Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Theme

The thread: Solved, not drawn, part 1 of 2

Every mechanism in these essays 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.

233 essays in 2 parts: part 1 · part 2

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 of this collection 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 collection 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 in these essays 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 in these essays 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 in these essays 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 in these essays 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 collection 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 calculation in these essays 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.

 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 in these essays 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.

 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 these essays refuse 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 solved here 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 that can be named.

 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 a machine has. 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 that is easy to make. 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 in a machine 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 the Jacobian these essays used had the wrong sign, from the first spatial essays 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 long-standing function that every spatial loop in these essays 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 the cam calculations here were 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 the synthesis essays 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 that number has been quoted 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 written for linkages applies to it unchanged, and a four-bar with play at each pin is a mechanism with eight links and eight joints. 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 the kinematics. 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 in these essays. 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.

233 essays in 2 parts: part 1 · part 2

All themes