. Orthographic projection, viewed from 40° azimuth and 24° elevation; dashed stubs mark the joint axes. Out of the plane

Bennett, and the condition that moves it

A spatial four-bar is immobile by every count there is, and generically it cannot even be assembled at more than isolated configurations. Bennett found the one relation between four lengths and two twists that makes it turn through a full revolution — and break the relation by two parts in a thousand and most of the travel is gone.

 the reflector, solved. A rhombus whose far vertex is held on a line through the pivot. One side is the input, the line is the mirror, and the other side comes out reflected in it — which is where negation, doubling and addition all come from. The relation it satisfies is (μ, θ) ↦ 2μ − θ, and across a sweep of 41 positions the worst departure from it is 1.3e-13 radians. Every joint here is the output of a Newton–Raphson solve on the bar lengths; nothing is placed by the formula the picture is about. The curve as an equation

Four bars that add two angles

A rhombus on two links from one pivot points along the bisector of their angle, exactly, because a rhombus has equal sides. Hold its far vertex on a line and it reflects instead. From those two facts come negation, doubling and addition — and every whole-number combination of two angles a compiled machine needs.

 How many wiggles it takes. The growth vector: how many independent directions are available after one bracket, two, three. The first number is what the constraints leave and the last is the dimension of the configuration space, so the length of the row is how deep the manoeuvring has to go. A car needs one bracket more than a trolley and a car with a trailer one more again — and the ball changes by one depending only on whether it may be twisted. Wheels, and where they may not go

How many wiggles

A bracket of two permitted directions may point somewhere new; the bracket of that with a permitted direction may point somewhere newer still. How deep the process goes before it stops is an integer — 2·3 for a wheel, 2·3·4 for a car, 2·3·4·5 for a car and trailer — and the same integer turns up as the exponent of a manoeuvre nobody told it about.

 Six legs, six numbers. A Gough–Stewart platform at (0.00, 0.00, 2.40) with a rotation vector of (0.00, 0.00, 0.15). The six leg lengths run from 3.077 to 3.263, and every one of them was computed from the pose by a single subtraction and a square root, with no leg consulting another. Going the other way — six lengths in, one pose out — takes an iterative solve and does not have one answer. The six leg lines span a screw system of order 6; the smallest singular value of the six is 0.0316, which is how far this pose is from a configuration where they become dependent and the platform stops being controllable. Several legs, one platform

Six legs and a square root

A Gough–Stewart platform's inverse problem is one subtraction and one square root per leg, computed six times without any leg consulting another. Its forward problem has forty solutions. That gap is the whole design, and it is why flight simulators are built this way and robot arms are not.

 The curves that do not move. A rotation about a point carries a curve into itself if and only if the curve is an arc of a circle centred on that point, and that one sentence is every exact dwell on this site. Each bar is how far a curve moves when it is turned two degrees about the axis its mechanism turns about, as a fraction of its own radius. The two arcs about their own centres — a cam's dwell and a deadbeat's locking face — sit at the sampling floor, which is the sagitta of the polyline they are measured as and not a property of the geometry; the number is quoted with the floor beside it because an agreement quoted without its resolution is a mistake this site has already made once. Everything else is orders of magnitude above it, including the near-circular stretch of a coupler curve that a six-bar builds its approximate dwell out of. Motion that stops

The arc that is concentric with the pivot

A rotation carries a curve into itself exactly when the curve is an arc of a circle about the centre of rotation. Every exact dwell on this site is that one sentence applied — a cam's dwell, a Geneva's locking disc, a deadbeat escapement's locking face — and the six-bar dwell that is merely very good is what happens when the curve is nearly one.

 A 34-unit roller on a 20-unit base: the cam cannot be made. The outer curve is the pitch curve — where the roller's centre has to go, which is just the base radius plus the follower's displacement, plotted in polar coordinates. The inner curve is what has to be cut: the pitch curve offset inward by the roller's radius along its own normal. Where the pitch curve bends more tightly than the roller is wide, that offset crosses itself, and the metal the profile needs has already been removed. The tightest radius of curvature here is 19.43 at 85°, against a roller of 34 — so the cam is undercut by 14.57 and no amount of care in manufacture recovers it. The pressure angle, meanwhile, peaks at a perfectly comfortable 21.2°: this cam fails a test it never looked like failing. Prescribed motion

The cam that cannot be cut

A cam has to be big enough for two reasons, and they are not the same reason. One is that the follower will jam in its guide if the pressure angle is steep. The other is that the roller will gouge the profile if the curvature is tight — and there is a combination where the pressure angle is comfortable and the cam still cannot be manufactured at all.

 Two poles at 66°, and only one of them is still. The stubs here are accelerations, not velocities, and they vanish at a different point from the one where the velocities vanish. The cross is the velocity pole — the point the plane is turning about — and the square is the acceleration pole, the point that is momentarily not accelerating. Over a full turn of this crank the two are never nearer than 1.49 coupler lengths and get as far apart as 22.2. The instantaneous centre is about velocities and about nothing else: the point that is not moving is being accelerated, usually hard, and a body pivoting about it in the ordinary sense would not be. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

The other pole

The instantaneous centre is the point of a moving plane that is not moving. There is a second point that is not accelerating, it is somewhere else entirely, and over a full turn of one four-bar the two are never closer than one and a half coupler lengths and get as far apart as twenty-two.

 Slider-crank at 50°. Crank 1, connecting rod 3. The slider's travel is 2.0000 — exactly twice the crank throw, which is the one thing about this mechanism that does not depend on the rod length. Everything else does: the rod length decides how far the piston's motion departs from a sine wave, and that departure is the second harmonic every engine balancer has to deal with. Linkages

The slider-crank

Replace one pin of a four-bar with a slide and you get the mechanism in every reciprocating engine ever built. Its stroke is exactly twice the crank throw and does not depend on the connecting rod at all. Everything else about the motion depends on the rod, including the part that is always described as a sine wave and is not.

 A defect that draws nothing wrong. The same four-bar swept 360 times with the pre-correction Jacobian and with the corrected one, at eight coupler-point offsets. Corrected, every position is reached at every offset. Uncorrected: 5 of the offsets lose nothing at all, and then it loses 58, 159, 267 of 360. The picture was never wrong — a refused position is simply not drawn — so the only symptom was a sweep with fewer frames in it than it asked for. Drawn wrongly

The solver was refusing a quarter of the sweep

Four numbers in this site's Jacobian had the wrong sign, from the foundation phase until now. Every picture it ever drew was correct, because a wrong derivative does not move a converged answer — it just makes Newton crawl, until the stall rule declares the position unreachable. The symptom was a sweep quietly returning fewer frames than it asked for, and no gate in the fleet has a rule against that.

 How far inside the hull the origin actually is. The same seven arrangements with their margins drawn rather than tabulated, because the shape of this chart is the argument: the quantity is not a probability and not a percentage, it is a distance — how far the origin sits from the nearest face of the hull of the contact rows, with every row a unit vector so the number is comparable across arrangements. The two that hold come in at 0.211 and 0.091; the five that do not come in at exactly nought, and they are drawn at nought rather than left off. A margin that falls smoothly to nothing is what makes this a measurement: an arrangement approaching one that lets go says so before it does. Contacts that only push

The test is a program, not a rank

Three independent routes to one yes-or-no: enumerate the escape cone's extreme rays by cross products, take the convex hull of the contact rows and ask where the origin is, or hand the whole thing to a simplex. They agree on every arrangement — and the first version of the third one reported a disc as held, which is the one part in the field that no number of contacts holds.

 A straight edge cutting a 24-tooth wheel. The rack's flanks are straight lines and its pitch line rolls on the wheel's pitch circle without slipping — 48 mm of travel per radian, which is the only number in the whole process. The dots are the contacts the meshing equation has returned so far, and they are the flank being cut: an involute, produced by a tool that has no curve anywhere on it. The corner of the rack traces the fillet below, which is a different curve for a different reason — a corner is a point, and a point has no envelope but its own path. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

The tool is the definition

There is no curve anywhere on the cutter that makes an involute gear. It is a straight edge, dragged past a turning blank, and the involute is what the motion leaves behind — along with a fillet that is a corner's path, a contact locus that comes out a straight line, and a base circle that is measured rather than drawn.

 3 four-bars, one coupler curve. Three different four-bars, with different ground pivots, different link lengths and different proportions — 0.692 and 0.799 times the size of the first. Every one of them draws this same curve. Roberts's theorem says there are always exactly three, and the construction is one complex multiplication: write the coupler point as λ = (P − A)/(B − A), put the third fixed pivot at O₂ + λ(O₄ − O₂), and the other two linkages fall out with their bars' roles permuted — what is a coupler in one is a crank in another. The curves here were traced separately, each from its own solver runs, and agree to 1.3e-5 against a sampling resolution of 1.4e-5 — which is to say, as closely as the comparison can tell. The problem backwards

Three linkages, one curve

Every coupler curve is drawn by three different four-bars, not one. The other two can be constructed from the first with a single complex multiplication, they have different proportions and different ground pivots, and the roles of their bars are permuted — what is a coupler in one is a crank in another.

 The twelve kinds of freedom, and which are joints. Every connected group of rigid displacements, up to where its axis points and where its origin sits. There are twelve, the height on the page is the dimension, and a line means the lower one is contained in the upper — computed by asking whether each generator of the smaller lies in the span of the larger, with all twelve built about a common axis. Filled discs are joints: six of the twelve are the symmetry group of a surface and can be a single pair, and six are not and have to be built out of a chain. There is nothing at dimension five, which is not obvious and is checked rather than assumed: twenty thousand random five-dimensional subspaces of the twists were closed under the bracket, and every one generated the whole of the six. What a joint is

Twelve kinds of freedom

Every set of displacements that is closed under composition is one of twelve, up to where its axis points. Six of them are joints somebody sells. Four are motions a designer may perfectly well want and cannot buy at any price. And there is nothing at all of dimension five — checked here on twenty thousand random subspaces, every one of which generated the whole of the six.

 elbow arm at a posture. elbow arm, drawn from 6 joint values through a product of 6 exponentials — no equation is solved anywhere in this picture, because an open chain has none to solve. The thin lines are the joint axes at this configuration, which are also the columns of the arm's Jacobian: the tool's velocity is a sum of turns about exactly those lines. Here the smallest singular value of that Jacobian is 0.3674 and the largest is 2.407, so the arm is comfortably away from a configuration where a direction of motion is lost. Drag θ₃ elbow. One path to the tool

Two routes to a Jacobian

An open chain's Jacobian is a list of its joint axes, drawn as lines in the same picture as the arm. A finite difference of its own forward kinematics is a completely different computation and has to agree — and when the two disagreed by 5 × 10⁻⁵, the fault was in a function six phases old that every spatial loop on this site had been using.

 What each kind of joint takes away. Grübler's formula is M = 3(n − 1) − 2j₁ − j₂, and the 2 and the 1 in it are not conventions. A lower pair — a pin or a slide — holds two bodies together over a surface and leaves one relative freedom, so it costs 2. A higher pair — a cam against a follower, a wheel on a rail — touches at a point, the contact travels along both surfaces, and it costs 1. Five chains, each built and each measured from the rank of its constraint Jacobian, which has never heard of the formula. The last row is the one worth having: count that cam contact as a pin, as is very easily done, and the formula returns 0 where the mechanism has 1. The Jacobian does not move. What can move

What each joint takes away

Grübler's formula has a 2 in it for pins and a 1 for cam contacts, and those numbers are not conventions to be memorised. They are the number of constraints each kind of joint imposes, they are measurable as the rank of a matrix, and miscounting one of them is the commonest way the formula is got wrong.

 Where the coupler is pivoting, at 70°. At any instant the coupler is turning about one point — not a pin, and usually not on the mechanism at all. Kennedy's theorem finds it: the crank and coupler share the pin at A, the coupler and rocker share B, so the coupler's centre relative to the frame must lie on both O₂A extended and O₄B extended, and it is where they cross. The dashed lines are that construction. The cross is a completely different route to the same point — the place where the coupler's solved velocity field is zero, computed from the Jacobian and knowing nothing about Kennedy. Across 119 positions the two agree to 2.7e-15. At this instant the centre lies outside the frame — the two construction lines are nearly parallel, the coupler is close to translating, and the pivot has run off rather than gone missing. The paths points trace

Where the coupler is turning

At every instant the coupler of a four-bar is rotating about a single point — not a pin, and usually not on the mechanism at all. Track that point in two different frames and you get two curves which, rolled on each other without slipping, reproduce the coupler's motion exactly. The bars are one way of producing it and not the motion itself.

 The collineation axis at 66°. The coupler line extended and the frame line extended meet at Q, and the line from the pole through Q is the collineation axis. Bobillier's theorem is that the axis and the pole tangent make equal angles with the two rays PA and PB, in opposite senses — so having the axis gives the pole tangent, which is otherwise the one quantity here that needs the motion differentiated. Measured over 50 pairs of conjugate points the relation holds to 2.5e-14 radians. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

A construction with no arithmetic in it

Everything in this field so far has needed the motion differentiated. Bobillier's theorem gets the pole tangent — the one quantity that otherwise needs a derivative — out of two lines that are already drawn on the mechanism, and the inflection circle follows from three points and a pair of compasses.

 How much of a compiled machine is computing anything. Each machine's bars split two ways: the ones that build an angle — reflectors, means, rigid offsets, the arm — and the ones that carry a direction from where it was computed to where it is needed. On the smallest machines the arithmetic is nearly all of it. By the quintic the carrying is 80 per cent, and it goes on rising, because the arithmetic grows with the number of terms and the carrying grows with the number of pairs of them. That is the answer to why a universality construction is enormous, and it is not about the algebra being hard. The curve as an equation

A parallelogram carries an angle, and only so far

A direction computed at the frame is no use where it is needed. A parallelogram carries one from point to point — but only between two points a fixed distance apart, and that single proviso is what makes a compiled machine quadratic in the number of terms and turns most of it into transport.

 A cam profile is an envelope, and its curvature obeys the same law. The dashed curve is the pitch curve — where the roller's centre travels — and the solid one is the surface that has to be cut, which is the pitch curve offset inward by the roller radius. That offset is the conjugate law of this field with one centre of curvature sent to infinity, and it says ρ_cut = ρ_pitch − r. Measured off the drawn polyline at six angles, the worst departure is 4.8e-7: at 95° the pitch curve has radius 29.52 and the cut profile 21.52, against 21.52 predicted. It is also why undercutting is a curvature condition rather than an accident: where ρ_pitch falls below the roller radius the offset turns itself inside out. Prescribed motion

A profile is an envelope

A cam's surface is not a curve somebody drew. It is the envelope of the roller as the roller runs round the pitch curve, and its curvature is the pitch curve's less the roller radius — a law that this site's cam library was breaking for six months, in the one curve that gets manufactured and the only one no check looked at.

 Colour by degree, recolour by neighbours' colours, stop when nothing changes. The cheap half of every isomorphism routine there is, and the half that does most of the work. Start by colouring each link with how many pins it carries. Then repeatedly recolour it with its own colour plus the multiset of its neighbours', until a pass changes nothing. On this chain the process ends with 3 classes of sizes 2, 2, 2, and two links of different colours are certainly different links — no relabelling can carry one to the other. What refinement cannot do is separate links that are alike to every local measurement, and that residue is what the backtracking search is for. It is also, exactly, why a spectral test fails: an eigenvalue is a global average over walks and has no more to say about two locally identical links than the refinement does. The chain before the lengths

Deciding that two chains are one

Two chains are the same chain when a relabelling of the links carries one to the other. Ten links admit 3,628,800 relabellings, and the census asks the question 26,335 times — so the answer is not a search but a rule that picks one labelling out of the graph itself, and asking whether the two strings match.

 8 postures, one tool pose. The tool is at one place, held one way. Eight different sets of joint values put it there, and this is all of them at once: two ways for the base joint to face the target, two for the elbow, and two for the wrist — two by two by two. Every posture here came out of a closed form and was checked by running the arm forward again; the worst disagreement is below 10⁻¹⁴ of a metre. Which of them a machine can actually use is a separate question, and it is answered by the joint limits rather than by the geometry. One path to the tool

Eight ways to hold the same tool

A six-joint arm asked to put its tool at one place, held one way, has eight answers. Not approximately eight and not eight found by looking — two for the base, two for the elbow, two for the wrist, each exact to a hundredth of a femtometre, and a search from six hundred starting postures finds those eight and no ninth.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 Five positions, and what is left of the curve. Five prescribed poses of a moving body. With four of them, every point of the pale curve is a usable fixed pivot — a one-parameter family. The fifth pose is one more equation, and it leaves 4 points. Bézout's number for the system is 16; 4 paths arrive; 4 of those are real. Every pair of the 4 is a four-bar, so there are 6 candidate linkages and 2 of them reach all five poses in one piece and in order. 1 of the 4 pivots is too far away to draw in frame and is marked at the edge with its true distance — which is why some of the linkages have a bar twenty times the size of the body. The problem backwards

Five positions, and what is left

Three prescribed poses leave a whole plane of choices. Four leave a curve. Five leave four points, and finding them is the first thing in this site's synthesis field that a compass cannot do — it needs two cubics intersected, which is algebra rather than construction. Four points give six four-bars, and two of them can be built.

 4 contacts, and the centres they still allow. The same four, placed pinwheel. The same square, the same four edges, the same distance along each — and taken the same way round rather than alternately. Every row's moment then has the same sign, so no positive combination can cancel it, and the part turns. Each contact contributes one half-plane of permitted centres per sense, and the shaded regions are what survives all 4 of them: the darker one is where an anticlockwise rotation is still permitted and the lighter one where a clockwise one is. What is left is the escape, and it is a region rather than a direction: any point inside it will do as a centre. The enumeration finds 4 extreme rays, of which 4 are rotations and the rest are translations — the corners of the region and its unbounded directions respectively. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

The escape is a place

A part that is not held escapes, and the useful thing is not that it escapes but where. The extreme rays of the cone are the corners of a region of the plane and its unbounded directions are translations — so the answer to 'this does not hold' is a picture with a shape, and the shape says where the next contact has to go.

 30 teeth and two pallets. An escape wheel of 30 teeth and a pair of pallets spanning 4 tooth pitches. The heavier line at each pallet is the locking face, here an arc about the arbor; the lighter one is the impulse face the tooth slides along once it is let go. The wheel is drawn where the contact puts it, not where it looks well: at this pallet angle the tooth in play sits on the lock face and the wheel is -0.0323° from it. Dragging the pallet through its whole engagement moves the wheel by 0.107° of recoil. Of the 6.0° the wheel turns each beat, -37.3% is drop and does nothing. Drawn wrongly

The escapement that could not alternate

Four drawings of intermittent mechanisms that appear everywhere and would not work: pallets spanning a whole number of teeth, a pawl whose pivot is on the wrong side of the tooth face, a Geneva at the wrong centre distance, and an intermittent gear with no locking arc. Each one is put through the library that draws the working version, and each returns a number.

 A quantity that is not there, refusing to converge. A second central difference of a function with a bounded second derivative settles as the step is halved; across a step in the first derivative it doubles, every time. The rising line is a mutilated gear at the instant its teeth engage, where the driven wheel goes from stopped to full pitch-line speed: its successive estimates grow by a factor of 2.000000, which is the signature and not an accident of the step. The flat line is a six-slot Geneva at the same point in its cycle, whose pin enters along the slot and whose acceleration is a number. This is the only way to report an acceleration that does not exist: not by quoting a large one, but by showing the measurement refuse. Motion that stops

The gear with its teeth cut away

Leave teeth on part of a gear's circumference and take the rest off, and the output turns for part of the input's revolution and stops for the rest. It is the cheapest intermittent drive there is and it engages at full speed, so its output's velocity has a step and its acceleration is not a large number — it is not a number, and the way to report that is to watch a difference quotient refuse to converge.

 Where a point held by three strands may be. Three anchors, three strands of 130, 130, 120 mm, and a point tied to all three. A rigid link of those lengths would leave nothing to decide — three distance equations in two unknowns have no solution at all — and three strands leave a region, because each of them says no further than rather than exactly. The region is the intersection of the three discs; its area here is 2721.0 mm² and it has 3 corners. Inside it nothing is taut and the point has both its freedoms; on an arc one strand is taut and it has one; at a corner two are taut and it has none. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

The strand that is slack

A rigid link removes a freedom wherever the mechanism stands. A strand removes one only where it is taut — so a point held by three of them has two freedoms in the middle of its region, one on an arc, none at a corner, and no single mobility count describes it at all.

 The wheel is the coupler — double wishbone. The suspension solved at 0 mm of bump, with the whole travel ghosted behind it. The two arms are the cranks and the upright between them is the coupler; the wheel is bolted to that coupler, so camber is the coupler's rotation and nothing else. Camber here is 0.00° and the contact patch has moved 0.0 mm across the road. The cross is the instantaneous centre of the upright, found from the solved velocity field; the roll centre is where the line from it to the contact patch crosses the car's centreline, and it is at 73 mm here. Machines you have met

The wheel is the coupler

A double wishbone is a four-bar standing on end whose coupler carries a wheel, so camber is coupler rotation and scrub is a coupler point's path. Both are computable, and the second one comes out with the opposite sign from the model every suspension book uses — by more than the whole scrub.

 The twelve that were at infinity, coming back. Every solution of the platform's direct kinematics, plotted by how far from the origin it sits, as the six anchors are jittered. At no jitter the site's own platform has 56 solutions and the largest is at 25.8. At a jitter of 0.2 there are 80, and the extra ones arrive from far out — they were never missing, they were at infinity. How many answers

Twenty-eight, not forty

The general six-legged platform has forty poses for a given set of leg lengths, and this site has quoted that number beside a picture of a platform that has twenty-eight. Its anchors are arranged symmetrically, which makes it a special architecture, and the missing twelve poses are not missing. They are at infinity, and perturbing the anchors brings them back.

 A screw of pitch 0.25. A single screw drawn from its own decomposition. The six numbers of the twist go into a decomposition that returns a direction, a point on the axis and a pitch of 0.2500; the helix is then the path of a point at radius 0.5 about that axis, advancing 0.250 along it per radian turned. Over 1.15 turns the point advances 1.806 — the pitch times the angle, which is what pitch means. This screw is a screw. Out of the plane

Every motion is a screw

Chasles showed that any rigid displacement whatever is a turn about some line together with a slide along that same line. Not approximately, and not usually — always, with the line and the amount of slide computable from the motion. It is the fact that makes spatial kinematics a subject rather than a pile of special cases.

 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. As built

Where a stack-up stops working

On a crank-rocker the first-order tolerance estimate matches the measured band at every one of 180 positions, to eight parts in ten thousand. On a parallelogram it exceeds it by a factor of 475,512. Same arithmetic, same tolerance, two linkages that differ only in their proportions — and nothing in the calculation says which one it is being run on.

 Three bars, and no rotation left. Each of a delta robot's legs ends in a parallelogram, which keeps the bar on the platform parallel to the bar on the arm. That leg therefore permits the platform no turn about either direction perpendicular to its bar: it imposes two couple constraints, drawn here as rings about the directions they act on. Three legs impose 6; together they span only 3, so 3 are redundant. What is reciprocal to them is three couples — three pure translations, and the platform cannot turn at all. Several legs, one platform

Why the platform stays flat

A delta robot has three legs and three freedoms, and there is no obvious reason those freedoms should be the three translations rather than some mixture. The reason is a parallelogram in each leg, and the argument from there to "the platform cannot turn at all" is a constraint computation that takes six wrenches and a rank.

 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. Numbers that were measured

A ruler and a protractor

What a measurement recovers is decided by the units of its readings. An angle is dimensionless and cannot see a size; a position is not and can. And putting both instruments on one machine recovers no more parameters than the better of them alone — it recovers the same ones six times better conditioned.

 A cam is the envelope of a roller. The follower's roller drawn in the cam's frame at 15 angles of the cam: the roller slides in a straight guide and the cam turns under it, so from the cam's point of view the roller travels round it on a path set by the lift law. The cam's surface is the envelope of those circles — the same computation as a rack generating a tooth, with a circle instead of a straight edge and a lift law instead of a rolling condition. The cams field builds the same surface by offsetting the roller-centre path inward by the roller radius, and the two agree to 4.1e-4 mm. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Prescribed motion

A cam is a conjugate pair

A cam is built by offsetting the path of the follower's centre inward by the roller radius. It can also be built by asking what shape stays in contact with a circle that slides in a stated way — the same computation that cuts a gear tooth — and the two surfaces agree to sixteen millionths of a millimetre.

 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 on this site applies to it unchanged, and a four-bar with play at each pin is a mechanism with eight links and eight joints. As built

A clearance is a link

A pin in a hole is not a joint at a point. Its centre may sit anywhere within the difference of the two radii, so the two links it joins are connected by a body of fixed length and free direction — a binary link with a revolute at each end. That is not an analogy, and taking it literally makes a four-bar a mechanism with eight links, eight joints and five degrees of freedom.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 Two ellipses on their foci, at a ratio of 0.603. Each wheel is an ellipse turning about one of its own foci, with the centres a major axis apart. The focal property does the work: the two radii from the two foci add to the major axis, so the contact stays on the line of centres by construction, and the rolled arc lengths agree to 2.5e-8 of their length. The ratio at this instant is 0.6033; over a turn it runs from 0.538 to 1.857, a range of 3.4490 against the ((1+e)/(1−e))² = 3.4490 the eccentricity predicts. And one turn of one wheel is exactly one turn of the other, which is the condition that makes it a pair of wheels rather than a pair of curves. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

A ratio that is a function of the angle

A gear pair is usually two circles rolling. Ask instead for an output that runs forty per cent fast for half a turn and forty per cent slow for the other half, and the two shapes that deliver it are not a design decision — the demand fixes both pitch curves completely, and the only question left is whether they close.

 What each loop's constraint system is made of. For each mechanism: the order of the screw system its joints span, the order of the reciprocal system — the wrenches it carries without moving, which is always six minus the first — and what those wrenches are. A planar four-bar carries one force and two couples; a mechanism whose motion lies in no subgroup carries screws of finite pitch instead, and 2 of these 6 do. Out of the plane

What a mechanism cannot do

A mechanism's freedoms are a subspace of screw space. Everything orthogonal to that subspace under the reciprocal product is a force the mechanism carries without moving — so the constraints are not a separate thing to be worked out, they are what is left, and one matrix gives both.

 Six gearsets, three conditions. Every one of these can be drawn, and five of the six are drawn in some textbook or other. The columns are the three conditions a planetary has to satisfy: that a whole planet fits between the sun and the ring, that the sun and ring teeth add to a multiple of the planet count, and that the planets clear each other. The last column is how far out of mesh the worst planet station is, in teeth — a quantity that is zero or is not, and that no drawing shows, because a drawing of a planetary at this scale draws circles. Drawn wrongly

The gearset that could not be assembled

A planetary drawing shows a sun, a ring and three or four planets between them, and if the circles are the right sizes at the right stations it looks right. The condition that decides whether the second planet can actually be dropped in is arithmetic — the sun and ring teeth must add to a multiple of the planet count — and it appears in no drawing, at no scale, in any style.

 The path a towed wheel takes. The front wheel is given a path; the rear one obeys a single equation — roll along your own heading, and stay attached. The rod is drawn every twelfth sample and is never imposed: the integrator carries the axle's position and heading and nothing else, and the distance from hitch to axle comes out constant to 1.4e-13 m over the whole run. The rear track cuts every corner, which is off-tracking, and it is the reason a long vehicle needs a wide turn. Wheels, and where they may not go

The path a towed wheel takes

A towed axle obeys one line: roll along your own heading, and stay attached. Nothing tells it to keep its distance from the hitch and it keeps it to 10⁻¹³ anyway, it settles onto a circle of exactly √(R² − L²), and the residual against that is not the integrator — it is the difference between a circle and the polygon it was sampled as, and it falls by four when the sampling doubles.

 Four pulleys, one idler, and one equation. A closed strand over four fixed pulleys and an idler carried on an arm. The idler sits outside the loop the other four make and bulges the strand out to reach it, so its wrap is signed the other way — -25.34° against the four positive ones — and the five still add to exactly one turn. The arm angle is not a free choice: the strand has a length, and matching it is one scalar equation, whatever the number of pulleys. At this position the run is 1018.046 mm and the idler takes up 0.4387 mm of strand for every millimetre it moves along the bisector of its two spans. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

The tensioner is the unknown

A linkage closes when a vector comes back to where it started: two equations, two unknowns. A strand closes when a number does — its length — however many bodies it runs over. So a run with one free body is determined, a run with two is not, and the arm angle that takes up 1,020 mm of belt is the root of one scalar equation solved to 1·10⁻¹³ mm.

 elbow arm at a posture. elbow arm, drawn from 6 joint values through a product of 6 exponentials — no equation is solved anywhere in this picture, because an open chain has none to solve. The thin lines are the joint axes at this configuration, which are also the columns of the arm's Jacobian: the tool's velocity is a sum of turns about exactly those lines. Here the smallest singular value of that Jacobian is 0.3674 and the largest is 2.407, so the arm is comfortably away from a configuration where a direction of motion is lost. Drag θ₅ pitch. One path to the tool

The wrist is three joints and one point

Three axes meeting at a point is what makes a six-joint arm's inverse problem solvable in closed form, and it is why every industrial arm is built that way. Move one of those axes by ten millimetres and the construction goes on returning eight confident answers, every one of them out by three and a half.

 crank rocker: the closest pair at one position. The site's standard four-bar: ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5, rocker 3. 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: 0.5438 here, between coupler · frame. 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. Links with a width

Two bars that have to cross

The site's own four-bar has its coupler inside its frame by a full link width for the whole of a turn. It is not an impossible mechanism; it is a mechanism that cannot be built in one plane — and the plane it has been drawn in for twenty-three fields was a convenience nobody had to pay for.

 One point, six groups, six shapes. A group has no picture, so here is the next best thing: fix one point of the moving body — the marked one — and draw everywhere the group can send it. A prismatic pair sends it along a line, a revolute round a circle, a helical along a helix, a cylindrical over a cylinder, a spherical over a sphere, a planar over a plane. Those six shapes are the six surfaces the previous figures drew, which is not a coincidence and is the field's first argument read backwards: a lower pair's surface is an orbit of its own group, which is exactly why the surface can slide on itself. What a joint is

What a point sees

A group of displacements has no shape, so the only picture of one is what it does to something. Fix a point and the six lower pairs draw a line, a circle, a helix, a cylinder, a sphere and a plane — the six surfaces the pairs are made of. And two of the twelve sweep the same surface and are still different groups, which is the honest caption on the whole method.

 Where the curvature is standing still, at 66°. The cubic of stationary curvature: every point on it traces a path whose curvature has stopped changing at this instant, so its osculating circle fits for one order longer than an ordinary point's. It passes through the pole — twice, with a double point there — and through both moving pins, which is the plainest case there is, since a pin traces an exact circle and a constant curvature is certainly a stationary one. The expression whose zero set this is looks like a quartic and its fourth-degree terms cancel to 1.2e-14 of the third-degree ones. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

Where the curvature stands still

One derivative further on there is a second locus: the points whose path curvature has momentarily stopped changing. The expression whose zero set it is looks like a quartic, its fourth-degree terms cancel, and the cancellation is measured at ten to the minus fourteen rather than assumed.

 30 teeth and two pallets. An escape wheel of 30 teeth and a pair of pallets spanning 4 and a half tooth pitches. The heavier line at each pallet is the locking face, here an arc about the arbor; the lighter one is the impulse face the tooth slides along once it is let go. The wheel is drawn where the contact puts it, not where it looks well: at this pallet angle the tooth in play sits on the lock face and the wheel is -0.0320° from it. Dragging the pallet through its whole engagement moves the wheel by 0.106° of recoil. Of the 6.0° the wheel turns each beat, 65.9% is drop and does nothing. Motion that stops

Where the tooth lets go

A pair of pallets spanning a whole number of tooth pitches and a half advances the escape wheel exactly half a pitch every beat, and that half pitch divides into the impulse and the drop with nothing left over. Drop is not chosen. It is whatever the impulse leaves, and on a thirty-tooth wheel it is two thirds.

 Two ovals of one sextic. A four-bar with ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5, rocker 3, its coupler point solved at 720 crank angles on each assembly. Each assembly closes on its own oval through a full turn of the crank, and the two ovals never meet: they come no closer than 1.712. Every solved point satisfies the one eliminated sextic to 6.6 × 10⁻¹⁶ of its largest term. The machine drawn solid and the one drawn faint are the same four bars at the same crank angle of 60°, and taking a pin out is the only way from one oval to the other. The paths points trace

The curve the other assembly draws

A crank-rocker's two assemblies do not share a coupler curve. Each draws a whole closed oval of its own through a full turn of the crank, the two ovals never meet, and both are the zero set of one sextic, so the equation a machine's own motion determines also describes a second machine it can never become.

 Where the platform stops being controllable, at 0°. Every point is a position of the platform's centre at a fixed orientation of 0°, shaded by how far it is from a direct singularity — pale is near. Unshaded means unreachable, which is the workspace boundary and the ordinary kind of singularity. The line is det A = 0, traced through the field rather than tested for: it runs through the middle of the reachable region in 102 segments, and on it the platform can move with all three actuators locked. 3312 of 6561 sampled positions are reachable. Several legs, one platform

The workspace is not a shape you choose

A serial arm's reach is roughly a sphere and can be quoted as a number. A parallel mechanism's is the intersection of three reachability conditions, changes with every degree of orientation, and has a surface of uncontrollable poses cutting through the middle of it. There is no formula. There is a map, and it has to be computed.

 How many dimensions each chain's displacements occupy. Every chain in the field, with the dimension its reached displacements' logarithms occupy. A chain of n joints always has n freedoms; what varies is whether those freedoms compose. Where the bar equals the joint count the motion is inside a group and the group is named; where it reaches six there is no proper group containing the motion, and the two chains that do are the ones whose axes were chosen at random. Nothing about the joints themselves differs — three pins are three pins, and the two rows differ only in where the axes point. What a joint is

A chain multiplies

An open chain's displacements are the product of its joints' groups, one factor per joint, in order. Sometimes the product is a group — three parallel pins and a slide along them give Schoenflies motion, which is a SCARA arm and is why it has four joints. Usually it is not, and then the chain's poses are a four-parameter set that needs six numbers to describe.

 A flat follower needs a face, and how wide is not a matter of taste. The cam profile the cycloidal programme produces on a base circle of 30, at 70° of rotation, with the follower's face across the top and the contact marked. The contact is not on the follower's axis: it sits at ds/dθ from it, so it wanders sideways as the cam turns and the face has to reach from the most negative value of that to the most positive. Here that is 19.099 — measured off the drawn profile as 19.099, the two routes agreeing to 1.0e-16. A face cut to the lift, or to the base circle, or to whatever looked right, is a face the cam runs off. Prescribed motion

A follower needs a face

A flat-faced follower does not touch the cam on its own axis. The contact wanders sideways as the cam turns, by exactly ds/dθ, and a face cut to the lift or to the base circle or to whatever looked right is a face the cam runs off.

 What each of them can reach. Nine hundred control histories of four legs each, from the same starting configuration, with the resulting position plotted. The wheel's cloud is two-dimensional and fills the region; the trolley's is one-dimensional and lies exactly on its rail — the same number of coordinates, the same number of constraints, the same count of freedoms, and a reachable set of a different dimension. Nothing here is a matter of degree. Drawn wrongly

Not unreachable, only expensive

The sentence is false of every wheeled mechanism in this field and true of exactly one — the trolley bolted to a rail. A rolling constraint forbids a direction and reaches everywhere; the mistake is reading a statement about instants as a statement about intervals, and it is made in both directions.

 A bevel differential, turning. cage in, hold left, with every member's speed taken from the train's null space and every angular position that speed integrated. The teeth are marked at the pitch points rather than cut as involutes — the flank is the teeth field's subject — but the count is the tooth count and the positions are the solved ones, so what turns and how fast is real. Drag it and watch which way each member goes: left 0.000 · right 2.000 · cage 1.000. More than one input

One wheel on ice

A differential with one wheel stopped turns the other at exactly twice the cage, and the relation it imposes is satisfied the whole time — nothing has failed, nothing is confused, and the reason the car does not move is not in this site. What is here is the other half: a locked axle is an overconstrained mechanism, and the sliding it produces is 2π times the track per circle driven, whatever the radius.

 Watt's chain. Six links and 7 pin joints, so Grübler counts 3(6 − 1) − 2(7) = 1 and the rank of the Jacobian measures 1. Two of the six links must carry three joints; they are shaded. Here they share a joint, which makes this a Watt chain. That adjacency is the entire classification, and it is read off the graph rather than off the picture. Linkages

Six bars, and what the extra dyad buys

Every linkage so far has had four bars, because four is the smallest closed chain that moves. The next one up is six, not five, and six is where the subject stops being one family and becomes a taxonomy — two chains, distinguished entirely by whether the two links carrying three joints happen to touch.

 One member of the family is a pair of wheels. The same demand — one plus 0.4 sin φ — scaled by a constant, and for each the angle the driven wheel is out by after one turn of the input. It has to be zero, or the teeth do not line up with themselves and there is no wheel. Only the unscaled member closes; five per cent either way leaves the output 18° out, which is a third of a tooth on a thirty-tooth wheel and a mechanism that seizes on its second turn. Non-circular gearing is a search rather than a drawing for exactly this reason: the closure condition is one equation on a whole function, and almost no function satisfies it. The shape is the unknown

The demand that cannot be met

Ask for an output rate and the two pitch curves follow with no design step in between — so the interesting question is not how to draw them but which demands admit any pair of wheels at all. The answer is one equation on a whole function, it is about the demand's mean and nothing else, and five per cent of error leaves the output eighteen degrees out after a turn.

 The shape is what the demanded arm implies. A strand leaving a convex body runs along a tangent, so the only thing about the body the strand can feel is the perpendicular distance from the axis to that tangent — the shape's support function h(ψ). Ask for a rate and you have asked for h, because turning the body by dψ pays out h dψ; the shape then comes back from h with no solve at all, as h(ψ)û + h′(ψ)û⊥. This one was asked for h₀(1 + 0.3 cos 2ψ) with h₀ = 34 mm. The strand drawn here leaves the axis at a perpendicular distance of 24.1286 mm, which is what the demand asks for at this angle. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

The drum that is not round

The only thing about a body a strand can feel is the perpendicular distance from the axis to the tangent it leaves along. Ask for a rate and you have asked for that distance at every angle — and the shape comes back from it with no solve at all, unless the demand exceeds 1/(n²−1), at which point there is no shape.

 The machine compiled from a rectangular hyperbola. xy − 0.5, compiled: 20 bars and 20 joints, painted by what each part is for. The two-link arm at the pivot carries the tracing point; the reflectors and means build each term's angle; the rigid offsets fix the constant φₖ and the amplitude; the translators carry those directions out along the summing chain, whose last vertex is held on a line. That last constraint is the equation. Every joint drawn is the output of a Newton–Raphson solve on 36 equations, converged to 4.2e-16, and the polynomial at the tracing point is 2.2e-16. The curve as an equation

The machine, compiled

Twenty bars, twenty joints, and one degree of freedom. Every position is a converged solve on thirty-five equations, none of which mentions the polynomial — and the polynomial at the tracing point reads 1.3 × 10⁻¹⁴ across the whole working arc.

 Kutzbach, plus the constraints counted twice. Each row is 6(n − j − 1) + Σf, then the redundant constraints ν measured from the two legs' constraint systems, then the mobility measured from the rank of the whole loop's screw system. The first column is wrong for 5 of 6 of these mechanisms; adding ν repairs every one. The catch is that ν is not a property of the joint graph — Bennett's linkage and a spatial four-bar with one twist changed have the same graph and different ν — so the corrected formula needs the measurement it was supposed to replace. What can move

The formula is repaired by the thing it replaced

Kutzbach's count is wrong about most of the mechanisms worth building, and every textbook gives the same repair — add back the constraints that were imposed twice. The repair works on every loop this site has. It is also not a formula, because the number it adds cannot be read off the joint graph.

 Two circles each, so two to the power of the dyads. A dyad has two solutions, and a chain whose groups are all dyads is solved one dyad at a time, so the number of ways it can be assembled at a given input angle is 2 raised to the number of them. That is a prediction made from the graph about a count of configurations, and it is checked here against a count: the same chain solved from 240 random seeds, with the distinct converged configurations counted. The two agree in every row. Watt's did not at first — it came back at eight — and every one of the four extra answers had its ternary link mirrored: three distances fix a triangle only up to reflection, so the distance equations admit a part that has been turned inside out. A reflected link is a different part rather than a different pose, and the solver refuses those frames now. How many answers

Two to the power of the dyads

How many ways a mechanism can be assembled at a given input angle is a count of configurations, and it is predicted here by a graph: two circles per pair of links, so two to the power of the number of pairs. The prediction came back four for Watt's chain and the count came back eight, and the four extra had a link turned inside out.

 Which of these two tracks was made by the front wheel. The rear wheel of a bicycle is towed, so it points at the front wheel at every instant: the tangent to the rear track, extended forward by the wheelbase, lands on the front track. Done that way round the tangents land a mean of 0.13 mm off; done the other way round they land 461 mm off, a factor of 3625. It is a measurement rather than an eye for tracks, and it needs neither the wheelbase nor the direction of travel to be known in advance. Wheels, and where they may not go

Which way did the bicycle go

Two tyre tracks in mud, and a question with a definite answer. The rear wheel is towed, so its tangent extended forward by the wheelbase must land on the front wheel's track — and it does, to 0.13 mm one way round and 447 mm the other. The test needs neither the wheelbase nor the direction of travel, and it returns both.

 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. Numbers that were measured

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.

 Three double points, and the one that is real is never visited. The coupler curve of a four-bar with ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5, rocker 3, coupler point at u = 0.45, v = 0.50, both ovals solved. The dashed circle is where the coupler's orientation can fail to be fixed by the point it carries; it passes through both fixed pivots and through the third pivot of the cognate construction, centre (2.000, 0.010), radius 2.0000. The curve's three finite double points are on it. The one that is real is isolated — a point of the curve no oval passes through, at (3.964, −0.368). The other two are a complex-conjugate pair and have no place in the plane. The paths points trace

A point the machine never reaches

Every coupler curve has three finite double points, and an odd number of them are real, so no coupler curve has none. On the standard crank-rocker the only real one is a point of the curve that neither assembly ever visits, that no contour plot can find, and that sits on the circle through the three pivots of Roberts's cognates.

 A dwell is a measurement, not a stop. The Stephenson six-bar's output against a full turn of the crank, with the four-bar it is built on for comparison. Inside a band of ±1° the six-bar's output holds still for 145.8° of crank and the four-bar's for 41.9°. The dwell comes from a stretch of the coupler curve that fits a circle of radius 3.006 to within 2.96e-3, and the arm from the coupler point is that radius. Nothing here stops; it moves less than the band. Linkages

A dwell made from a curve

Parts of a coupler curve are very nearly circular arcs. Put a link of the arc's own radius on the coupler point and its far end stands almost still while the point runs along it, so the output dwells — 146° of crank inside a one-degree band, against 42° for the four-bar it is built on. A dwell linkage does not stop. It moves less than the tolerance, and how much less is a number.

 A ratio with no steps in it. Two pulleys whose sheaves slide on their shafts, and one belt. Pushing the primary's sheaves together makes the belt ride further out; the secondary's radius is then not a choice, because the belt is a fixed length and its length over two pulleys at a fixed centre distance is a function of both radii. So the secondary's radius here is the root of that equation, solved rather than assumed, and the drawn belt is the length it is supposed to be to 0.0e+0 mm. Ratio 1.000, with the two radii adding to 110.00 — a number the received rule of thumb says should not change and which changes by 2.6% across the travel. More than one input

A ratio with no steps in it

Push a variable pulley's sheaves together and the belt rides further out. The other pulley's radius is then not a choice — the belt has a fixed length — so it is the root of an equation, solved rather than set. The rule of thumb that says the two radii add to a constant is true to first order and wrong by 7.4% of the ratio at full shift, and the departure has a closed form.

 A rotor that was not drawn, at 52° of shaft. The housing is an epitrochoid — the only shape here that was written down — and the rotor is the envelope of it, seen from a body that turns at a third of the shaft's rate about a centre orbiting at the eccentricity. Nothing about the rotor was chosen. Its three apexes come out at radius 100.000000, which is the generating radius R exactly, at 0° and ±120°; the middle of each flank comes closest to the centre at 72.0000, which is R − 2e. The apexes are the only part of the rotor that touches the housing, which is why a rotary engine's sealing problem is three lines rather than a ring. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

A rotor nobody drew

The rotor of a rotary engine has three corners, three flanks and one job: to stay in contact with a housing while turning at a third of the shaft's speed about a centre that orbits. Given the housing and that motion, the rotor is not designed. It is computed, corners and all, by the routine that cuts a gear tooth.

 Four positions brought together. Burmester's construction for four prescribed positions gives a curve of points that can be fixed pivots. Bring the four positions together and it has to become the cubic of stationary curvature, because a circle through four coalescing positions is a circle of four-point contact. Measured along one ray from the pole: the finite curve crosses at one radius and the cubic at another, and the gap between them falls as the square of the spread — fitted exponent 2.024, and 7.9e-5 coupler lengths at a spread of 0.01 radians. The finite construction is the same concyclic test the site's four-position synthesis is built on, so this compares that machinery against the infinitesimal one rather than against a re-implementation of either. The motion, not the mechanism

Four positions brought together

Burmester's construction finds the points of a moving plane whose four prescribed positions lie on a circle. Bring the four positions together and the curve it draws has to become the cubic of stationary curvature — and the gap between the two closes as the square of the spread, with the exponent measured rather than assumed.

 Two poles at 66°, and only one of them is still. The stubs here are accelerations, not velocities, and they vanish at a different point from the one where the velocities vanish. The cross is the velocity pole — the point the plane is turning about — and the square is the acceleration pole, the point that is momentarily not accelerating. Over a full turn of this crank the two are never nearer than 1.49 coupler lengths and get as far apart as 22.2. The instantaneous centre is about velocities and about nothing else: the point that is not moving is being accelerated, usually hard, and a body pivoting about it in the ordinary sense would not be. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Drawn wrongly

Six things a centre is not

The instantaneous centre is the most over-read object in this subject. Six claims about it are in circulation, three are false, two are true of something else, and one is nearly right — and each of them comes with a measurement of how badly it goes wrong.

 The room crank rocker needs. The shaded region is every point any part of this machine occupies at some position of its drive, computed as an occupancy grid over 150 solved configurations and outlined by marching squares — so the outline drawn is the boundary of the set the area was counted from rather than a second object that agrees with it. Its area is 12.78 square units, filling 54% of the box that contains it. The dashed rectangle is the box the joints need, which is what every figure that treats links as lines could have told you; the material needs a box 20% larger in area. Links with a width

The room a machine sweeps

Every point any part of a machine occupies at some position of its drive. It is a region rather than a curve, its area is an integral computed two ways, and the one shape in the field with a closed form is what the grid is calibrated against.

 A dyad is two circles, and that is why it has two answers. The whole of what makes a dyad easy. Two links, three pins: one pin onto something already placed at each end, one pin between them. The free pin is at a fixed distance from each of the placed ones, so it lies on both circles — and two circles meet in two points, in nought, or in one. That is a quadratic with a closed form, and its two roots are the two assembly branches every four-bar on this site has. A group of four links has no such picture: its unknowns do not separate into one circle each, the system does not factor, and what replaces the compass is Newton's method from a seed. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The chain before the lengths

What has to be solved together

Hold a link, turn a neighbour, and the rest of a mechanism comes apart into the smallest sets that can be positioned one after another. Every set of two links is two circles meeting — a quadratic, two branches, no solver. A set of four is a system, and this site's Newton solve stops being a convenience.

 Two numbers, and where they differ. Every mechanism in this field, with what its constraints leave and what its brackets fill. On every mechanism without a rolling contact the two columns are the same number, which is why nobody had to say which one mobility meant. Here only the rail agrees with itself — and the rail is the one mechanism in the table that cannot go anywhere new. What can move

The count that counts the wrong thing

Mobility has meant one number for six fields, because until a wheel appeared no mechanism could tell two questions apart. A rolling wheel has two velocity freedoms and a three-dimensional reachable set, and the formula that gives 2 is not wrong — it is answering the question about instants when the question anybody asks is about intervals.

 The cylindroid at 75° and 1.00 apart. Every screw in the two-system spanned by two revolute axes 1.00 apart along their common perpendicular and 75° out of parallel, drawn as its own axis. The axes sweep a ruled surface — the cylindroid — and each generator carries a pitch, running from -0.384 to 0.652 and reaching its two extremes on the two principal screws, which cross at a right angle at the centre. The surface is 1.035 long along its own axis, which is exactly the spread of the pitches: a cylindroid is as long as its pitches are far apart. Out of the plane

The smallest screw system has a shape

Add two screws together in every proportion. The results do not scatter — their axes sweep a ruled surface, with the pitch varying along it between two extremes reached at right angles to each other. It is a picture nobody would guess from the algebra, and it is the object that says what two joints between two bodies leave free.

 The fork and the roller, which is a Geneva pair. A lever escapement's fork with the balance's impulse pin inside it. The pin is on a roller of 0.150 against a fork of 1.00, and the slot points at the pin — which is the entire kinematic relation and is the same one a Geneva drive's pin and slot obey. The same eight lines answer both, and the check is that they reproduce the cams field's independently written Geneva solution to fourteen figures. The pin is in the fork for 44.4° of the balance's swing out of 540°, so the balance is left alone for 91.8% of the beat. Drag the balance. Motion that stops

Detached, and safe while detached

A lever escapement touches its balance for a twelfth of each beat and leaves it alone for the rest. What connects the two is a pin entering a radial slot — the same pair a film projector's Geneva drive is made of, solved by the same eight lines — and the sine rule then fixes the balance's lift angle at 44.4°, which is the number a Swiss lever is specified at.

 The four eight-link chains a compass cannot position. Every one of the twenty ways of choosing a frame and a driven link, on each of these four chains, leaves a group of four links or more that has to be solved as one system. There is no order in which they come apart two at a time, so there is no ruler-and-compass construction for any of them and no closed form for their positions. They are numbers 1, 3, 4, 10 of the sixteen, and they do not share an assortment: 4×2 + 4×3 and 5×2 + 2×3 + 1×4 both appear. Three of the four are among the most symmetric chains in the census — automorphism groups of 16, 8, 8 against a median of three across the sixteen — which is the direction one would guess, since a symmetric chain has few genuinely different places to attach a driven link. The fourth has an automorphism group of 2, so symmetry is a tendency here and not the reason. The chain before the lengths

Four that a compass cannot reach

Twelve of the sixteen eight-link chains can be positioned two links at a time, from at least one choice of frame and input. Four cannot be positioned that way from any of their twenty choices — and at ten links ninety of the two hundred and thirty are in the same position.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 The rotor is not a Reuleaux triangle. The generated rotor, with the Reuleaux triangle through the same three apexes drawn over it — three circular arcs, each centred on the opposite corner. They part company by 1.21 mm on a rotor of generating radius 100, and the flank is the one that is right: it is the envelope of the housing, and a Reuleaux flank would foul the wall. The measurement that cannot be argued with is the width. A Reuleaux triangle has the same width in every direction — that is what it is for — and this rotor's runs from 150.0 to 174.1, a spread of 16 per cent. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Drawn wrongly

Six things a shape is not

A rotor that is not a Reuleaux triangle, teeth that are not the same shape as each other, a fillet that is not an arc, a mesh that does not roll, a conjugate pair that cannot be built and a tooth form that was not deduced. Six claims in circulation, each with the number that kills it.

 A ball that remembers the area. Roll a ball round a closed loop on the plane, without ever twisting it about the vertical, and it comes back to the same place turned. The angle is the loop's area divided by r², and the dashed line is that law with nothing fitted to it. The departure at the top is not an integration error: it grows as the square of the angle — a fitted exponent of 1.99 — which is what a leading term's first correction does. The rotation is composed from exact exponentials, so the drawing carries no drift of its own. Wheels, and where they may not go

The ball that remembers where it has been

Roll a ball round a closed loop on a table without ever twisting it, and it comes back to the same place pointing somewhere else. The angle is the loop's area divided by the square of the radius — 0.0016 radians for a 2 mm square under a 50 mm ball — and it is exact in the limit with a departure that is second order in the angle itself.

 What each instrument returns, on each kind of graph. The 8-link census, three rows, and the same three questions asked of every graph in it. Grübler returns 1 in every row — it has to, because that is what the census selected on. The rank returns 1 in the first two rows and 2 in the third. Only the third column changes across all three rows, and it is the one this site did not have before this field: a mobility computed for every subset of the links rather than for the whole. Read down the middle two columns and the site's standing pair of routes is unanimous about 62 graphs, of which only 16 are what it says they are. What can move

The count was right and the name was wrong

The constraint field has checked Grübler's count against a Jacobian rank since the foundation, and the two disagree only where the geometry is special. Here is an assembly where they agree, where both are correct, and where the mechanism does not have the number of links it is described as having.

 The box the joints need, and the box the machine needs. Every machine in the catalogue, measured twice over the same drive: the extent of its joint positions, which is what a site drawing links as lines can report, and the extent of its material, which is what has to fit in something. The ratio runs from 1.13 to 1.36 — between thirteen and 36 per cent more area than the skeleton suggests, on machines whose links are a twentieth of their length wide. The last column is how much of the material's box the swept region actually fills, and it is where the packaging argument really is: a machine at 50% is a machine with a great deal of room inside its own envelope that nothing may be put in. Links with a width

The hole the machine needs

A four-bar's joints fit in a box five units by four. Its material needs a box twenty per cent larger in area, and fills barely half of it. Both numbers are design quantities, and until a link had a width neither could be stated.

 One linkage, two curves. The same bars, the same lengths, the same driving angle — assembled two ways. One trace is where the polynomial vanishes and the other is not: the worst value of xy − 0.5 along the second is 8.7e-1, against 4.7e-14 along the first. Every position on both was solved to 9.5e-14. Nothing about the second linkage is defective; one of its parallelograms is a crossed one, so a direction is being carried wrongly, and the machine is faithfully computing a different function. The curve as an equation

The proof drew more than the curve

Sixteen ways to assemble one linkage. Eight of them close. Four put the tracing point on the curve and four put it somewhere else — at a closure residual of 9.6 × 10⁻¹⁵, which is the same floor the right ones reach. No tolerance on the closure could ever have told them apart.

 Three chambers, 15,257 mm² between them. Each chamber is bounded by one flank of the rotor and the arc of housing between the two apexes that seal it, so its area is a polygon integral over two curves that are both known exactly. At this shaft angle they are 6309, 1147, 7801 mm². They add to 15257, and the housing's area less the rotor's is 15258 — a number that cannot depend on where the rotor is, and does not, to 9.2e-6 of itself. The engine's displacement is that constant shared out differently, and the three chambers are one chamber counted at three phases of the same cycle. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

Three chambers and a constant

A rotor with three corners divides its housing into three chambers, and as the shaft turns they trade area: one grows exactly as fast as the other two shrink. The total does not move — and the fact that it does not is a measurement of whether the corners are actually touching the wall.

 A corner in a curve, and the reason for it. This coupler point traces a curve with a cusp — a corner, where the curve stops and reverses rather than turning. The reason is that a cusp happens where the tracing point is momentarily still, and the only point of a moving plane that is momentarily still is the pole. So the cusps of a coupler curve are the instants when the pole passes through the tracing point: they are the crossings of the tracing point by the moving centrode, which is a statement about two curves in the coupler's own plane with the fixed plane not involved at all. This point was chosen by taking the pole's body coordinate at one instant, so it is on the moving centrode by construction; at the corner its speed is 9.9e-15 against 2.87 a fifth of a radian later. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

Where a curve has a corner

Some coupler curves have corners in them — points where the curve stops, turns round and comes back. A corner happens where the tracing point is momentarily still, the only point of a moving plane that is momentarily still is the pole, and so the corners of a coupler curve are decided entirely inside the coupler's own plane.

 Every pin position, and what it costs — 3 mm between the doors. One cell per candidate pin position: the door is swung through 95° from each and the worst clearance recorded. Light cells clear; dark cells mean the door would pass through the partition or through the door beside it, by up to 18 mm. The horizontal line is the door's own front face. With the doors touching, the boundary sits exactly on it — because the front corner's sideways rate is the pin's distance behind it, and that is zero only there. Each millimetre of gap buys a few millimetres of depth, and at 3 mm the deepest pin that still clears is 10 mm behind the face. Machines you have met

Where a hinge pin can go

A cabinet door's front corner moves sideways as it opens at a rate equal to how far the pin sits behind it, so with the doors touching, no pin behind the door's face can open one without going through the next. Three millimetres of gap buys nine and a half millimetres of depth, and that is the whole reason a concealed hinge has four bars instead of a pin.

 A joint with no way out in the plane it is drawn in. A dovetail. The tail is wider at its far end than at the mouth it went in through, so every direction out of the mouth is blocked by a slanted face and every direction further in is blocked by the floor. In the plane of this drawing the joint cannot be taken apart at all, and the direction it does come apart in is the one the drawing does not show. The moving part touches the rest at 3 faces, each contributing one inequality on the direction it may be translated in — the direction must not have a negative component along that face's inward normal — and the set of directions that satisfy all of them is a cone in two dimensions rather than three, because a translation has no moment term. That is why a removal cone can be drawn as an angle where a mobility cone cannot. Here it is empty: every direction is refused by one face or another, so the part cannot be taken out by any translation and cannot have been put in by one either. That is a statement about the assembly and not about the part, and the direction the joint does come apart in is perpendicular to this drawing. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Which way it comes out

Drop the rotation from the inequalities and the cone lives in two dimensions rather than three, so it can be drawn as an angle: a block in a vee has ninety degrees of directions out, a key in a slot has exactly one and no arc around it, and a dovetail has none at all. Three answers, and each of them is a different kind of joint.

 What the clearance has to swallow. Bennett's linkage with its second length multiplied by 1 + δ, and the closure error the solver drives down to and then cannot improve on. The loop does not close at any δ tried, including one part in a million. But the gap is exactly proportional to δ — the ratio varies by 0.07% across four decades — with a measured constant of 0.507. Shared over 4 joints that is 0.127 δ of play per pin, so a linkage machined to one part in a thousand needs about 0.20 mm of clearance in a link of 1.6 m, or a hundredth of a millimetre in a link of 1.6 cm. That is an ordinary running fit, and it is why a mechanism that cannot be built is in every folding table. As built

Why a hinge works

A door hinge with three knuckles is overconstrained — three axes imposed where one would do, and exactly parallel is a condition no bored hole has ever met. It works because the misfit is 0.507 times the error and the play in each knuckle is larger than that. The mechanisms this site called unbuildable are built every day, and the thing that builds them is the clearance that was already there.

 Crank angle θ and crank angle −θ, joined. The coupler curve alone, with 12 chords, each joining the point the tracing point reaches at a crank angle θ between 0° and 180° to the point it reaches at −θ on the same assembly. Every chord is square to the dashed axis, to 7.5 × 10⁻¹⁶ in the cosine, and every midpoint lies on it. Measured at 48 pairs, the reflection of one point misses the other by at most 4.2 × 10⁻¹⁵. The crank's own angle is the pairing: the two places the curve crosses its axis are crank angles 0° and 180°, the only angles equal to their own negatives. The paths points trace

A symmetric curve from a lopsided machine

A four-bar with a crank of 1, a ground of 3 and a rocker of 2.5 has no symmetry anywhere in it. Make the rocker, the coupler and the arm from the rocker pin to the tracing point one length, and the curve it draws is its own mirror image to 4 × 10⁻¹⁵, about a line through the rocker pivot turned from the ground line by exactly half the coupler's angle at that pin.

 Where the assembly count changes, and a loop round a cusp. With the first motor held at 216°, each point of the square is a setting of the second and third motors, shaded by how many assemblies the platform has there, sampled on a 41 by 41 grid: 2 assemblies at 1,261, 4 assemblies at 347, 6 assemblies at 73. Each edge between two shades is a curve of direct singularities, where two assemblies merge and vanish, and two such edges meet in a sharp point. The 2 marked points are the cusps in this window, each found as a triple root of the closure equation. The dashed circle, of radius 8°, is the loop the motors are driven round; it encloses 1 cusp, the one at (101.35°, 185.32°), and starts at the open marker. Several legs, one platform

Round a cusp into another assembly

A parallel platform's assembly mode was supposed to change only through a direct singularity. Driven round a small loop of motor angles that encloses a cusp of the singular curve, the standard three-legged platform leaves one assembly and arrives in another, turned 52° from where it started, and at no point on the way is it nearer than 0.0716 to singular.

 A brace is one redundant equation, on purpose. The compiled machine, counted and measured, with and without 4 braces. The count says the braced machine has -3 degrees of freedom — it cannot move — and the rank of the constraint Jacobian says it has 1, the same as before. Every brace contributes exactly one equation the others already imply, which is what overconstraint is, and here it is being added deliberately: the redundancy is what removes the assemblies the count knows nothing about. This is Grübler being wrong for the useful reason rather than the embarrassing one. The curve as an equation

A bar between two midpoints

In a parallelogram the midpoints of two opposite sides are exactly one side apart, and in the crossed assembly they are not. One bar between them admits the first and refuses the second — and it is one redundant equation per parallelogram, added on purpose, on a site whose constraint field is otherwise about overconstraint arriving by accident.

 Eleven lobes from twelve pins, at 46° of eccentric. The pins are circles and the disc is their envelope. One turn of the eccentric moves the disc back by one lobe pitch — a reduction of 11 : 1 from a ring, a disc and an offset bearing, with no gear teeth anywhere — and the profile's 11 lobes are counted off the generated curve rather than put there. The roots sit at 50.00 mm and the tips at 60.00, which are R − r ∓ e: the eccentricity is the lobe height, twice over. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

Eleven lobes from twelve pins

A ring of round pins, a disc on an eccentric, and a reduction of eleven to one with no gear teeth anywhere. The disc's profile is not designed: one pin generates one lobe of it, the other ten lobes are the same curve, and the count that decides the ratio is a count of lobes on a shape nobody drew.

 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. The motion, not the mechanism

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.

 Neither one comes out, and the two of them do. Two congruent Z-shaped parts in a tray that is open at the top. Each has a step that lies over the other's, so part A's four contacts with part B have normals at all four points of the compass and leave it no free direction at all — and the same is true of B, for the same reason and by symmetry. The blocking is mutual and there is no order in which the two can be taken out one at a time. Together they have 6 contacts, all of them with the tray, and exactly one direction out: straight up. So the removal cone of a set of parts is not built from the removal cones of its members, and which part comes out first is a question with no answer here. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Neither part comes out first

Two congruent Z-shaped pieces in a tray open at the top. Each has four contacts with the other, with normals at all four points of the compass, so each alone is blocked in every direction there is — and the pair lifts straight out. The removal cone of a set of parts is not built from the removal cones of its members, and *which part comes out first* is a question with no answer.

 One angle, read twice. Draw against the angle the locking face is tilted by. It is not a separate design quantity from recoil: the pallet's moment per unit of wheel torque is minus the rate at which the wheel is driven backwards, which is virtual work and holds to nine figures. So an escapement cannot be made to hold its own lock without also being made to push its train back — and at δ = 0 the arc has neither, which is a lock that any disturbance opens. The flat face starts above zero because the tooth rests below the corner, where a straight face is no longer tangent to anything. Motion that stops

One test, three mechanisms

Whether a pawl holds, whether an escapement's lock draws itself deeper, and how much a four-bar's coupler can do for its rocker are the same question asked three times: on which side of a pivot does a contact normal pass? All three are one cross product, none evaluates a force, and the three answers are used for completely different things.

 The search generates 3,000 candidates for 1,878 answers. How much work the enumeration does, against how much it has to show for it. The upper line is the number of complete labelled graphs the search reaches and the lower is the number of distinct graphs they turn out to be, so the vertical gap is waste — every candidate above the lower line is a graph the search had already found under a different labelling. At eight links the unpruned version of this search generated 8,494 candidates for the same 71 answers, and at ten links it did not finish at all; with the pruning it generates 3,000 for 1,878 in 442 milliseconds. The rule that does it is one line long: when two links carry the same number of pins, reject the labelling that would be lexicographically smaller if they were swapped. It cannot reject a labelling that is the largest in its class, so nothing is lost, and it is not a complete test, which is why the canonical form is still taken at the end. The chain before the lengths

The candidates a search throws away

The obvious enumeration generates every labelling of every chain and keeps one. At eight links that is 8,494 complete graphs for 71 answers; at ten it does not finish. One rule — reject the labelling that a swap of two equal links would improve — takes it to 3,000 candidates for 1,878 answers in half a second, and twelve links is still out of reach.

 One tool pose, a curve of postures. 41 postures of S-R-S arm, every one of them holding the tool at the same pose. The tool moved 1.0e-13 of a metre over the whole sweep, which is the arithmetic's noise floor rather than a tolerance. The joint that moves most is the elbow, and it runs on a circle of radius 0.192 m about the line from shoulder to wrist — a curve computed here by walking the Jacobian's null space, and known independently as the intersection of two spheres. The two agree to 10⁻¹³. One path to the tool

The freedom that does nothing

Give an arm a seventh joint and one tool pose stops having eight answers and starts having infinitely many. The arm changes shape while the tool stands still — measured at 3.3 × 10⁻¹² of a metre over forty-one postures — and the elbow runs on a circle that two entirely different computations agree about to a tenth of a picometre.

 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. Out of the plane

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.

 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. What a joint is

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.

 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. As built

What is still outside

Eight essays here end by saying that clearance, backlash, friction or wear are not modelled. This field took two of those four, because a tolerance is a set of geometries and a clearance is a short link, and both are questions about where a mechanism can be. The other two are not, and this is the page that says exactly where the line falls and why it is where it is.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 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. Numbers that were measured

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.

 Two motors, two circles, two places for the hand. A planar five-bar with its motors 1.0 apart, arms 1 and distal links 1.25, at motor angles 100° and 60°. Each distal link holds the hand on a circle of radius 1.25 about its elbow, and the elbows are 1.678 apart, less than the 2.50 at which the circles would only touch, so they meet twice. The hand drawn solid is at (0.229, 1.850) with det A 0.995; the other assembly, dashed, is at (0.098, 0.001) with det A -0.995 — the same size and the opposite sign. Several legs, one platform

The smallest parallel robot

Two motors, two arms, and two links meeting at a hand: a planar five-bar is the smallest parallel robot there is. Its forward problem is two circles, so the hand has two places to be, and each is named by the sign of one determinant. That is the whole reason it cannot do what the three-legged platform does, and cannot change assembly without passing through the one configuration where the two meet.

 A line across the four-bar's coupler curve. The curve traced by a point on the four-bar's coupler, over every real configuration, with the machine drawn faintly at one of them. A real line crosses it at 4 marked points. Written as polynomials, the machine and the line have 8 paths to track; 6 arrive, 2 leave for infinity, and the arrivals draw 6 distinct points — 4 real and 2 complex. A random complex line gives 6 as well, which is the curve's degree. How many answers

A degree counted on a line

A curve of degree six meets a general line in six points, and that sentence is a way to measure the degree with no equation in it. Written as polynomials, a four-bar and a random complex line have eight paths to track; six arrive on every line tried, the other two run off towards the circular points, and a sum of the six stays straight to fifteen figures only when none is missing.

 Four instruments, and only the last one names the group. Every instrument this site has for an overconstrained loop, on the same six mechanisms. Kutzbach's count gives −2 for a planar four-bar and −2 for Bennett's. The rank of the constraint Jacobian gives three and three. Both are right and neither separates them. The last two columns are this field's: the span is how many dimensions the logarithms of the displacements the moving link actually reaches occupy, and closes at is the dimension after those are closed under the bracket. A planar four-bar closes at three and the three are planar motion; Sarrus closes at one, a translation, which is the exact straight line the spatial field measured by solving the mechanism sixty times. Bennett closes at six: its displacements occupy four dimensions and no group smaller than all of them contains those four. That is what "paradoxical" has meant on this site for six phases, stated as an integer. What a joint is

Compose two positions and see where you land

Take two configurations a mechanism actually reaches, compose the displacements that got it there, and ask what kind of thing the result is. A planar four-bar lands inside planar motion, to 4 × 10⁻¹⁶. Sarrus lands on its own line. Bennett's linkage lands three tenths of a radian outside the four dimensions its own displacements occupy — a one-freedom motion that generates all six.

 Free space, in pieces. The driving angle round the circle, with the arcs at which the machine is both assembled and clear drawn heavy. One stud in the way takes a bite out of the turn and leaves 1 arc: the crank can still reach every remaining angle by going the other way. Two studs leave 2, covering 74% of the turn — and every configuration in both arcs is a perfectly good solution of the same constraint equations, on the same assembly branch, at the same mobility. Nothing a solver computes distinguishes an angle in one arc from an angle in the other; what separates them is that the machine cannot be driven from one to the other. Links with a width

Free space comes in pieces

Every arc on this site has ended at a configuration the mechanism cannot reach. Put two studs in a four-bar's way and its drive falls into two arcs whose ends are configurations it reaches perfectly well and cannot occupy — and no quantity the solver computes tells one arc from the other.

 One freedom, whatever the count says. Every one of these machines has exactly one degree of freedom, measured as the number of unknowns minus the rank of the constraint Jacobian. Unbraced, the count agrees. Braced, the count says the largest machine has -153 — that it cannot move, by a wide margin — and the rank says it still turns exactly as it did. The gap is one equation per brace and every one of those equations is implied by the others. This is the constraint field's oldest example, at a scale nobody would try by hand: a count that is wrong by a hundred and fifty-three about a mechanism that works. What can move

One freedom and four hundred links

Braced, the machine compiled from a quintic has 1,249 equations in 1,096 unknowns and a Grübler count of minus a hundred and fifty-three. It turns. The rank of its constraint Jacobian is 1,095, so its mobility is one — and every one of the hundred and fifty-four surplus equations was added deliberately.

 Arms with their tools pinned down. Pin an arm's tool to the ground and the open chain is a closed loop, which the first field of this site knows how to count. Kutzbach gives 6(n − 1) − 5n = n − 6 for a loop of n revolutes, and the measurement is n minus the rank of its screw system — the columns of the arm's own Jacobian, read as constraints rather than as velocities. The two agree on every row but one, and the one is the arm at a wrist singularity: the formula says the pinned arm is a structure and the mechanism has a freedom. That is the finding this site opened with, arrived at from the far end of its subject. One path to the tool

Pin the tool and it is a loop

Hold an arm's tool still and the open chain becomes a closed one, which this site has known how to count since its first field. Kutzbach's criterion says a pinned six-joint arm is a structure. At each of its three singularities the measurement says it can still move — the site's founding finding, arrived at from the far end of its own subject.

 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. As built

Seven lengths and a hundred corners

Nothing in a tolerance analysis is about four. A Watt six-bar has seven lengths, its corner enumeration is 128 mechanisms rather than 16, and the two routes still agree to a hundredth of a per cent — but the costs have separated — 142 solves against seven. At twenty parameters, which is an ordinary spatial mechanism, it is a million against twenty.

 Two Burmester points, or none, depending where the crank is. A Burmester point's path stays on one circle to fifth order. A planar motion has at most four of them; two of this mechanism's are always its own moving pins, whose paths are exact circles and satisfy every order at once. The other two are real for 67 per cent of the turn and complex for the rest, and the count changes without anything about the mechanism changing. The window matters and is stated: points beyond a hundred coupler lengths from the pole are not counted, and widening the window from six to four hundred moves the count of positions-with-two from 191 to 245 out of 360. A silent cap here would read as an absence. The motion, not the mechanism

The circle a point stays on longest

One condition further on are the points whose path holds a circle to fifth order. A planar motion has at most four; two of them are always the mechanism's own pins, and the other two are real for two thirds of a turn and complex for the rest — a count that changes while nothing about the mechanism does.

 What is left of a 12-tooth flank. The flank the rack generated on a 12-tooth wheel, with every point tested against the cutter at every other position of the cut. The pale dots survive; the dark ones are inside the cutter at some later instant and are not on the finished tooth — 39 of 203 of them, the deepest by 5.19e-2 mm. Undercutting is not a shape, it is a removal: the same corner that leaves the fillet comes back for flank the straight edge had already generated, and what is lost is the part of the involute nearest the base circle, which is exactly the part the mating wheel's tip needs. Drag to change the tooth count. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The shape is the unknown

The cutter takes back the tooth

Undercutting is usually explained as a shape: a tooth with a waist in it. It is better understood as an event — the corner that leaves the fillet comes back through flank the straight edge has already generated — and seen that way the threshold at seventeen teeth is a comparison of two measured points that passes through zero.

 Two taut paths, and no way between them. A strand from one point to another past a peg. Each side gives a path that is taut — straight where it can be, on the surface where it must be, leaving at a right angle — and each is the shortest path on its own side: 219.165 mm on one and 200.643 mm on the other, against 200 mm of open air the strand cannot use. Neither can turn into the other without passing through the peg, which is a different kind of non-uniqueness from the assembly branches of a linkage: those are separate roots of one equation, and these are separate classes of one minimisation. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

The taut path has more than one answer

A strand from one point to another past a peg has two taut paths — 200.643 mm on one side and 219.165 on the other, against 200 mm of open air it cannot use. Both are shortest. Neither can become the other without passing through the peg, and no computation recovers which one was threaded.

 The string is the radius. An involute is generated by unwinding a taut string from the base circle, and the taut string is the flank's normal — so the point where it leaves the base circle is the centre of curvature and the string's length is the radius. At a flank radius r that length is √(r² − r_b²), and the dashed curve is that expression. The dots are the curvature of the polyline this site actually draws, measured by circumcircle through consecutive points, over 324 of them. Worst relative disagreement 1.9e-6. At the base circle the radius of curvature is zero, which is why a flank cut below it is not an involute and why undercutting removes exactly that part. Teeth

Two flanks, one law

At a gear mesh the two tooth flanks are conjugate profiles, the pitch point is the pole of their relative motion, and their radii of curvature are tied to each other rather than free. Each flank's radius varies fourfold across the mesh and the sum of the two does not vary at all.

 A period, in the space the mechanism lives in. One whole period of an escapement, plotted as wheel angle against pallet angle. Give a four-bar its crank angle and its coupler is somewhere definite; give this its pallet angle and the wheel may be in any of 3 places, because what settles it is which face of which pallet a tooth is against. The path crosses itself and no amount of solving removes the crossing. The vertical jumps are the drops, drawn at the pallet angle of the release because during a drop nothing is touching anything and where the pallet is by then is a question about torque. Over the period the wheel advances 12.000000°, which is one tooth exactly. Motion that stops

Where the input stops deciding

Give a four-bar its crank angle and its coupler is somewhere definite. Give an escapement its pallet angle and the wheel may be in any of three places, because what settles it is which face of which pallet a tooth is against. The path crosses itself and no amount of solving removes the crossing — the state of these mechanisms has a discrete part, and that is what makes them a different kind of object.

 Every length wrong, every reading right. A four-bar was built to the dimensions in the upper bar of each pair and its output angle read at 30 positions. A calibration started from the nominal dimensions returns the lower bar. It reproduces every one of those readings to 1.81e-16 radians and not one of its four numbers is the machine's: they are the machine's multiplied by 0.992289, every one of them, to 3.0e-16. The shape is recovered exactly — the distance in Freudenstein's three invariants is 6.3e-16 — and the size is a free parameter the damping happened to leave near where it started. A machinist handed these numbers would build a machine that works and is not this one. Numbers that were measured

Every length wrong, every reading right

A four-bar was built out of true and measured at thirty positions. A calibration started from the nominal dimensions reproduces every reading to 1.8 × 10⁻¹⁶ radians and returns four lengths, not one of which is the machine's. They are the machine's, multiplied by 0.99229 — every one of them, to fifteen figures.

 Four instruments, and only the last one names the group. Every instrument this site has for an overconstrained loop, on the same six mechanisms. Kutzbach's count gives −2 for a planar four-bar and −2 for Bennett's. The rank of the constraint Jacobian gives three and three. Both are right and neither separates them. The last two columns are this field's: the span is how many dimensions the logarithms of the displacements the moving link actually reaches occupy, and closes at is the dimension after those are closed under the bracket. A planar four-bar closes at three and the three are planar motion; Sarrus closes at one, a translation, which is the exact straight line the spatial field measured by solving the mechanism sixty times. Bennett closes at six: its displacements occupy four dimensions and no group smaller than all of them contains those four. That is what "paradoxical" has meant on this site for six phases, stated as an integer. Out of the plane

A name for each overconstraint

The spatial field separated subgroup overconstraint from paradoxical by measuring how far a mechanism's screw system turns: 2 × 10⁻⁶ degrees against 89. That is a verdict without a name. Closing the logarithms of the reached displacements under the bracket gives the same verdict and says which group — planar, spherical, a translation — and for Bennett's linkage it says six.

 How close a synthesis puts two pins. The distribution of the smallest pin-to-pin distance on any one link, over all 1,176 exact syntheses. Burmester's construction returns points, and points can be arbitrarily close together: the shortest here is 0.103, on a mechanism whose poses span more than two units. The shaded band is what a boss of radius 0.25 forbids — 148 of them, 12.6%. The link that is worst is most often the crank, which is not where a designer looks: the frame's two ground pivots are the pair everybody checks by eye. Links with a width

A pin is not a point

A joint in the fields before this one is a name and two coordinates. A pin is a cylinder with material round it, a length through the stack of plates, and a head — and every one of those turns some construction that returns points into a construction that may return nothing buildable.

 Three points, three orders of contact. Replace the coupler point by a crank pivoting at the centre of its path's osculating circle, drive the linkage away from the instant, and measure how far the point gets from that circle. The distance grows like a power of the step, and the power is the number of derivatives that agreed. An ordinary point gives 3.00; a point of the cubic of stationary curvature gives 3.94; a Burmester point, where the curvature is stationary and its rate of change is too, gives 4.97. Nothing in the measurement knows which kind of point it was handed. This is what the two special curves are for: they are where a single pivot can replace a whole linkage for longest. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

How long a pivot stands in for a linkage

Throw the four-bar away and replace a coupler point by a crank pivoting at the centre of its path's curvature. The two separate like the cube of the crank step for an ordinary point, the fourth power on the cubic, and the fifth at a Burmester point — three exponents that are the whole field, measured with no derivative anywhere in the measurement.

 One cutter, five wheels. The same rack — one module, one pressure angle, one straight flank — rolled on five different pitch circles. Each wheel gets a different involute, of its own base circle, and the worst departure anywhere is 4.26e-14 mm. This is why gears are interchangeable: the tool defines the tooth, so any two wheels cut by the same rack mesh with each other whatever their tooth counts, and a workshop needs one cutter per module rather than one per pair. It is also why the standard is written as a rack — the rack is the definition and the wheels are consequences of it. Teeth

One rack and every wheel

Two gears mesh if they were cut by the same tool. That is not a manufacturing convenience laid on top of the geometry — it is the geometry, and it is why a gear standard is written as a description of a cutter rather than as a family of tooth curves.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 What a pin's size costs a synthesis. Every one of the 1,176 exactly correct three-position syntheses the synthesis field's survey produces, asked a question its three verdicts cannot ask: are any two of its pins closer together than the material round them? The poses span about two units, so the horizontal axis is a pin as a fraction of the mechanism. At a boss radius of 0.05 nothing is lost; at 0.4 — a pin nearly a fifth of the pose span — 27% of the exact solutions cannot be built, and 15% of the ones that had already passed the branch, circuit and order tests go with them. The defect is real, it is rarer than the kinematic ones, and it is not correlated with them. The problem backwards

A defect that is not kinematic

The synthesis field's survey ends in three verdicts and all three are about which solutions a sweep visits. Here is a fourth, found by asking how much room two pins need — and it is the first defect on this site that a simulation cannot find, because in the equations a pin is a point.

 A 4-stage scissor, open and as flat as it goes. On paper a scissor stack's height is n·L·sin φ and goes to nothing as the bars lie down. The bars are made of something: the two colours are the two planes the stack needs — two, at any number of stages, which is why a scissor folds at all — and the bars that share a plane are the ones two stages apart. They meet at φ = 0.0951, leaving each stage 0.0949 high, which is exactly the two bosses that touch: 2 × 0.0473. The stowed height of the whole stack is 0.380 rather than zero, and it grows with the stage count in the way a stowed lift's does. Many of one thing

A stack that has to fit

A scissor stack's height is n·L·sin φ and goes to nothing as the bars lie down — on paper. The bars are made of something, and what stops the fold is two bosses meeting: every stage keeps 0.0949 whatever the stack does, which is exactly twice the boss radius.

 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 this site does not model. As built

Taking up the play

Preload does not make a clearance smaller. It takes away the clearance vector's direction, which is the property that made the error unrepeatable — so 2.80° of lost motion becomes a 0.343° offset, of which 0.136° is a constant that calibrates out. A factor of eight, bought with a permanent parasitic load this site does not model.

 What the valve does, against what the ratio promises. The solved valve lift, and the cam's lift multiplied by the nominal ratio. They are the same curve to the eye and they are not the same curve: the peak is 12.777 mm against a promised 12.842 mm, short by 0.51%. The shortfall is not an error in either number. It is what happens when a ratio measured at one position is applied across a movement, and it is why cam cards and rocker ratios are quoted together. Machines you have met

The cam is not the valve

A rocker arm's ratio is the ratio of two moment arms measured at one position, and the rocker swings twelve degrees while the valve opens. The instantaneous ratio runs 1.588 to 1.605, so the peak valve lift is 12.78 mm where the number on the box promises 12.84 — and the shortfall depends on how the rocker was set up, not on the cam.

 How far the driven link turns is a fact about the lengths, not the chain. Each of the sixteen eight-link chains, given the arbitrary placement its own layout produces, driven from its first available choice of frame and input, and swept until a frame stops closing. 10 of the sixteen reach every angle and the rest rock through between 107° and 244°. Nothing in this chart is a property of the chains. Change the placement and the bars change; the census above them does not. It is here because it is the sharpest way to say what this field does and does not decide, and because the temptation to read a topology census as a catalogue of machines is exactly the mistake it prevents. The chain before the lengths

The chain has no lengths

Every number in this field survives multiplying every link by a different scale factor, because there are no lengths to scale. Which is also the statement of what a census cannot decide — and the sixteen eight-link chains, each given one arbitrary set of dimensions and driven, produce a chart in which nothing belongs to the chains.

 An open belt, whose wraps make one turn. Two pulleys of radius 40 and 24 mm with their centres 160 mm apart, with the strand running the same way round both. The two tangency points on each pulley are marked; the run between them is computed from the signed radius difference and nothing else. The wrap angles are 191.48° and 168.52°, and they add to exactly one turn — the turning number of a simple loop. Length 522.6633 mm, against the textbook formula's 522.6633. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Wheels, and where they may not go

The road a wheel carries with it

A taut strand on a pulley is a rolling contact: the material at the tangency is at rest against the surface, and the ratio between two bodies on one span is the ratio of their arms. But this rolling constraint integrates, where a wheel's does not — and the difference is that a strand rolls along a line and a wheel rolls across a plane.

 What a calibration can and cannot see. The singular values of elbow arm's identification Jacobian — the matrix of how the tool pose moves when each model parameter is nudged, over 11 postures. There are 36 parameters and only 30 of them can be found: the last 6 directions come out at 2.3e-8, which is the difference noise, against 6.3e-4 for the weakest real one — a gap of 3e+4. And 30 is exactly 4R + 2P + 6 for this arm's 6 turning and 0 sliding joints, which is a count from the literature meeting a rank measured from the arm's own arithmetic. One path to the tool

What a calibration cannot see

A six-joint arm's model has thirty-six parameters and a measurement can find thirty of them. The other six are not hard to measure — they are combinations that move the tool by exactly nothing, at every posture, and no instrument ever built will separate them. The count is 4R + 2P + 6, and it comes out of a rank on four different arms.

 A link, as a distance and as a body. The same two links every field before this one has drawn as lines, drawn as the material they are made of. A bar is a rectangle with its ends rounded off to the bosses that surround its pins, and it is convex; a bell crank is two arms meeting at a shared pin, and it is not — its inner corner turns the wrong way by 0.52, which is the single fact that puts it outside every separating-axis test here. The pins are marked because they are what has not changed: the constraint equations are the same, the solve is the same, and the positions are the same. What is new is everything between the pins. Links with a width

A body is all size

Twenty-five of the fields before this one compute quantities that are mostly shapes, recoverable from an angle sensor and transferable between machines of any size. This one computes clearances, footprints and swept areas, and not one of them is a shape — which makes it the only field whose whole output needs a ruler.

 A fit converging onto noise. The sum of squared residuals through a calibration of a four-bar built 3% long on the coupler and 1% short on the rocker, started from the nominal dimensions. It falls by a factor of 1.2e+3 in 19 steps and then stops, at 4.05e-5 — which is the noise, not the machine. The readings were given 1.00e-3 radians of error each, and no fit can go below what its data contains. The last two steps fall faster than the ones before them, which is what a Gauss–Newton descent does when the Jacobian has full rank on the directions it is allowed to move in. Numbers that were measured

Reading a residual

A residual that falls to the instrument's noise and stops means the model is right. A residual that stops above it means something is missing, and which something can be read off how the leftover is distributed over the poses — as a constant, as a pattern in the crank angle, or as one bad reading.

 A machine with one thing in it that must be solved at once. Each compiled machine's joints, walked in the order they can be placed: a joint goes down as soon as two things already placed decide where it is. Every one of these machines unwinds completely, and each contains exactly one pair that has to be solved together — the arm and the parallelogram that carries its second angle back to the pivot. Nothing larger than a dyad appears in a machine of two hundred and forty joints. The topology field's four-bar, at four, has no such decomposition at all; a compiled linkage is enormous and structurally trivial, which are not the same axis. The chain before the lengths

A machine with one dyad in it

Two hundred and forty joints, and two hundred and thirty-eight of them can be placed one at a time from parts already positioned. The whole of what has to be solved simultaneously is a single pair — the arm and the parallelogram carrying its second angle home. Size and structural depth are different axes, and a compiled machine is extreme on one and trivial on the other.

 slider crank: the closest pair at one position. Crank 1, connecting rod 3, the block sliding on the frame's own line. 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: -0.1400 here, between rod · guide, upper. 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. What a joint is

The block in the guide has a length

A prismatic pair is a point constrained to a line, and a point on a line of length G has a stroke of G. A block of length ℓ has a stroke of G − ℓ, because both its ends have to stay on the rails — so a guide is as long as the stroke plus the block, and a third of a short one is not stroke at all.

 The free configurations, with joint limits. Every point is a pair of joint angles for a two-link arm; the pale region is the configurations at which neither link touches an obstacle, and the dark one is where something is in the way. The free space is in 2 pieces. The arm's joints cannot turn all the way round, so the edges of the square are edges — and now the barrier separates. The two crosses put the tool at exactly the same point, and the arm cannot get from one to the other at all. One path to the tool

The space of configurations

A two-joint arm's configurations are a torus, and drawing one on a page turns it into a square whose opposite edges are secretly the same line. Count the free space on the square and get three pieces; count it on the torus and get one. Eighty single-obstacle arrangements were tried and not one of them cut the torus in two — what does that is a pair of hard stops.

 Where the pad touches, and the rule that fixes it. The contact point's travel across the valve tip through one cam event, for a rocker squared up with the valve shut and for the same rocker squared up at mid-lift. The first wipes 1.35 mm and the second 0.34 mm — a factor of 4.0 for a shim under a stud. The rule an engine builder is taught is that the geometry is symmetric about wherever it is set square, so setting it square at rest puts the entire lift on one side of the symmetry. It is folklore that turns out to be geometry, and the same shim brings the peak lift back to 12.84 mm against 12.78. Machines you have met

Where the pad touches

A rocker's pad slides 1.35 mm across the valve tip through one cam event when the geometry is squared up with the valve shut, and 0.34 mm when it is squared up at mid-lift. The engine builder's rule about shimming a rocker stud is folklore that turns out to be geometry, and the same shim brings the peak lift back to what the ratio promised.

 A calibration that improves the machine and reports the wrong one. The truth's tracing point is 0.198 units from where the model says it is, and the model has only four lengths with which to say so. Fitted over half a turn, it reduces the error there by a factor of 33 and over the other half by a factor of 21, so every practical test says the calibration worked. It got there by moving the rocker by -0.2474 — 8.2% — and the coupler by -0.0317. The residual it cannot drive away, 4.18e-3, is the only signal that anything is missing, and it is the signal a practitioner is most likely to read as instrument noise. Numbers that were measured

A parameter the model has not got

The machine's tracing point is 0.198 units from where the model says it is, and the model has only four lengths with which to say so. It absorbs the discrepancy: the error over the measured half-turn falls by a factor of thirty-three, the error over the other half falls by twenty-one, and the rocker comes back eight per cent short.

 A one-way clutch with no teeth in it. A bore of radius 20 with a 5-sided star inside it, each face a flat at 16.7 from the axis, and a roller of radius 1.6 in each wedge. The gap between a flat and the bore is widest at the middle of the flat and narrows towards its ends, so a roller rolled towards an end is nipped. Left: every roller at rest, 5.60° from its flat's own perpendicular, with 0.02 of clearance still in the gap. Right: every roller at its seat, 6.25° along, with the gap equal to the roller's diameter. Getting from one to the other takes 1.449° of the star, and that is the mechanism's lost motion. Motion that stops

A ratchet with no teeth

A roller clutch holds one way and runs free the other with nothing on it a tooth could be called. Whether it grips is a question about friction, which no drawing settles. How far it moves before it does is geometry: a clearance divided by the gap's own slope, so its lost motion is a length rather than a fraction of a pitch — 1.4° against a 24-tooth ratchet's 15° — and unlike a ratchet's it is not divided by adding more holding elements.

 The two curves the pole rolls along, at 60°. The pole is a different point at every instant, and it traces one curve in the fixed plane and another in the moving one. Those are the centrodes, and the whole motion is the second rolling without slipping on the first — a statement with no mechanism in it, which is why two completely different linkages with the same centrodes produce the same motion. The moving centrode is drawn here in the position it occupies at this instant, and it touches the fixed one at the pole to 0.0e+0 of a unit. positioned by solving, not by drawing. The motion, not the mechanism

The linkage, put back from two curves

This field opened by saying the mechanism drops out, and that every planar motion is one curve rolling on another. Both are true and neither had been measured. The rolling reproduces the four-bar's own placement to a residual that quarters when the sampling halves, and the two curves lay equal arc to a part in a billion.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 Three joints, and the three screws that describe them. A leg of three revolute joints, drawn as its three axes, and the principal screws of the three-system they span, drawn through the system's own centre. The three principal axes are mutually perpendicular — worst cosine 1.1e-16 — and they meet at one point, missing it by 2.6e-16. Their pitches are -0.3766, -0.0338, 0.8075, and every screw the leg leaves free has a pitch the three of them give by h₁l² + h₂m² + h₃n². Nothing in the three joint axes looks like a right angle and the system's own frame is one. Out of the plane

What a leg of three joints leaves free

Five essays of this field have computed the order of a screw system and drawn none of them. A three-joint leg spans a three-system; its three principal axes are mutually perpendicular and meet at a point, six numbers price every screw in the family, and the directions of the lines it contains form a cone.

 The body points whose three images are in a line. The three prescribed poses, faint, and a curve through them. At every point of a 110×110 grid over the moving body, the point is placed in all three poses and the signed height of its image triangle is measured; the curve is where that length is zero. Those are the points whose three images lie on a line, so the dyad they want is a slide rather than a crank. The curve is a circle. Refined onto the contour, its points lie on the circle through the three image poles to 2e-15, where the pole triangle's own circle misses them by up to 1.98. Its radius is 8.767, so inside a window three units across it reads as a gentle arc; 2 of the three image poles are in the frame and the third, P₁₃, is 6.8 units away. The problem backwards

Where a pin becomes a slide

Three-position synthesis gives every point of the moving body a fixed pivot, except the points whose three images fall in a line. Those want a slide, and they are not scattered: they lie on one circle, the circle through the three image poles, which a single line of algebra predicts and a contour of a measured length draws to 10⁻¹⁵.

 One set of lengths, two machines. Three measured input–output pairs, marked, and the linkage Freudenstein's relation returns from them — which is the truth's four lengths to fourteen figures. The relation is a statement about the two angles and it holds on both assembly branches, because it was derived by squaring and that is the step that forgets which one the mechanism is on. So the identified linkage assembled the way the data was taken passes through every reading, to 2.53e-14 radians, and assembled the other way misses them by up to 268° — at the first precision point it reads -111.6° where 98.8° was wanted. That is not a near miss and not a failure either. It is the other answer. Numbers that were measured

One set of lengths, two machines

Three measured input–output pairs return a four-bar's four lengths to fourteen figures. Assembled the way the data was taken, that linkage reproduces every reading to 2.5 × 10⁻¹⁴ radians. Assembled the other way — which the same four lengths permit — it misses them by 268°, and no equation in the identification knows the difference.

 Two cones, 20 teeth and 40, at 90°. The axial section, which is where every bevel quantity is read. Two cones share an apex and roll on one another along the element drawn heavy; their half-angles are 26.57° and 63.43°, adding to the shaft angle, and the ratio of their sines is the tooth-count ratio exactly. The dashed arc is the sphere of radius 22.36 on which a bevel tooth's profile actually lies. The two short lines perpendicular to the common element are the back cones; each is heading for its own axis at a distance r/cos δ from the pitch circle — 11.18 and 44.72 — and that distance is the pitch radius of the spur gear the tooth is really cut to. Both back cones lie on one line, because there is only one perpendicular to the pitch element at that point, and the two heavy stubs straddling it are the two teeth — each one addendum out from the pitch circle and 1.25 in. Teeth

A tooth that lives on a sphere

Every tooth in this field so far has been a curve in a plane, forced by the law of gearing and exact. A bevel tooth's profile lies on a sphere, no piece of a sphere flattens without stretching, and so the shape a bevel gear is actually cut to is an approximation — the only one in the field.

 36% shared, and they never touch. The region left arm visits over a whole drive, the region right arm visits, and — in the third colour — the part of the plane both of them visit. The shared area is 4.652 square units, 35.9 per cent of the smaller of the two regions. The two parts are drawn at the configuration where they come closest, and at that configuration the gap between them is 0.3799 — more than twice a link's width, and positive everywhere else on the drive. A test that asks whether the regions intersect has reported a collision between two parts that are never in the same place at the same time. Links with a width

The regions overlap and the parts never meet

A swept region is a projection along time, and a projection cannot be undone. Chebyshev's two arms share thirty-six per cent of the ground the smaller of them covers and never come within twice a link's width of each other — a false alarm the region test cannot avoid, and one it cannot make at all against anything that stands still.

 What a leg of three joints permits and what it resists, on one frame. The leg of three revolute joints in grey, and the principal screws of two three-systems drawn through one centre: the twists the leg lets its platform make, and the wrenches it holds without any joint turning. They are computed separately — the second is the reciprocal complement of the first, found by its own eigenproblem — and they come out with the same centre, 5e-16 apart, and the same three axes, parallel to 0e+0. Only the pitches differ, and each wrench pitch is its twist's with the sign reversed, to 1e-15: -0.3766 against 0.3766, -0.0338 against 0.0338, 0.8075 against -0.8075. Out of the plane

The lines a leg turns about and the lines it is pushed along

A leg of three revolute joints permits a three-system of motions and resists a three-system of loads. The two share a centre and three axes and differ only in the sign of every pitch — and the revolute axes of the first and the lines of force of the second are the two rulings of one hyperboloid, every line of one meeting every line of the other.

 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. Many of one thing

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.

 Oldham's coupling: two slides between two offset shafts. An input hub on one axis and an output hub on a parallel axis 0.6 away, joined by a disc that slides in a slot across the input hub and carries a tongue across the output hub at 90° to the slot. At an input angle of 35° the disc has slid 0.491 along the slot and the output hub -0.344 along the tongue, and the output hub has turned through exactly the input's angle, because neither slide can change an orientation. The disc's centre, the dot, runs round the dashed circle of diameter 0.600 — the offset divided by sin 90° — and goes round it 2 times for each turn of the shafts. What a joint is

A coupling that only translates

A coupling between two parallel, offset shafts turns its output at exactly the input's speed when, and only when, the relative motion of its two hubs contains no rotation — when it lies in the translation group. Oldham's two slides give that group by construction and so do two equal parallel cranks; a four-bar that is not a parallelogram gives the whole planar group and its output wanders by more than a radian. And Oldham's right angle is not what makes the ratio one: it is what makes the slides slide least.

 A rectangular hyperbola, compiled from a multiple of its equation. The machine compiled from p · (1 + x² + y²) for a rectangular hyperbola, with the translators — the parallelograms that carry a direction from where it is produced to where it is needed — in their own colour. The factor 1 + x² + y² is at least one at every real point, so every equation here vanishes on exactly the same curve. The machines do not agree: 20 bars at p, 75 bars at p · (1 + x² + y²), 144 bars at p · (1 + x² + y²)². This one solves 29 positions over an arc of 0.508 radians, and at every one of them the original polynomial reads 4.93e-14. The curve as an equation

The price is on the equation

A line costs five bars. The same line, written as its own equation multiplied by a factor that is never zero, costs fifty — and the machine compiled from the longer equation draws the same line just as exactly. Every cost this field quotes belongs to a polynomial and not to a curve, and the cheapest equation of a given curve is a quantity nobody here has.

 The chains that never close, counted by the same routine. An open chain has one joint fewer than it has links, so its graph is a tree and its mobility is the joint count rather than one. Feeding the same enumerator that produced the closed-chain census — with the minimum-degree condition relaxed to one, because an arm's base and its end each carry a single joint — gives 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 23, 47, 106 for three links up to ten. That is the number of unlabelled trees, a sequence anybody can look up, and reproducing it is the strongest check the enumerator gets: it was written for a different problem, tested against three mechanism counts, and asked here for a number from a different subject entirely. One path to the tool

An arm is a tree

The serial field's chains are the ones that never close, and as graphs they are trees. There are 106 distinct arrangements of ten links joined that way, and exactly one of them is the straight arm every essay in the field has drawn — the other 105 branch.

 What a sweep at the wrong resolution reports. One machine — a crank passing a stud a tenth of a unit across — swept at six sample counts. At eight samples the smallest gap found is 0.0809 and the machine reads as clear; at twelve it is 0.0067 and still clear; from sixteen on it is negative and the crank is inside the stud by 0.0099. Nothing about the twelve-sample answer looks wrong: the curve it draws is smooth, its minimum is interior, its margin is small and positive. A sweep cannot report what it did not look at, and the repair is not more samples but a bound on what happens between them. Drawn wrongly

Six things a body is not

A verdict read as a measurement, a hull read as a part, a sweep read as a proof, a drawing read as a configuration, a geometry read as a force, and a plane read as a place. Six claims, each of them what a careful person would say, each answered with a number.

 Holding the coupler still: the frame's inflection circle is the mirror of the coupler's. The four-bar with ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5 and rocker 3 at a crank angle of 225°, redrawn in the coupler's own frame, so the coupler is the horizontal bar and the ground link is what moves. The circle on one side of the pole is the ordinary inflection circle — coupler points travelling straight — carried into this frame. The circle on the other side is the inverse motion's: frame points travelling straight when the coupler is held. It is computed by differentiating the swap and, separately, by solving the coupler-held four-bar, and both routes put it at the first circle reflected through the pole, to 7e-15 on a radius of 4.45. The line through the pole is the common tangent. Dragging the crank angle moves both circles and they stay mirror images. The motion, not the mechanism

The frame seen from the coupler

Hold a four-bar's coupler still and let its frame move, and every construction of the curvature field has a counterpart. The frame's points that travel straight lie on the ordinary inflection circle reflected through the pole — found by differentiating the swap and, independently, by solving the coupler-held four-bar, both to 10⁻¹⁴ — and a point and the centre of curvature of its path trade places exactly. The inverse motion of one four-bar is the ordinary motion of another.

 The disc, the wheel, and what has to be cut out of it. A 6-slot Geneva at 0° of driver, with the driver's locking disc of radius 27.0 drawn about its axis and the wheel drawn as the material it actually has — inside its rim, outside the 6 concave locking arcs cut into it, and clear of the 6 slots. The disc and the wheel share the region near the line of centres, so the disc has to be cut away wherever the wheel is ever there while the pin is driving. Swept over the whole index that cut-away spans 236.3°, against an index sweep of 120° — it is wider, because the rim is still swinging through the disc's circle after the pin has left the slot. Motion that stops

The disc decides the pin count

A Geneva's pin count is usually bounded by the slots: p indexes must not overlap, so fewer than 2n/(n−2) pins fit. The other half of the mechanism has its own inequality and nobody had measured it. The locking disc must be cut away wherever the wheel passes through it, that cut-away is wider than the index sweep at every slot count, and it is the binding condition everywhere — one pin only, from four slots upward.

 Where a tilted platform is still singular. A slice of the workspace at height 2.4, at the dead yaw and 3° of tilt, with each position shaded by how well the platform is held there — dark where the six legs are nearly dependent and pale where they are not. Level, this whole square would be uniformly dark. Tilted, the dark places are a curve through it, which is what an ordinary direct singularity looks like on a slice. Driving a search downhill from forty-eight starts reaches a smallest singular value of 0.00e+0, so the locus is a singularity rather than a shallow valley. Several legs, one platform

Tilted, near the dead yaw

A paired Gough platform held level is singular at one yaw wherever it stands. Tilt it and that stops being true — the six moments are no longer equal and the home position is held. It is a poor rescue: the rise is quadratic in the tilt, so a degree buys a sixty-fourth of what eight degrees buys, and what the tilt actually does is not remove the singularity but turn it into a surface through the workspace.

 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. One path to the tool

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.

 The joint space an arm's own material forbids. A three-link planar arm, at every pair of relative joint angles on a 101 × 101 grid, with the pairs at which its first and third links are inside each other shaded. It is 21.4% of the arm's own joint space, and it is a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional space because the first joint does not enter it: turning the whole arm about its base carries every link with it, so a collision at one base angle is a collision at all of them — checked at forty pairs of relative angles with 0 disagreements. Only the first and third links can meet; consecutive links share a pin and are excluded, exactly as in the closed-loop machines. One path to the tool

The arm that hits itself

A three-link arm's joint space is a cube of angles and it may not use a fifth of it, because its own material is in the way. The forbidden set does not depend on where the arm is pointing — which is why it can be drawn as a picture rather than described as a volume.

 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. As built

Where the boundary moved

Three phases ago this site drew a line around what it computes and listed one thing on the far side as a gap rather than a boundary: interference between links, which needed no new physics, only a body and a test. Here is what that turned out to cost and what it turned out to open.

 The common normal, and where it is. Two joint axes 1.0 unit apart, nominally parallel, 0.50° apart in one plane and 0.05° in the other. The Denavit–Hartenberg convention takes all four of its numbers from the one line that meets both at right angles, and for these two axes that line crosses the first 11.3 units from the joint — off this page by a factor of about 11, which is why the tilt here is drawn at 26° and not at a fraction of one. Along it, the "link length" of a link 1.0 unit long reads 0.9950, and the angle round the first axis reads 5.71°. Nothing has moved by more than 0.50°. Numbers that were measured

The common normal, and where it is

The Denavit–Hartenberg convention reads all four of its numbers off one line: the common normal between two joint axes. Two parallel axes do not have one — every perpendicular meets both at right angles — and two nearly parallel axes have one that is somewhere else entirely.

 Six per joint is two too many. The number of parameters a serial chain's model carries, against the number of revolute joints. The upper bar of each pair counts six for every joint transform and six for each of the base and tool frames, which is what a reader expects; the lower bar is the number a measurement can distinguish. At 6 joints they are 48 and 30. The difference is not a saving, it is a warning: a model with 48 parameters fitted to any amount of data has an 18-dimensional set of exactly equivalent answers, so the fit returns whichever one the damping happens to prefer and every one of its numbers is arbitrary. Four per revolute because a rotation about the joint's own axis changes nothing and a translation along it is the joint variable; six rather than twelve for the two frames for the same reason, one level out. Numbers that were measured

Six per joint is two too many

A joint transform is six numbers, and a six-joint arm with a base and tool frame is forty-eight. A measurement can distinguish thirty. The difference is not a saving — it is an eighteen-dimensional set of exactly equivalent answers, and a fit returns whichever member of it the damping prefers.

 The identification Jacobian of a four-bar, read by coordinate machine. One row for every number the instrument reads and one column for every parameter that might be wrong. Each cell is the derivative of that reading with respect to that parameter, drawn to the right of its centre line when positive and to the left when negative, with the largest entry in the whole matrix at 3.14e+0. 24 rows against 6 columns: far more equations than unknowns, which is what makes an identification a least-squares problem rather than a solve, and what makes the question of which combinations of columns cancel a real one. These are the same derivatives the tolerance field computes one at a time — the same matrix read down instead of across. Numbers that were measured

What a model is allowed to change

Before a calibration runs, somebody decides which numbers it may move. Leave one out and the fit absorbs it into the others; put one in that the instrument cannot see and the fit returns whatever the damping preferred. Both decisions are made before any measurement, both are checkable in advance, and neither is usually checked.

 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. Numbers that were measured

What this field cannot measure

Every field on this site has a boundary and this one has three: a direction the readings cannot span, an alternative no derivative detects, and a model nobody thought of. The first is computable exactly, the second needs a search, and the third is not detectable from data by any method at all.

All themes