Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Theme

The thread: Two routes to the same number

Mobility from Grübler's formula and mobility from the rank of the constraint Jacobian are computed independently and must agree. Where they disagree the formula is wrong and the mechanism is more interesting.
Seven arrangements, one routine, and the two that hold. Every row is the same three steps: write down one row per contact — the moment of its normal about the origin, then the normal itself — take the convex hull of those rows, and ask whether the origin is inside it. The parts differ, the numbers of contacts differ, and the routine does not. Two of the seven hold. The other five leave the part something, and the interesting column is what: four rays of rotation for the pinwheel, a translation straight out of the vee, and for the last two a whole line rather than any number of rays, which is what a rank below three means and is the case a reader has to be warned about. Note that the four contacts of the second row are the four of the first row, on the same four edges of the same square, at the same distance along each. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

A constraint that only pushes

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

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

A constraint that takes nothing away

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

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

A joint is a surface that slides on itself

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

 a crank rocker with a post: the closest pair at one position. The same four-bar with a post bolted to the frame, just clear of the coupler's path. Every joint is where the solver put it, exactly as in the linkage field; the material is the only thing added. The heavy segment joins the two closest points over every pair of parts that is tested — which excludes pairs sharing a pin, since their material surrounds that pin by construction — and its length is the gap: 0.2561 here, between rocker · post. A negative value is a penetration depth, the distance the pair would have to be moved apart, and it is drawn in the warning colour. Links with a width

A link that takes up room

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

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

A member with no length of its own

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

 Six assemblies, one routine, three disagreements and one accident. Every row is the same three steps: write down the constraint Jacobian, take its rank, and subtract it from the number of unknowns. The representations differ — bars between points, bodies joined by pins, panels joined by creases, one cell of a pattern that repeats for ever — and the routine does not. The counted column is the arithmetic on the numbers of bodies and joints; the measured column is the nullity of the matrix. They agree on the lazy tong and on the kagome cell and disagree on the other four, most sharply on the deployable ring, which the count declares immobile and which is sold as a mechanism that opens. The right-hand column is the reason: constraints that repeat what another constraint has already said, which the count has no way of seeing and the rank cannot help seeing. The fourth row is worth reading twice: the count says nothing can move and nothing can, so the two agree — and they agree for the wrong reason, because that pattern's flat state shows four freedoms and not one of them is a motion. Many of one thing

Many loops, one freedom

A scissor lift, a folded sheet and a deployable ring are one small unit repeated thirty times, and three things change at once: the count of bodies becomes a parameter, mobility becomes the rank of a matrix, and a unit that moves can be rigid the moment it is joined to another of itself.

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

Six freedoms, not three

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

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

The mechanism drops out

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

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

The mechanism is the graph

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

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

The mechanism that waits

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

 What each machine is sold with. Every mechanism in this field arrives with a number. The middle column is that number; the right-hand column is what the mechanism was measured to have, by the library named under the row. The coloured bar and the word under each machine are the verdict: exact means the mechanism has the number at every position, mean that it is the average of something that varies within every cycle, bounded that it is false by a stated and negligible amount, point that it is the value at one position, and quoted that the mechanism has no such quantity at all. Of the 14 rows, 6 are quoted and 3 are exact. Machines you have met

The number on the box

Fourteen machines, fourteen quoted numbers, and five different things a quoted number can be. Six of the fourteen name a quantity the mechanism does not have at all; three are exactly right, and all three of them are counts. The field is built on the difference.

 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.

 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.

 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 involute, unwound. Hold a string taut against a circle and unwind it: the end traces this curve. Two properties follow immediately and between them they are the whole of gear geometry. The string is always tangent to the base circle, and it is always perpendicular to the curve. So the normal to an involute at any point is a tangent to its base circle — measured on the generated points here, to 2.3e-5 — and when two involutes touch, the common normal is a line tangent to both base circles, which does not move as the gears turn. Teeth

Why a tooth is an involute

A gear tooth is not a shape anybody chose for its looks. It is what one requirement forces — that the ratio of the two shafts' speeds stays exactly constant while the contact point slides along the flank. Impose that and the curve is essentially determined.

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

A dimension is a measurement

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

 Peaucellier's cell: the closest pair at one position. Eight links, ten pins and an exact straight line — the site's densest planar loop. Every joint is where the solver put it, exactly as in the linkage field; the material is the only thing added. The heavy segment joins the two closest points over every pair of parts that is tested — which excludes pairs sharing a pin, since their material surrounds that pin by construction — and its length is the gap: 0.1983 here, between long arm A · crank. A negative value is a penetration depth, the distance the pair would have to be moved apart, and it is drawn in the warning colour. Links with a width

A gap is a number

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

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

A joint that works one way

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

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

A ratio is a null space

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

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

Any shape has a partner

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

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

A roller is not a slider

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

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

Counting and measuring mobility

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

 Two routes to the same number, along one sweep. The polynomial x^4 + 2x^2y^2 + y^4 − 1.2x^2 + 1.2y^2 evaluated at the tip of the arm as the second angle goes right round, by two routes that share nothing: once by putting the tip's coordinates into the polynomial, and once by adding up 5 cosines of whole-number combinations of the two angles. The two curves are drawn on top of each other and the worst gap between them is 8.9e-15. Where the line crosses zero is where the machine may stand: 2 crossings at this α, which is how many assemblies the compiled machine has at this driving angle. The curve as an equation

Every curve is a sum of cosines

Put the two angles of a two-link arm into any polynomial in x and y and what comes out is a constant plus a finite sum of cosines of whole-number combinations of them. Nine curves, three hundred random angle pairs each, and the two routes agree to 1.8 × 10⁻¹⁴.

 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.

 SCARA, as four numbers a joint. A Denavit–Hartenberg table describes each joint by the common perpendicular between its axis and the next one: how long it is, how much the axes twist across it, where along the first axis it meets, and at what angle. 3 of these 3 rows have no answer for the last two, because the axes they describe are parallel and two parallel lines have infinitely many common perpendiculars, all the same length, at every point along them. The arm is perfectly ordinary; it is the description that has run out. One path to the tool

Four numbers or a screw

An arm can be written down as four numbers a joint or as a line in space with a pitch on it. Both are minimal, both describe the same machine to the last bit, and one of them jumps by three hundred and fifty thousand when an axis is tilted by a millionth of a radian.

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

Grashof, predicted and then swept

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

 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.

 Same links, same pins, different chains. Watt chain on the left and Stephenson chain on the right. They have the same number of links, the same number of pins and the same assortment — 4×2 + 2×3 — so no count of anything can tell them apart. What differs is where the pins go: on the left the two ternary links share a pin, on the right they do not, and that single fact makes two mechanisms with different coupler curves, different numbers of inversions and different position problems. It is the smallest case in the subject of the thing this field exists to say: the arithmetic is a filter and the graph is the answer. The chain before the lengths

Same links, same pins, different machines

Watt's six-bar and Stephenson's have six links, seven pins, four binary links and two ternary ones. Every count anybody can make on them agrees. They are different chains, they give two mechanisms and three, and the difference is whether the two ternary links share a pin.

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

Six, and no others

Eleven surfaces were handed to the same computation and six groups came out. A cone, a torus and an ellipsoid of revolution give the same joint; a scalene ellipsoid gives none; and the list does not grow when more surfaces are added, because a surface's symmetry group has to leave a two-dimensional set alone and only six groups can.

 A universal joint at 40° input, shafts 25° apart. Two shafts meeting at 25°, joined by a cross whose two pins are at right angles to each other and each at right angles to the shaft it carries. That is the whole geometry, and everything else follows from it. This is a four-joint spatial loop with all four axes through one point: Kutzbach counts −2 and the screw system has rank 3, so it has one degree of freedom and turns. At this instant the output shaft is at 42.79° while the input is at 40°, and the output is turning 1.0124 times as fast — which is not 1, and never is except at the four points of each turn where the curves cross. Out of the plane

The joint that is not constant velocity

A universal joint is the spatial mechanism everybody has met and almost nobody has been told the truth about. Its output shaft runs fast, then slow, twice per revolution, and the amount depends only on the angle between the shafts — which is why cars have two of them and why the second one has to be fitted the right way round.

 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.

 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 each curve costs, in cosines. Every polynomial in the two arm angles is a constant plus a sum of terms A cos(mα + nβ + φ) with whole-number m and n, and the number of those terms is what a machine has to build. The count is not the degree and not the monomial count: a circle costs one term, a general line two, and a lemniscate — degree four — costs five, fewer than the cubic above it, because its symmetry cancels frequency pairs the cubic keeps. Each row's expansion was checked against a direct evaluation of its own polynomial at random angles, worst disagreement 1.8e-14. The curve as an equation

A circle costs one term

A line expands to two cosines, a circle to one, a general conic to six. A lemniscate is degree four and costs five; a general cubic is degree three and costs eight. What a curve costs is not its degree — it is how many frequency pairs its own symmetry fails to cancel.

 A dented shape, cut into 2 convex pieces. Ear clipping cuts the outline into triangles and Hertel–Mehlhorn then deletes every diagonal whose removal leaves both sides convex, which takes this crank to 2 pieces rather than the 4 the triangulation produced. The pieces tile the polygon to 1.8e-16 of its area, and — the part the areas cannot check — a point is inside the pieces exactly when it is inside the polygon, tested at 4,000 random points per shape with 0 disagreements. The gap between two parts is then the best answer over the pairs of pieces, which is why the decomposition has to be right rather than merely plausible. Links with a width

A shape with a dent in it

The separating-axis theorem is not approximately right about a non-convex shape; it is wrong, and it returns a confident number while being wrong. The repair is to cut the shape into convex pieces — and the shortcut everybody takes instead adds a hundred per cent more material.

 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.

 6 contacts, and the box lifts straight off. 3-2-1, six contacts. Each pad is a contact and each arrow the direction the box is free to move there — the inward normal, and the whole of what the contact contributes. The rank is 6, which is full: these 6 contacts are 6 independent constraints and a bilateral version of them would fix the box completely. The margin is nought, so the box is free to leave, and no amount of tightening the tolerances on where the pads are would change that. Rank and hold are different questions and this is the pair of pictures that separates them. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Four in the plane and seven in space

Six independent constraints fix a body in space and six contacts fix nothing, because d vectors can span d dimensions and can never positively span them. The minimum is one more than the dimension — and it is a floor rather than an answer: six contacts on a box held it in none of four thousand random arrangements and seven held it in twenty-one.

 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.

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

Six points and no more

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

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

The circle of points going straight

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

 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

The count cannot tell a pin from a slide

A revolute, a prismatic and a helical pair all take five freedoms away in space and leave one. Grübler adds the same number for each, the constraint rank measures the same number for each, and the three joints have nothing whatever in common — one sends a point round a circle, one along a line, and one along a helix at a rate the joint decides.

 The four lengths do not matter equally. Each length's average contribution to the output band, for a tolerance of ±0.01 on all four, averaged over the 48 crank positions the mechanism reaches. The coupler contributes 38% of the total and the rocker 11% — a factor of 3.4 between the ends of the ranking. A tolerance specified equally on all four therefore spends most of its cost buying accuracy the mechanism does not notice, which is what a sensitivity ranking is for. As built

The four lengths do not matter equally

Averaged over a whole turn, the coupler contributes 38% of a four-bar's output band and the rocker 11% — a factor of 3.4 between the ends of the ranking. A tolerance specified equally on all four therefore spends most of its money buying accuracy the mechanism cannot use, and the ranking that says so costs four linear solves.

 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.

 Three parallel bars, and a formula that says this cannot move. Five links and six pin joints, so Grübler's criterion gives 3(5−1) − 2(6) = 0 and calls it a structure. The Jacobian has rank 5 against 6 free coordinates, so it measures one degree of freedom — and the sweep assembles 59 of 60 positions, which settles the matter. The third bar removes no freedom because its constraint is already implied by the other two, and a formula that counts joints cannot notice that they happen to be parallel. Mechanisms of exactly this kind carry drafting machines, anglepoise lamps and locomotive coupling rods, where the redundant bar is there for load sharing and for keeping the linkage out of its change point. What can move

The mechanism Grübler says cannot move

Three parallel bars between two frames. Five links, six pins, and the criterion every engineering course teaches gives zero degrees of freedom — a structure. It is a mechanism, it is in drafting machines and locomotive coupling rods, and the formula cannot see why.

 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.

 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.

 Reachable, and dexterous. A 3-link planar arm with links 1.6, 1.2, 0.7. The outer region is everywhere the tool can be put: an annulus from 0.00 to 3.50. The inner region is everywhere it can be put at every tool angle — from 1.10 to 2.10, which is 26% of the area. Both are measured by counting cells on a 300 × 300 grid and both agree with the area computed from the radii to 0.09%, which is what makes the picture a measurement. One path to the tool

Where the hand can go

A robot is sold on its reach, which is one number and describes a sphere the arm touches at one posture. The set the tool can actually be put in is an annulus with a hole; the set it can be put in at every orientation is a quarter of that; and reordering the same three links leaves the first unchanged and destroys the second.

 Three machines a protractor cannot tell apart. The same four-bar at 0.60×, 1.00×, 1.50×, drawn one inside another at the same crank angle. Every one of them puts its output link at 102.914064°, and the three readings differ by 2.8e-14° — which is the solver's floor rather than a difference. A protractor on the output link is reading a function of the ratios of the lengths, so it is the same function for every member of this family, at every crank angle, exactly. Whatever such an instrument recovers, it is not the size of the machine. Numbers that were measured

The direction no protractor can see

A four-bar's output angle depends only on the ratios of its lengths. That is a sentence anybody would agree to, and it has a consequence with a number attached: the vector of the four lengths is annihilated by every row of the machine's own identification Jacobian, to 7.6 × 10⁻¹⁵, at every pose, for ever.

 The gap is a function, and it has corners. The smallest gap over every tested pair, at each of 360 solved positions of the crank. Two things are visible that a check at the ends could not report. The minimum, 0.1041, is in the middle of the travel and not at either end. And the curve has 4 corners, each one a change in which pair is closest — the colours — so the function is piecewise smooth rather than smooth, and its minimum is not where a derivative vanishes. Refining off the sample grid by golden section moves the answer by 1.4e-5, which is what a corner rather than a smooth minimum looks like. Links with a width

A gap with corners in it

The clearance between two parts is a function of the crank angle, and it is not a smooth one. It has a corner wherever the closest pair of features changes hands, so its minimum is not where a derivative vanishes and is not at either end of the travel.

 A tackle's ratio, differentiated rather than counted. Four parts of line between two blocks 260 mm apart, drawn as one strand over real sheaves. The ratio a tackle is sold with is the number of parts supporting the moving block, and it is the limit of the true velocity ratio rather than its value: the parts are not parallel, so each of them shortens by less than the lift. Differentiating the run's own length gives 3.9471 here, 1.32% short of 4, and the gap closes as the blocks separate. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

A ratio that is a derivative of a length

A tackle is sold by counting the parts of line holding the moving block: four parts, four to one. Differentiate the strand's own length instead and a four-part tackle gives 3.927 with its blocks 220 mm apart and 3.617 at 90 mm — and the integer it is named for is a limit it reaches nowhere.

 Sun 24, ring 72, planet 24. An epicyclic train has three shafts and one equation relating them, so fixing any one gives a different ratio from the same gears. With the ring held, a sun input turns the carrier at 1 + 72/24 = 4.000 to one. Willis's equation and the tabular superposition method are independent derivations and both are computed here; the site requires them to agree, because planetary ratios are the most commonly mis-stated numbers in mechanism work and the sign errors are notorious. Teeth

Epicyclic ratios, two ways

An epicyclic train has three shafts and one equation relating them, so fixing any one gives a different ratio from the same gears. The sign errors are notorious, so every ratio here is computed by Willis's equation and by the tabular method, and the two are required to agree.

 What a Simpson gearset can be made to do. Every distinct ratio the gearset offers, as a reduction. Each one is the same mechanism with one more constraint imposed — a brake holding a member to the case or a clutch locking two members together — and the input is a choice as well, which is why a four-speed needs an input clutch rather than four brakes. The shaded rows are the 4 a real transmission on this gearset is sold with; the rest are ratios the mechanism has and the gearbox does not buy the elements to reach. Every value is exact: the reductions are ratios of integers and are printed as such. More than one input

Holding a member chooses the ratio

A gearset offers a plane of motions and a shift element is one linear condition, so a gear is a line in that plane. Enumerate every brake and every clutch and a Ravigneaux's twenty-seven combinations collapse to seven ratios — eighteen of them being the same gear, because locking any two members at all locks the whole gearset solid. Neutral is not one of the seven, because neutral is not a gear.

 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.

 Different numbers of ternary links, and the same spectrum. Two of the 230 ten-link chains whose adjacency matrices have identical characteristic polynomials — identical in every one of the eleven coefficients — and which are not the same chain. They do not even share their assortment — 6×2 + 2×3 + 2×4 on the left and 4×2 + 6×3 on the right. Counting the ternary links tells them apart and the spectrum does not. That is worth pausing on: the spectrum is the more sophisticated invariant, it is the one that got written into the literature as a test, and here it is beaten by the first thing anybody would try. The polynomial both of them have is λ^10 − 13λ^8 + 52λ^6 − 4λ^5 − 76λ^4 + 8λ^3 + 32λ^2. The chain before the lengths

Right until the size nobody checked

The characteristic polynomial of a chain's adjacency matrix is a fingerprint that costs nothing and separates every six-link chain and every eight-link one. At ten links it fails on two pairs — and on one of them, counting the ternary links tells the two chains apart while the polynomial does not.

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

Six legs and a square root

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

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

The arc that is concentric with the pivot

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

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

The cam that cannot be cut

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

 The count that moves, and the one that does not. 676 sets of leg lengths for one 3-RPR platform, the third leg held at 2.2. Every one of them has exactly 6 complex solutions. The number that is real runs 0, 2 — 141 cells at 0, 535 cells at 2 — and that number is what a machine shop would call the assembly modes. How many answers

The count that does not move

A mechanism does not have a number of assembly modes. Its family has a complex solution count that never changes, and each member has a real count that does — 676 sets of leg lengths for one platform, all with six complex solutions, and nought, two or four of them real. The number a machine shop cares about is the one that is not a property of the machine.

 Six sizes, one freedom, and a count going the other way. Creases and constraints both grow as the square of the sheet's side, and they grow at different rates: two per panel against three per interior vertex. So the counted column runs (n − 1)(3 − n) and is positive at two, nought at three and increasingly negative after that, while the measured mobility is one on every row. The redundant column is the difference and it is exactly (n − 2)² — one at three, four at four, nine at five, thirty-six at eight. A twelve-by-twelve sheet of a hundred and forty-four panels is counted at minus ninety-nine and has a hundred repeated constraints, and it is the same mechanism as the smallest one on this table. Many of one thing

The freedom that survives repetition

A Miura sheet has one freedom at four panels and one at a hundred and forty-four, and the count runs the other way: plus one, then nought, then minus three, minus fifteen, minus ninety-nine. The gap between them is exactly (n − 2) squared, which is a hundred repeated constraints on a sheet with one degree of freedom.

 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.

 The contacts that fight each other — four-legs. With more contacts than freedoms, some weighted sum of the contact forces is zero: those contacts push against each other and not against the part. The weights are the left null space of the wrench matrix and they are drawn here. For four legs on a floor they come out as +−+− — the alternating sum — which is why a table rocks about a diagonal and never sideways, and why the gap under the fourth leg is δ₁ − δ₂ + δ₃ − δ₄ exactly. Machines you have met

The seventh contact

Add a contact to a part that is already exactly constrained and it adds no rank, so it constrains nothing — and it is the only contact in the set that can fail to touch. For four legs on a floor the combination that constrains nothing is the alternating sum of the four, which is why a table rocks about a diagonal and never sideways.

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

The solver was refusing a quarter of the sweep

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

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

The test is a program, not a rank

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

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

The tool is the definition

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

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

Three linkages, one curve

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

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

Twelve kinds of freedom

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

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

Two routes to a Jacobian

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

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

What each joint takes away

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

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

Where the coupler is turning

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

 Two ways of adding four tolerances. The output band from ±0.01 on each of four lengths, combined two ways. The upper curve is worst case — every error at its extreme and conspiring — and the lower is root-sum-square, which treats the four as independent random errors. RSS is smaller everywhere, by between 1.42 and 1.95, and with four contributions the most it can ever be is √4 = 2. That factor is not a saving found in the geometry; it is bought with the assumption that the four errors are independent, and one fixture that locates two of the holes takes it straight back. As built

Worst case and the square root

Four tolerances can be added as a straight sum or as a root-sum-square, and the second is smaller by between 1.42 and 1.96 through this linkage's cycle. The ceiling is √4 = 2 and no geometry can beat it. That factor is not found in the mechanism — it is bought entirely with an assumption of independence, and one fixture that locates two holes takes it straight back.

 The coordinates that do not move. Above: the four link lengths as the whole machine is scaled from 0.4× to 2.5×, four straight lines through the origin. Below: Freudenstein's K₁ = g/a, K₂ = g/c and K₃ = (g² + a² + c² − b²)/2ac over the same range, three horizontal lines whose total variation is 1.8e-15. Each of them is homogeneous of degree zero in the lengths, so the scale ray is a level set of all three at once — and the map from a four-bar's shape to its three K's is invertible, so they are not merely invariant but complete. The identifiable quotient of a four-bar's parameter space is three-dimensional, and this site has had its coordinates since its first essay on synthesis. Numbers that were measured

The coordinates the site already had

Three of a four-bar's four parameters are recoverable, so there are three recoverable quantities. They are Freudenstein's K's, which this site has used to design function generators for as long as it has synthesised anything — and the same 3 × 3 linear system, read backwards, identifies a machine from three measured angle pairs.

 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 often a set of screws is a group. Take a subspace of the twists at random and ask whether it is closed under the Lie bracket — whether doing two of its motions in one order and undoing them in the other leaves you inside it. Every one-dimensional subspace is, trivially and importantly: a single screw always generates a one-parameter subgroup, which is the same statement as every screw is a joint somebody could build. Above one dimension, not one of eighty thousand is a group, and every one of them generates the whole of the rigid displacements at the first bracket. So a mechanism whose motion lies inside a proper subgroup is not merely unusual; it is a coincidence of measure zero — and it is the coincidence every planar mechanism, every spherical one and every Sarrus linkage on this site is built on. What a joint is

Almost nothing is a group

Eighty thousand subspaces of the twists were drawn at random and closed under the Lie bracket. Above one dimension, not one of them was already closed, and every single one generated the whole of the rigid displacements at the first bracket. Two pins with parallel axes close at three; move one axis a hair and they close at six.

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

A profile is an envelope

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

 The bound that says the sweep missed nothing. Every corner of every body is an affine function of its link's two joints, so its speed is the same combination of the joint velocities the mechanism already solves for — and the largest corner speed anywhere on this drive is V = 1.255 per radian. A distance between point sets is 1-Lipschitz in those points, so from each sample the gap can fall no faster than V: the fine lines are those cones. Where two cones cross is the least the gap can be between the samples, and at 60 samples that is 0.0383 — positive, so nothing was missed. The same bound refuses the twelve-sample sweep of the stud machine, where the bound is -0.281. Links with a width

A sweep that missed nothing

A swept clearance check looks at finitely many positions of a machine that has infinitely many, and cannot report what it did not look at. Here is a twelve-sample sweep declaring a machine clear by 0.007 while it is 0.010 inside a stud — and the bound that refuses to certify it.

 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.

 What a Ravigneaux gearset can be made to do. Every distinct ratio the gearset offers, as a reduction. Each one is the same mechanism with one more constraint imposed — a brake holding a member to the case or a clutch locking two members together — and the input is a choice as well, which is why a four-speed needs an input clutch rather than four brakes. The shaded rows are the 5 a real transmission on this gearset is sold with; the rest are ratios the mechanism has and the gearbox does not buy the elements to reach. Every value is exact: the reductions are ratios of integers and are printed as such. More than one input

Four speeds from two numbers

A Ravigneaux gearset has five tooth counts and gives seven exact ratios. Two of the counts do not appear in any of them — the short planet is an idler and its size is free — and the remaining three enter only through two dimensionless numbers, so the whole shift ladder of a four-speed automatic is a function of ring-over-sun and ring-over-the-other-sun. A Simpson three-speed is a function of one number.

 11 teeth, cut with three different shifts. A 11-tooth gear cannot be cut with a standard rack without the cutter eating into the flank near the root — the tooth is undercut, and what it loses is exactly the part that does the work. The fix is to hold the cutter further out by a fraction x of the module. Here the threshold is x = 1 − z sin²α / 2 = 0.3566, measured rather than quoted: at 0.347 the gear still undercuts and at 0.3566 it does not. What the shift costs is at the other end of the tooth. The tip thickness falls from 0.606 to 0.240 of a module, and a tooth shifted far enough comes to a point and breaks — so the technique has a ceiling as well as a floor. Teeth

Moving the cutter out

A gear with too few teeth is undercut by the tool that generates it, and the fix is to hold the tool further out. What that does to the tooth is easy to say. What it does to the pair is not what most readers expect — the two gears no longer mesh at the centre distance the sum of their radii would give, and the pressure angle they run at is no longer the one they were cut with.

 The parking shuffle, three times over. Forward on left lock, forward on right lock, back on left lock, back on right lock — and repeat. The heading comes back to where it started and so does the position along the road, both exactly and at every leg length, because the four legs are a symmetric set. What is left is 255 mm of pure sideways translation per cycle at a leg of 0.80 m, which is exactly 4R sin(φ) tan(φ/2) with φ = s/R. Halve the leg and it quarters. Wheels, and where they may not go

Parking is an exponent

Four legs — forward on left lock, forward on right lock, back on left lock, back on right lock — return a car to its own heading and to its own place along the road, exactly, and move it sideways by 4R sin φ tan(φ/2). Halve the room and the gain quarters, so the number of shuffles goes up by four and the distance driven doubles.

 Where the output stops, and why the return is quicker. A crank-rocker's output reaches an extreme exactly when the crank and coupler line up — stretched out, so O₂ to B is 4.50, or folded back, so it is 2.50. Nothing about the rocker enters the condition, which is why the limits can be written down rather than searched for. Those two crank angles are 40.8° and 228.5°, so the crank spends 187.7° going one way and 172.3° coming back while the rocker covers the same 40.0° both times. The ratio is 1.0894 predicted and 1.0894 measured over 7200 swept positions — a shaper cuts on the slow stroke and returns on the fast one, and this number is what the proportions are chosen to get. Linkages

The return stroke is quicker

A crank-rocker's output stops at two definite places, and the crank angles at which it does are calculable without touching a solver. The interesting number is not where they are but how far apart — because the crank turns at a constant speed and the output covers the same swing twice in unequal times.

 The measurement every gear cut since 1900 is a consequence of. Take a pair that is conjugate at its design centre distance, move the shafts apart, and ask what shape the driven wheel would have to be for the ratio to hold. The involute wants the same shape at every distance — 2.91e-8 mm at two millimetres out, which is the comparison's own noise floor — because its shape is fixed by its base circle and the centre distance is not one of that circle's arguments. The cycloidal pair is conjugate at nought and wants a shape 6.71e-3 mm different at five hundredths of a millimetre out, because its describing circle has to roll between two pitch circles that are no longer touching. A bearing that wears, a housing bored a little wide, a case that warms up: all of them are this axis. The shape is the unknown

The shape that does not mind where the shafts are

Two tooth forms, both exactly conjugate, both in use for centuries. Move the shafts five hundredths of a millimetre apart and one of them wants a different shape and the other does not — and that single measurement is close to the whole reason every gear cut since about 1900 is an involute.

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

Twenty-eight, not forty

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

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

Every motion is a screw

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

 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.

 Three linkages, one polynomial. Roberts's theorem says three different four-bars draw the same coupler curve. Here each one is traced, and each trace is fitted separately for the sextic that vanishes on it — on a common normalisation, or the comparison would be between three polynomials in three coordinate systems. The twenty-eight coefficients agree across all three to 5.0e-7. The three traces are drawn on top of one another and the curve is the same object each time; the test shares nothing with the construction that produced the cognates, which is why it is a test. The paths points trace

Three linkages, one equation

Roberts's theorem says three different four-bars draw the same coupler curve. Fitted separately for the sextic that vanishes on each trace, on a common normalisation, the twenty-eight coefficients agree across all three to 5 × 10⁻⁷ — a test of the theorem that shares nothing with the construction the cognates came from.

 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.

 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.

 The roll centre through the travel — double wishbone. The roll centre is a construction: the instantaneous centre of the upright, joined to the contact patch, extended to the car's centreline. It is quoted as a height. Over 160 mm of travel it moves 54 mm — 52 mm to 106 mm — The number in a specification is the value at one position of a curve, and the curve is steeper than the thing it is a property of. Machines you have met

A roll centre is not a point

The roll centre is a construction on the instantaneous centre of the wheel's upright, and every step of it is exact. What it is not is a height: over eighty millimetres of bump and droop it moves 54 mm on a wishbone and 131 mm on a strut, and on the strut it goes below the road.

 Backlash is what the centre distance buys. A 20-and-40-tooth pair, module 1, run at centre distances either side of the one at which the two teeth exactly fill the circular pitch. Backlash is measured from the drawn tooth thicknesses — no involute equation appears in the calculation — and plotted against the textbook linearisation j = 2 Δa tan α_w. Left of zero the teeth interfere and the pair cannot be assembled at all. So backlash is not slop and it is not wear: it is a quantity a designer buys with a centre distance, and buying none of it means specifying a centre distance that has to be exact at every temperature. Teeth

Backlash is an allowance

A gear pair with no backlash cannot be run, and a pair with the wrong amount cannot be assembled. It is bought with a centre distance — 0.03 too far apart on a 30 mm centre buys 0.022 of it, which is a quarter of a degree at the pinion — and the textbook formula that says so is right about the slope and drifts 4.5% at a centre-distance error nobody would accept anyway.

 One chain, four mechanisms. The same four bars and the same four pins in every panel. What changes is which link is bolted to the bench, and that is not a property of the chain — it is a decision about where the bench is. The four mechanisms are crank rocker, double crank, crank rocker, double rocker: one input turns fully in some and rocks in others, and what each one is for is different. What cannot change is the shape of the closed loop, and the two diagonals measure that without reference to which link is held still: swept independently, all four visit the same locus of diagonal pairs to within 2.9e-3, half the sampling resolution. This is why the Whitworth quick-return and the oscillating-cylinder engine are not merely similar to a slider-crank; they are one. Linkages

One chain, four mechanisms

Which link of a four-bar is bolted to the bench is not a property of the chain. It is a decision about where the bench is, and making a different one gives a mechanism that looks and behaves completely differently while being, as a chain, the same object — which is why the Whitworth quick-return and the oscillating-cylinder engine are both a slider-crank.

 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.

 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.

 A lower bound that happened to be tight. The site's own Gough platform at its home pose. The search starts Newton from a spread of guesses and reports what it lands on: 16 from 400, 16 from 1200, 16 from 4000. Tracking every one of the 1458 Bézout paths says there are 28 poses in the complex numbers and 16 of them are real. The search was right. Nothing available to the search could have said so. How many answers

The search that was right

This site has reported sixteen assemblies for its Gough platform and labelled the number a lower bound found by search, everywhere it appears. Tracking every path says there are twenty-eight poses and sixteen of them are real. The lower bound was tight. Nothing available to the search could have said so, and a second method that was supposed to settle it turns out to have the same defect one level up.

 A four-bar that computes log₁₀. The output rocker's angle, mapped back into y, against the input crank's angle mapped back into x. The pale curve is log₁₀ x and the solid one is what the linkage does. They agree exactly at the 3 precision points and nowhere else; the largest disagreement over the range is 0.2232° of rocker, which is 7.47e-4 in y. The chebyshev spacing put the precision points at 1.0670, 1.5000, 1.9330. The problem backwards

Three problems called synthesis

Prescribing a path, prescribing a whole pose, and prescribing a relation between two angles are three different problems with three different counts, and the word synthesis covers all of them. The third has a property the others do not — eliminate the coupler angle and the design equation becomes linear, so a four-bar that computes a logarithm falls out of a 3 × 3 solve with no iteration at all.

 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.

 The five six-bar mechanisms, and there are only two chains. Two chains and five machines. Watt's chain has two orbits of links, so grounding it gives two mechanisms; Stephenson's has three. The frame is drawn dark in each. This is the whole of what "Watt I", "Watt II", "Stephenson I, II and III" name — not five linkages somebody invented, but two graphs and the five genuinely different links there are to bolt down. Anyone who has met the names as a list of five things has met the answer without the question, and the question is a count of orbits. The chain before the lengths

Which link to bolt down

A chain is not a machine until one of its links is held still, and which one is a decision. Two links give the same machine exactly when a relabelling of the whole chain carries one to the other — so the number of mechanisms a chain gives is a count of orbits, and the classical five six-bars and seventy-one eight-bars are that count.

 What another measurement is worth. The smallest singular value of the identification Jacobian — the observability of the worst-recovered parameter — against how many poses were measured. The lower curve takes poses evenly round the crank; the upper one chooses each next pose to make this number as large as it can. Both rise steeply and then flatten: the 13 evenly-spaced poses already give four fifths of what 20 give. Chosen poses reach at 4 what even spacing needs 5 to reach. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy — it is the information in a pose being a direction in a three-dimensional space, which a handful of well-spread poses already spans. Everything after that is averaging noise, which is a different gain and improves as the square root. Numbers that were measured

How many poses are enough

Three readings determine a four-bar's shape and the thousandth adds almost nothing. The rank is reached at three because there are three parameters, and everything after that is conditioning — which is a different quantity, improves for a different reason, and stops improving much sooner than anybody expects.

 Free to spin, and it cannot turn at all. An ellipse of semi-axes 1.4 and 0.9 inside four flat walls that touch it at the ends of its own axes. Every normal points at the centre, so every row's moment is nought and the four rows span two dimensions rather than three: the cone of permitted twists is the whole spin axis, a line through the origin, and the first-order answer is that the part is free to turn either way. Drag the angle and watch what happens. The ellipse's reach in the direction of the top and bottom walls is √(a²sin²θ + b²cos²θ), which is smallest at θ = 0 and grows from there, so any rotation whatever drives it into both of them — by 0.016 at this angle. A nullity is a candidate and not a motion, and this is the shape of case the fields before this one could not produce: not a mechanism at a singularity, but an ordinary part in an ordinary pocket. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Free to turn and unable to

An ellipse in a pocket the size of its own bounding box has four contacts whose rows span two dimensions, so the cone of permitted twists is a whole line and the first-order answer is that it spins both ways. It cannot turn by any amount whatever: the penetration grows as the square of the angle, with a fitted exponent of 1.9944, and a circle in the same pocket turns for ever.

 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.

 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.

 A colouring is not an assignment. A pin joining links in planes 1 and 3 has to pass through plane 2, and anything in plane 2 whose material covers that pin is pierced by it. That condition involves three links at once where a colouring's conditions involve two, and it is invisible to a colouring because permuting colours preserves a colouring and destroys betweenness. It does not change the number of planes on any machine here. What it removes is arrangements: of the 6 three-plane colourings of a crank rocker, 2 can be built, and of Peaucellier's 192 exactly 96 can. Links with a width

A plane is a colour

Assigning links to parallel planes so that no two conflicting parts share one is a graph colouring, and the answer for a four-bar is three. Then the pins have to get through, and the problem stops being a colouring: of the six proper three-plane colourings, two can be built.

 Four of the sixteen cannot be positioned without a solver. For every chain, every way of choosing a frame and a driven link pinned to it, and for each the decomposition into Assur groups. All dyads counts the choices whose groups are all two links — those are the mechanisms a draughtsman can position with a compass, two circles at a time. The last column is the one that matters: chains for which no choice of frame and input is all dyads, so every way of driving them leaves a group of four or more links that has to be solved as a single system. At eight links there are 4 of them and at ten there are 90. This site has run a Newton solve on every mechanism it has ever drawn, and it has always been possible to read that as convenience. On these it is not. The chain before the lengths

Eight ways to drive it, and one machine

Bolting a link down is half the decision; the other half is which link carries the input. A four-bar has eight frame-and-input pairs and exactly one of them is a distinct machine — and across the eight-link census 320 listed pairs collapse to 153.

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

Not unreachable, only expensive

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

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

One wheel on ice

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

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

Six bars, and what the extra dyad buys

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

 5 contacts, and 1 of them free not to touch. A hexagon on five contacts. Each contact is removed in turn and the hold recomputed; the ones drawn in the warning colour are those whose removal leaves the part still held, which is to say the ones that are constraining nothing the others were not already constraining. There is one here, and the margin without it is 0.091 — unchanged, to every figure. That is the unilateral form of what a redundant constraint costs, and it costs something different from the bilateral form: a redundant bilateral constraint has to be satisfied and cannot be, so it leaves a gap somewhere; a redundant contact is simply free not to touch, and whether it does is decided by errors nobody controls. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

The contact that is free not to touch

A hexagon on five contacts holds, and taking one of the five away leaves the margin at 0.0914 — unchanged, to every figure. That contact constrains nothing the others were not already constraining, and what it actually does is become the one member of the set that is free not to touch, with the decision made by errors nobody controls.

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

The machine, compiled

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

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

The formula is repaired by the thing it replaced

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

 The ring a count says cannot move. 8 pairs of angulated elements, each pair two mirror-image bent bars pinned at their kinks, with each pair joined to the next at two pins on a common radius. 16 bodies and 24 pins give Grübler's 3(n − 1) − 2j = 0: no freedom at all, a structure. The rank of the constraint Jacobian is 44 of 48, which leaves 4 — the three rigid motions of the whole ring and one deployment — and 4 constraints that repeat what the others have already said. The kink angle is not a style: it is 135.0000°, a half turn less the 45.0000° the ring subtends per pair, and any other value gives a ring that will not deploy. Inner radius 0.6876, outer 2.2688. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Many of one thing

The ring that closes at every size

Two bent bars pinned at their kinks hold the angle between their connection lines at 135.000000° whatever you do to them, and two straight ones hold it at nothing. That is the whole difference between a scissor chain that grows in a line and a ring of eight that opens and shuts — and the count says the ring cannot move.

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

The straightest point there is

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

 How far back the wheel is pushed. Recoil against the part of the pendulum's swing that happens after the tooth has landed. The arc cut concentric with the pallet arbor is the flat line on zero, and it is zero as a matter of arithmetic rather than of smallness: rotation about the arbor carries that arc into itself, so the tooth's resting place does not move and every sampled value is the same double. Every other face rises. The flat face with no draw at all is the interesting one — it starts at zero and curves, because it agrees with the arc to first order and not to second, which is precisely the amplitude sensitivity a deadbeat exists to remove. Motion that stops

The wheel that goes backwards

While a pendulum finishes its swing the escape wheel is doing something, and what it does is decided entirely by the shape of the face the tooth is resting on. An arc about the pallet arbor sends it nowhere — not nearly nowhere, the same double at every sample. A flat cut tangent to that arc is dead at exactly one point of itself, and it is the one point the tooth never rests on.

 What every pair of groups meets in. The intersection of two subgroups is always a subgroup — that needs no computation — and which one is the useful part. This is the design rule behind every parallel machine on this site: choose legs whose groups meet in the motion the platform is wanted to have, and it has that motion whatever the leg lengths are, with no synthesis and no tolerance. The row and column are built about different axes, at right angles, because an intersection is a statement about particular subgroups rather than about their kinds: two planar groups with the same normal meet in the whole of themselves, and two with different normals meet in a line. Several legs, one platform

Three legs and one plane

The parallel field argued that a platform stays flat from the structure of its legs, one leg at a time. The same fact is one line of linear algebra: each leg confines the platform to a group, the platform gets the intersection, and an intersection of groups is a group whatever the leg lengths are. The motion type is decided before a single dimension is chosen.

 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.

 Whose constraints stay put. The largest principal angle between a mechanism's screw system at the start of its motion and at each later position. The 3 mechanisms whose motion lies in a subgroup of the rigid displacements — planar, spherical, translational — never leave the same subspace, and read between 1.9e-6 and 3.0e-6 degrees, which is the precision of an arccosine near one rather than a movement. The paradoxical ones turn through 49° and 57°. Every curve runs over its own range of motion, because Bricard's linkage assembles over 120 degrees and a shared axis would hide it. Out of the plane

Two ways to be overconstrained

A planar four-bar and Bennett's four-bar report the same redundancy, the same rank and the same wrong count. One of them is overconstrained at every set of link lengths; the other at exactly one ratio and nowhere near it. The difference is not in any of the numbers so far — but it is measurable, and the measurement is an angle.

 Three singularities, and where each one is. The elbow singularity is at the edge of the workspace, where the arm is straight and cannot reach further — nothing is lost that could have been used. The shoulder singularity is where the two ways of facing the target merge, on a cylinder of radius 0.18 m about the base axis which is also the boundary of a hole the arm cannot reach into at all. The wrist singularity is the one that stops real machines: axes four and six in line, one rotation gone, in the middle of an ordinary working volume with nothing about the tool's position to suggest it. The rank falls by exactly one in all three — and what is lost differs. The elbow and the shoulder are constrained by a pure force, along the arm and across it; the wrist is constrained by a screw of pitch −0.629, which is a force and a couple together. Those are reciprocal screws rather than singular vectors, because a singular vector's direction depends on whether the arm was written in metres or millimetres and a screw does not. One path to the tool

Where the arm loses a direction

An arm has three singularities and they are three different events. Two of them are inside an ordinary working volume, all three drop the rank by exactly one, and what each one takes away is a screw — a pure force along the arm at the elbow, a pure force across it at the shoulder, and at the wrist a screw of pitch −0.629 that is a force and a couple together.

 The error between the precision points. chebyshev: worst 0.2232°, RMS 0.1475°; uniform: worst 0.3415°, RMS 0.2296°. The error is zero at each precision point by construction and nowhere else. chebyshev has the smallest maximum here, and which curve is best depends entirely on which measure is asked for. The problem backwards

Where the precision points go

A linkage that matches a function at three points is wrong between them, and where the three points are put decides how wrong. Chebyshev spacing cuts the worst error by a third against even spacing, for free — and the reason has nothing to do with mechanisms. It is a fact about a polynomial the linkage has never heard of.

 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.

 Six words, and the shortest of them. Every path a car that may not reverse and may not turn tighter than R can take between two placements is one of six shapes: three arcs, or two arcs with a straight between. All six are drawn; the shortest is LSR at 2.2557 R and the longest is RSR at 14.788 R. A numerical shooting solve that shares no line of code with the closed forms returns 2.2557 R, which agrees to 4e-16. Wheels, and where they may not go

A circle for the first millimetre

The shortest path for a car that may not reverse, from here to a point one millimetre to the side at the same heading, is 31.417 m for a five-metre turning radius. The shortest path to a point twenty metres to the side is 31.416 m. The cost of going sideways is not monotonic in how far sideways, and below a crossover at 2.956 R it is exactly 2πR + δ.

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

A rotor nobody drew

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

 Four joints that give a group, and four that do not. Two chains of four revolute-and-slide joints, each drawn at its home position with its joint axes dashed, and each with a cloud of the tool positions it reaches. The counts are identical: four joints, four freedoms, the same Jacobian rank everywhere off a singularity. On the left the three pins are parallel and the slide is along them, and the displacement set is the Schoenflies group — every translation and one rotation direction, four dimensions, closed. On the right the axes are at random and the set is four-dimensional too, and it is inside no group smaller than all the rigid displacements. The instrument is in the caption of each panel: take the logarithms of the displacements the chain reaches and count the dimensions they occupy. Four means a group. Six means there is nothing to be inside. What a joint is

Four joints that give a group, and four that do not

Two chains of four joints. Same joint types, same count, same mobility, same Jacobian rank, same everything this site has measured for twenty-two fields. One of them reaches a four-dimensional set of displacements that closes under composition; the other reaches a four-dimensional set whose logarithms fill all six dimensions. The difference is six hundredths of a radian in where two axes point.

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

Four positions brought together

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

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

Fragility has a direction

Tilt one axis of a Sarrus linkage out of true by a thousandth of a radian and it stops dead. Tilt the same axis of the same mechanism by two hundred times as much, in the other direction, and it drives through a full turn with nothing measurably wrong. Three orders of magnitude between two errors of the same size — and the direction that matters is the one the reciprocal screw system names.

 Free in every direction, and it cannot get out. A disc of radius 1 among 3 point obstacles on a circle of radius 1.100. The shaded discs are the obstacles grown by the part's own radius, which is what the part's centre may not enter — the configuration space, and for a round part it is the plane itself. The part is caged when those grown discs overlap enough to close a ring around it, which happens below R = 1/sin(π/3) = 1.154701, and here it does. At every configuration inside the cage the part is free. The three normals all point at its centre, the rank of its rows is two, the escape cone is a whole line, and none of that has anything to do with whether it can leave. A hold is a statement about velocities at one configuration; a cage is a statement about where a finite motion can go, and the second does not follow from the first in either direction. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Free at every instant and going nowhere

Three points on a circle of 1.1 radii around a unit disc leave it free in every direction at every configuration — rank two, margin nought, the whole plane of centres shaded — and it cannot get out. The threshold is 1/sin(π/n), which is 1.154701 for three, and a flood fill of the free space agrees with the formula at every radius sampled.

 A spherical four-bar: 90°, 40°, 100°, 80°. Four revolute axes, all through one point, so the linkage lives on a sphere. Its link "lengths" are the angles between consecutive axes — 90°, 40°, 100°, 80° — and the arcs drawn between the axis directions measure 40.00°, 100.00°, 80.00°, 90.00°. The whole planar four-bar theory carries over with sines where lengths were, including Grashof's condition: sorted, the arcs give s + l = 140° against p + q = 170°, so the shortest arc does turn all the way round — and swept, the input reaches 36 of 36 positions over a driveable range of 360°. This is the mechanism a universal joint is a special case of, with two of the four arcs at 90°. Out of the plane

When the link lengths are angles

Put every axis of a four-bar through one point and the mechanism lives on a sphere. Its bars become arcs, its lengths become angles, and every planar result carries over with a sine where a length used to be — including Grashof's condition, which still predicts exactly which link goes all the way round.

 The network where counting works. 5 scissor units, each two bars pinned at their middles, with consecutive units sharing their end pins. Sixteen bodies and twenty-two pins at eight units, and Grübler's 3(n − 1) − 2j gives 4 — three rigid motions and one internal freedom — against a measured nullity of 4 and no redundant constraints at all. That holds at one unit and at sixteen. The tong is here to make the field's point in the direction nobody expects it: a network is not a place where counting fails, it is a place where counting stops being checkable by hand, and one of the two assemblies that spans this plate is counted perfectly. Span 8.1388 mm at this opening, which is 5 times one unit's 1.6278. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Many of one thing

One input at one end

A lazy tong's reach is 2nL cos θ — exactly, to a part in a million million, over eight sizes and sixty openings — so it multiplies its input by the number of units. It multiplies everything else by the same number, including the part of the drawing nobody wanted multiplied: a unit cut a hundredth of a radian out puts a tong of thirty-two units 0.374 out at the far end.

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

Six things a centre is not

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

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

The angle that holds the lock

A locking face cut exactly concentric with the pallet arbor has no tendency to hold itself: the tooth's push aims straight at the pivot and its moment is zero, so the smallest disturbance opens the lock. Tilt the face and the moment becomes ρ sin δ — and the same tilt, by virtual work, is exactly the rate at which the wheel is driven backwards. Draw and recoil are one angle read twice.

 The error between the precision points. chebyshev: worst 0.2232°, RMS 0.1475°; least-squares: worst 0.3900°, RMS 0.1203°; minimax: worst 0.2105°, RMS 0.1463°. The error is zero at each precision point by construction and nowhere else. minimax has the smallest maximum here, and which curve is best depends entirely on which measure is asked for. The problem backwards

The linkage that is only nearly right

Stop demanding that a linkage pass exactly through three points, and ask instead that it be close everywhere. Three linkages result, none of them passing exactly through anything, and each is the best by a different measure — the least-squares fit beats the interpolant on average error and loses to it on the worst case. An optimiser gives exactly what it was asked for and nothing else.

 The radius a winch works at is not a property of the winch. A drum of core radius 30 mm filling with line 6 mm thick, one layer at a time. Line speed per turn is 2πr, and r is the radius of the layer being wound rather than anything about the machine: it runs from 207.35 mm on the first layer to 395.84 mm on the 6th, a factor of 1.909. A winch quoted at one speed is quoted at one layer, and which one is rarely said. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

The radius a winch works at

Line speed per turn is 2πr, and r is not a property of the winch. It is the radius of whichever layer is being wound, so a six-layer drum runs from 207.35 mm per turn to 395.84 — a factor of 1.909 with nothing about the machine changed, and a length that is quadratic in the turns rather than proportional to them.

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

The room a machine sweeps

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

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

What has to be solved together

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

 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

A lift is a size and a law is a shape

A cam's motion law is a dimensionless function of a dimensionless argument, so everything the cam field says about laws — which has the least acceleration, which has an impulsive jerk, which one costs least — transfers between cams of any size. What does not transfer is anything with the lift or the base circle in it.

 What a platform's own sensors settle. One three-legged platform, measured at 75 poses, with three different sets of sensors on it. Reading every joint angle determines 12 of the 15 numbers that describe the machine and leaves three undetermined, and one of the three is the scaling of the whole machine — every reading is dimensionless, so multiplying every length by a constant changes nothing any sensor sees. Laying a rule across two base pivots once recovers exactly one more, and the one it recovers is the size. Legs that report their own extension need no rule: a reading with a length in it breaks the scaling direction outright, and 7 of 9 come back. What none of the three determines is where the frame's origin sits, which is a convention rather than a defect. Several legs, one platform

A platform that measures itself

A three-legged platform with every joint read can be calibrated from its own sensors with no instrument in the room. Left to itself it shrinks the machine to a fiftieth of a per cent of its size — and reports a residual five orders smaller than the right answer's for doing it.

 What another measurement is worth. The smallest singular value of the identification Jacobian — the observability of the worst-recovered parameter — against how many poses were measured. The lower curve takes poses evenly round the crank; the upper one chooses each next pose to make this number as large as it can. Both rise steeply and then flatten: the 13 evenly-spaced poses already give four fifths of what 20 give. Chosen poses reach at 4 what even spacing needs 5 to reach. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy — it is the information in a pose being a direction in a three-dimensional space, which a handful of well-spread poses already spans. Everything after that is averaging noise, which is a different gain and improves as the square root. Numbers that were measured

What another measurement is worth

The observability of a four-bar's worst-recovered parameter goes 0.118, 0.162, 0.188, 0.208 — and then keeps going up by less and less until adding a pose changes the fourth decimal place. The flattening is not diminishing returns on accuracy. It is a space of fixed dimension being filled.

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

The count that counts the wrong thing

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

 What degree a coupler curve actually is. A four-bar's coupler point traced at 602 solved positions, then asked which polynomials vanish on those points. For each degree the design matrix's smallest singular direction is taken and its worst residual plotted. Degrees four and five leave nothing near zero; degree six drops by ten decades and degree seven buys nothing further. The textbook sentence — a coupler curve is a sextic — comes back as a measurement, and the decision is made by the gap between the smallest singular value and the next, which here is a factor of 2.8e+3 — at 15, 21, 28 and 36 monomials respectively. How many answers

The equation a four-bar satisfies

Every textbook says a coupler curve is a sextic. Traced at six hundred solved positions and fitted at degrees four through seven, the answer comes back as a measurement: nothing vanishes below six, degree six drops by ten decades, and degree seven buys nothing — with the decision made by a gap of 2.8 × 10³ rather than by a residual.

 404 ways to gear 60 to 1. Each dot is a pair of wheels and a pair of pinions whose ratios multiply to exactly 60, with wheels of 40 to 120 teeth and pinions of 6 to 16 leaves. The line is the hyperbola every exact answer must lie on; the dots are the ones that lie on it at whole numbers of teeth, and there are 404 of them. In a single pair there are 0 — a ratio of sixty needs a wheel of 360 teeth against a pinion of six, and nobody cuts that. Exactness is decided in integers here and never by comparing floating-point ratios, which is the one way a search like this quietly returns answers that are merely close. Teeth

A clock is a factorisation

A going train's job is a ratio and its parts are tooth counts, so whether a clock can be built is whether a number factorises inside the counts a wheel-cutting engine will cut. Sixty has 404 answers in two pairs and none at all in one. The ratio between a sidereal day and a mean one has none in any number of pairs, and the best two-pair train is out by a sixth of a second a day.

 One planet shaft, two centre distances. A compound epicyclic gets its enormous reduction from two meshes whose tooth counts are nearly in the same proportion. The two planet gears are on one shaft, so their axes are at one radius — and at a common module the two rings ask for radii that differ by 0.50 of a tooth. The exactness the reduction is famous for is bought with a pair of meshes running away from the centre distance they were cut at, and the difference is made up by profile shift — the same correction the teeth field applies for a different reason. It is not a rounding: it is the mechanism's own condition, and it is the reason a catalogue reduction of this kind comes in a short list of tooth counts rather than in any combination. More than one input

A hundred to one from a difference of one

A harmonic drive reduces by a hundred to one in a single stage with two gears in it, and the hundred is the flexspline's tooth count divided by the two teeth the circular spline has more than it. The same null space that answers a planetary answers it. What each of the three single-stage reductions pays for that arithmetic is different, and the compound epicyclic's price is a pair of meshes whose centre distances differ by half a tooth.

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

Detached, and safe while detached

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

 The smallest mechanism that is not one. Two bars from a free joint to two pinned ones, with the three points in line. The constraint matrix has two rows and two columns, both rows are horizontal, and its rank is 1: one freedom left over, pointing straight up, and one dependency among the two bars. Move the joint up and neither bar changes length to first order, which is what the freedom says. To second order both bars get longer, by the same amount and in the same direction, and there is nothing to trade off against — which is what the dependency says. The obstruction is the dependency applied to the second-order stretch and comes to 1.414214; anything but nought there and the freedom is not the beginning of a motion. Lifted by 0.34 the bars are 0.05622 longer, which is the whole argument drawn to scale. Many of one thing

It moves to first order and not at all

Two bars from one joint to two pinned ones, all three in line: the rank leaves a freedom pointing straight up, and lifting the joint stretches both bars. The obstruction is 1.414214, the walk travels a millionth of what it is asked to, and how far it gets is a property of the tolerance rather than of the mechanism.

 What every pair of groups meets in. The intersection of two subgroups is always a subgroup — that needs no computation — and which one is the useful part. This is the design rule behind every parallel machine on this site: choose legs whose groups meet in the motion the platform is wanted to have, and it has that motion whatever the leg lengths are, with no synthesis and no tolerance. The row and column are built about different axes, at right angles, because an intersection is a statement about particular subgroups rather than about their kinds: two planar groups with the same normal meet in the whole of themselves, and two with different normals meet in a line. What a joint is

Legs intersect

A serial chain multiplies its joints' groups and the product is almost never a group. A parallel machine's platform gets the intersection of what its legs permit — and an intersection of groups is a group, always, with no coincidence required. That is the only construction in this field that produces closure for free, and it is why a platform can be designed for a motion type instead of discovered to have one.

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

Six things a shape is not

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

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

The ball that remembers where it has been

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

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

The count was right and the name was wrong

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

 Three shortest paths. The tool's route between the same two poses, under three interpolations. The straight one is position interpolated along a line with the rotation carried separately, which is what most controllers do. The screw path is the single turn about a single axis that Chasles's theorem says takes any pose to any other — the only one of the three that mentions no coordinate system — and it is 18.0% longer. The joint-space path is what the arm does when nobody asks for anything in particular, and it is 26.8% longer again. The screw axis itself is drawn: pitch -0.096 m per radian. One path to the tool

The distance between two poses

Ask an arm to take the shortest route between two poses and three reasonable definitions give three different paths, of lengths 1.223, 1.443 and 1.550 metres. The disagreement is not numerical. There is no distance between two rigid poses until somebody chooses a length to measure a radian in, and on this arm the choice changes which of two poses is nearer at 74.5 millimetres.

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

The hole the machine needs

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

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

Three chambers and a constant

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

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

Where a curve has a corner

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

 Four indices, four answers. Four of the five observability indices in use, each divided by its own value at 18 poses so their shapes can be compared: their absolute sizes differ by ten orders and a shared axis would draw three flat lines. They are five different questions about one list of singular values — the geometric mean, the smallest alone, the reciprocal condition number, and two normalisations of the smallest — and at eight poses they disagree by a factor of 1.50 about how much of the job is done. A pose set chosen to maximise one is not the set that maximises another, and the literature quotes the choice as a preference. Numbers that were measured

Four indices, four answers

Five numbers are in use for scoring how well a set of poses determines a mechanism's parameters. They are five different questions about one list of singular values, they rank pose sets differently, and the literature quotes the choice between them as a matter of preference. It is a matter of what the report has to carry.

 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 is a shape test

The oldest classification in the subject compares sums of lengths, so it is unchanged by making the machine bigger — which means a protractor recovers it exactly without recovering a single length. What it does not recover is the margin, and the margin is what says whether the classification is safe.

 A roller offset by 5.88, at 42.3° of the rise. The cycloidal programme — rise 20 over 90°, return over 170° — on a prime circle of 40 with a roller of 10, drawn with the follower fixed above and the cam turned anticlockwise to 42.3°. The follower's line of travel is 5.88 to the right of the cam's centre. The contact normal leans 21.81° from that line, which is the pressure angle, and measured off the drawn pitch curve it is 21.81°. At this offset the peak on the rise is 21.81° and on the return 21.81°; centred, they are 27.37° and 15.33°. Prescribed motion

An offset trades the rise for the return

Moving a roller follower's line of travel off the cam's centre lowers the pressure angle on one stroke by raising it on the other. When the rise and the return are mirror images the best offset is zero. When the cam rises in 90° and returns over 170°, an offset of 5.88 takes the worse stroke from 27.37° to 21.81° by handing the return 6.48° it did not need.

 20,000 four-bars, and not one with three circuits. 20,000 four-bars with the ground at one and the other three lengths drawn from 0.05 to 3, each counted exactly. crank-rocker: 3,031, of which 3,031 have two circuits, 0 have one and 0 cannot be assembled; double crank: 3,086, of which 3,086 have two circuits, 0 have one and 0 cannot be assembled; Grashof double rocker: 1,497, of which 1,497 have two circuits, 0 have one and 0 cannot be assembled; triple rocker (non-Grashof): 12,386, of which 0 have two circuits, 9,528 have one and 2,858 cannot be assembled. The most circuits any linkage has is 2. How many answers

Never three circuits

A four-bar has one circuit or two, and twenty thousand random four-bars counted exactly contain no exception. The reason is a count of four points where the two assemblies merge, which makes the configuration curve a curve of genus one, and Harnack's theorem allows a real curve of genus one two pieces and no more. A six-bar's curve has genus five or seven, and its circuits go to four and six.

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

A symmetric curve from a lopsided machine

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

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

A bar between two midpoints

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

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

Eleven lobes from twelve pins

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

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

Exact because two circles roll

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

 Two ways to stop an axle moving sideways. A Panhard rod is one link from the body to the axle, so the axle's end follows an arc and the whole car shifts sideways as the suspension moves: 3.56 mm at 80 mm of travel, and always in the same direction, so it happens twice per bounce. A Watt's linkage keeps the same point on a path that is straight to 33.7 µm — 106 times better, and it is drawn on the same axis, which is why it looks like the zero line. Machines you have met

Holding an axle still

A Panhard rod moves the axle 3.56 mm sideways over 80 mm of travel and a Watt's linkage moves it 34 microns — a hundred times better, and by a higher power. The Panhard's error is quadratic in the travel and the Watt's is fifth order, which is a much stronger statement than "the Watt is better" because it says how the comparison changes with the suspension.

 How many points a linkage will take. function generation: 5 free numbers, 1 net constraint per point, 5 precision points; motion generation: 4 free numbers, 1 net constraint per point, 5 precision points; path generation: 9 free numbers, 1 net constraint per point, 9 precision points. Every count in the literature that differs from these differs about what is being counted as free, not about the geometry. The problem backwards

How many points may be prescribed

Five poses, five angle pairs, nine points — three numbers that get quoted as properties of a four-bar and are properties of what somebody decided to count as free. Derive them instead, and the fifth precision point turns a linear solve into a system with 128 paths, twelve finite solutions, four real ones, and exactly one linkage anybody could build.

 One tendon over two joints. A two-link chain with a strand anchored off to the left, running over an idler at each joint and terminating on the far link. Each idler is centred on its joint's axis, which is the one arrangement that makes the strand's length a linear function of the joint angles: the coupling measured here is 14.000000 and 10.000000 mm per radian, against radii of 14 and 10. Total strand 232.845 mm. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Members that pull

One strand over many joints

Route a tendon over an idler centred on a joint's axis and the strand's length becomes an exactly linear function of the joint angle — 8·10⁻¹⁴ mm of departure over 203 degrees of travel. Move that idler 6 mm off the axis and the same drive's arm swings from 8.00 to 16.52 mm per radian.

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

One test, three mechanisms

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

 The number on the tackle is a limit. The velocity ratio of a 4-part tackle as its blocks separate, measured by differentiating the strand's own length. It is 3.6174 at 90 mm and 3.99992 at 6898 mm, and it reaches 4 nowhere. The shortfall is geometric and has nothing to do with friction: each part of line makes an angle with the lift, and a part at angle β shortens by cos β of the movement. A tackle used at close quarters — which is when a tackle is useful — is the case furthest from its own rating. Drawn wrongly

Six things a strand is not

A tackle that is not four to one, a wrap that is not a half turn, a tensioner whose travel takes up nothing, a winch speed that is not a property of the winch, a cable rig that holds nothing still, and a shaped pulley that cannot be asked for what it is usually asked for. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

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

The candidates a search throws away

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

 Turning all the way round, against being made of something. Seven four-bars, classified by Grashof's inequality on their four lengths and then asked a question Grashof cannot answer: with a bearing pedestal at each ground pivot, how wide may the links be? The two instruments have nothing in common — one is an inequality on four numbers, the other counts sign changes of (B − A) × (G − A) over a sweep — and they agree about something Grashof was not for. Every four-bar that turns all the way round sweeps a link straight over a ground pivot, so its closest approach is exactly zero and no positive width is admissible; not one of the rockers does, and they take widths up to 0.20 of their shortest link. Links with a width

The crank that cannot turn all the way

Grashof's inequality says which four-bars turn fully. Ask instead how wide their links may be with a bearing at each ground pivot, and the same inequality answers the opposite question: every four-bar that turns all the way round sweeps a link straight over one of its own pivots.

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

The freedom that does nothing

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

 What it takes to build each of the twelve. The same twelve, read as a bill of materials. Six of them are one joint, because a lower pair permits the whole symmetry group of its surface and those six groups are exactly the symmetry groups surfaces have. The other five with a dimension take a chain: two slides for planar translation, three for Cartesian motion, a thread and two slides for the screw-in-a-plane group, and three parallel pins with a slide along them for Schoenflies motion — which is a SCARA arm, and is why a pick-and-place machine has four joints and not one. The group each chain produces is measured from four hundred sampled poses rather than declared, and every row agrees. What can move

The freedom that is a set

Grübler's rule has been on this site since its first essay, and it adds up numbers. Each of those numbers is the dimension of a group of displacements, and the group has eleven siblings the number cannot distinguish. The count is not wrong; it is a projection, and this is what the projection discards.

 How much each set of wheels forbids. Every wheel contributes the same row, and whether it is a constraint or a drive is one factor of sin γ in it — γ being the angle the rollers make with the wheel's own axle. At γ = 0 the row says the body may not move across the wheel and the wheel's speed drops out of the statement; at γ = 45° the row says nothing about the body at all and fixes the wheel's speed instead. The whole difference between a machine that shuffles and one that slides sideways is in that factor. Wheels, and where they may not go

The wheel that forbids nothing

Every wheel contributes the same row to the same matrix, and whether that row is a constraint on the vehicle or a statement about the wheel's own speed is decided by one factor of sin γ. At γ = 0 the vehicle may not move across the wheel; at 45° the row says nothing about the vehicle at all, and sideways costs exactly what forwards costs — to the last digit, and at no other angle.

 Everything one planetary can do, and the gap in the middle. A single epicyclic has three shafts, so there are six ways of choosing which is held, which is driven and which comes out. Each gives a band of reductions as the tooth counts run over every design that can be cut, assembled with three planets and kept clear of undercutting. The bands above 1 are drawn; between them is a gap running from 1.6304 to 2.5862 that no single planetary reaches in any configuration — and a reduction of exactly 2, which is the most ordinary thing anybody asks a gearbox for, is inside it. The gap's width as a factor is exactly the smallest achievable ring-over-sun ratio, 1.5862, which is a statement about how small a planet may be and how large a sun may be. More than one input

Three mechanisms, one subtraction

A micrometer's differential screw, a chain hoist's differential pulley and a robot joint's compound epicyclic look nothing like each other and are the same device. Each takes two nearly equal quantities and returns their difference, each buys its enormous ratio with that difference, and each carries the same conditioning number — |a/(a−b)| — measured here by perturbing the mechanisms rather than by quoting the formula.

 The framework Maxwell's count calls a structure. Six joints and twelve bars in space. Three coordinates each gives eighteen unknowns, six rigid motions come off, and twelve bars is exactly twelve constraints — Maxwell's count is 6 against six rigid motions, which is the definition of isostatic: no mechanism, no redundancy, every bar carrying its own share and nothing spare. The rank is 11, not twelve. There is one dependency among the bars and one freedom left over, and the freedom is a genuine finite motion: walked here with every bar held to 4.4e-16 of its own length. The reason is a symmetry — three pairs of joints exchanged by a half turn about one line — and it is built into the coordinates rather than asserted about the result. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Out of the plane

Twelve bars and a symmetry

Six joints and twelve bars in space is Maxwell's count exactly: no mechanism, no redundancy, nothing spare. Place three pairs of the joints so that a half turn about one line exchanges them and it moves — a finite motion, walked with every bar held to five ten-thousand-billionths of its own length, on a framework the arithmetic calls a structure.

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

Two planes meeting in a line

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

 Two branches, meeting where the sheet is flat. The same vertex's two folding modes, plotted as one crease's fold angle against another's. Both curves pass through the origin, which is the flat sheet, and they cross there and nowhere else. That crossing is what a rank cannot see: at the origin the tangent directions of both branches are available to the constraint matrix at once, so the nullity there counts them all and the mechanism has only one of them once it has left. Every branch argument this site has made — a four-bar's assembly configurations, an arm's eight postures, the components a solve's paths turned out to run between — is this picture with different axes. Many of one thing

Where the branches meet

A flat sheet is the one configuration every folding of a pattern passes through, and it is the one configuration where the rank is wrong about all of them. Three of a three-by-three Miura sheet's four apparent freedoms are not motions — and a grid that folds to no angle at all reports exactly the same four.

 Which teeth one tooth ever meets: 20 on 40. Follow one tooth of the pinion round and mark every wheel tooth it touches. It does not touch them all. It touches 2 of 40, which is z₂ divided by the greatest common divisor of the two counts — 20 here — and it goes on touching the same ones for as long as the gears are in mesh. The pattern repeats after 2 turns of the pinion. Adding one tooth to the pinion makes the counts coprime and takes the count from 2 to 40. The marks are produced by walking the mesh, and the count they give is compared with the gcd rather than derived from it. Teeth

Which tooth meets which

A tooth on a pinion does not meet every tooth on its wheel. It meets z₂ divided by the greatest common divisor of the two counts, and it meets the same ones for the whole life of the drive. On the default planetary used throughout — sun 24, planets 24 — a planet tooth touches exactly one sun tooth and never touches another, and nothing in the drawing says so.

 How much of Bennett's turn survives a bar being wrong. The same four bars and the same four twists, with one bar's length changed by the amount on the left and nothing else touched. The bar shows the fraction of 48 sampled positions of the first joint at which the loop closes to within 10⁻⁹. Two parts in a thousand already costs most of the travel. This is what it means for a mechanism to work only on a condition rather than approximately near one — and it is why Bennett's linkage was a curiosity for eighty years before anyone could machine to it. Out of the plane

Bennett's condition is a ratio

A spatial loop's parameters are lengths and angles together, so a scaling touches only half of them. Bennett's condition — a over sine alpha equals b over sine beta — is a relation between the two halves, and what it demands of a machine is a relation between its lengths and its twists rather than a property of either.

 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

The module is a size, the ratio is a shape

A spur pair has exactly one length in it. Every quantity it produces is either proportional to that length or completely independent of it — centre distance, base pitch and contact length scale exactly; ratio and contact ratio do not move at all, not even by a part in ten to the fifteen.

 A flat face on a base circle of 30, where the profile bends tightest. The cycloidal programme — rise 10 over 120°, return over 120° — cut for a flat-faced follower on a base circle of 30, turned to 212.4°, where the profile's radius of curvature is smallest. The contact sits −5.37 from the follower's axis, which is ds/dθ, and the dashed circle is the one that fits the profile there: R₀ + s + s″ = 24.668, and 24.668 fitted through the drawn curve. The face's pressure angle is zero at every angle. What it needs instead is for that radius to stay positive, and it does so on every base circle above 5.332. Prescribed motion

A flat face asks for a convex cam

A flat-faced follower is pushed at right angles to its face, so its pressure angle is zero at every angle and the constraint that sizes a roller's cam disappears. What replaces it is convexity: the profile's radius at the contact is R₀ + s + s″, and a base circle below 5.332 leaves a cycloidal cam with a hollow the face cannot reach — held 0.446 high on a base of 2.

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

A degree counted on a line

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

 Eight four-bars, one from each region the three signed sums cut. One linkage from each of the eight sign patterns of T₁ = g + c − a − b, T₂ = g + b − a − c and T₃ = b + c − a − g, each solved at a crank angle in the middle of its range. The thick arc round the left pivot is where the input's pin can go and the arc round the right pivot is where the output's can: crank-rocker + + +, input 100% of a turn and output 22%; double crank − − +, input 100% of a turn and output 100%; rocker-crank − + −, input 22% of a turn and output 100%; double rocker + − −, input 23% of a turn and output 21%; 0–π rocker + + −, input 76% of a turn and output 72%; π–π rocker + − +, input 84% of a turn and output 51%; π–0 rocker − + +, input 84% of a turn and output 85%; 0–0 rocker − − −, input 67% of a turn and output 91%. Grashof's condition names four of these and calls the other four one thing; the arcs show that the four triple rockers differ in which way along the ground line each rocker swings through. Linkages

Eight kinds of four-bar

Grashof's condition gives a four-bar one of four names and calls every linkage that fails it a triple rocker. Three signed sums of the lengths give eight, and a census of four thousand random linkages finds every one moving exactly as its signs say — because the planes where those sums vanish are the only places a four-bar's motion can change its kind.

 One crank, four machines, one area. Four crank-rockers sharing only a crank of length 1, with grounds, couplers and rockers all different, each tracing the point 30% of the way from the crank pin to the rocker pin. The curves have different shapes and sizes and different places in the plane, and the area each one encloses is 2.199115 = (1 − 0.3)·π·1² — on both assemblies of every one, with a worst difference of 3.2 × 10⁻¹⁴. The paths points trace

The area a coupler point encloses

Trace a point on the line through a crank-rocker's two moving pins and the region its curve encloses has area (1 − u)πa²: the crank pin's own circle, scaled by how far along the line the point sits. No ground, coupler or rocker length appears in it. Four machines that share only a crank enclose 2.199115 each, to 3 × 10⁻¹⁴.

 A catalogue is a search space, and a requirement is a filter on it. What a census is for. Four requirements applied in turn to the 230 ten-link chains, each of them a statement about the graph alone: a link carrying four pins, a link none of whose neighbours is binary, and a way of driving it that comes apart into dyads. 26 chains survive all of them. None of this is dimensional synthesis and none of it can be — no requirement here mentions a length, an angle or a position, and every one of them can be checked before a single dimension is chosen. That is the argument for having the census at all: the design problem is a search over shapes within a topology, and knowing which topologies there are turns an open question into 26 closed ones. The problem backwards

Choosing the chain before the lengths

Every synthesis method on this site starts by assuming a topology, and the assumption is usually a habit. What the graph fixes before any dimension is chosen is the number of free parameters — two per pin less four — and therefore how many positions can be prescribed at all.

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

Compose two positions and see where you land

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

 Every axis through one point. Four wheels on one rigid body, each rolling without sliding. Each turns about some point on its own axle line, and a rigid body has one such point, so every axle line has to pass through it. That is the whole of steering geometry, and it is a rank condition rather than a formula: here the four rows have rank 2 of 3, leaving a one-dimensional family of twists, and the centre they agree on is 12.000 m to the side. The scrub is 3.2e-17 m per metre — zero, to the last digit. Wheels, and where they may not go

Every axis through one point

Bolt several rolling wheels to one rigid body and they impose one condition between them: every axle line must pass through a single point. The familiar steering formula falls out of it as a consequence rather than being quoted — cot δₒ − cot δᵢ = 0.574074 at a turn of six metres, of eight, of twelve and of twenty, on a track of 1.55 m and a wheelbase of 2.7.

 In space the arithmetic allows almost nothing. A body in space has six freedoms and a revolute joint takes five, so a mobility of one needs (6n − 7)/5 joints — and that is an integer only when the link count leaves a remainder of two on division by five. The whole table is this: 7, 12, 17, 22 links, and nothing else. At seven links the degrees must sum to fourteen across seven links with none below two, so every link is binary and the graph is a single seven-cycle: there is exactly one spatial chain, and it is a loop. That is the census explanation for something the spatial field has lived with since it was written — every spatial mechanism on this site is one closed loop — and it had never been stated as a count. The next admissible size is twelve links and thirteen joints, where two assortments are arithmetically possible, 157 candidates give 33 graphs, and 5 of them are chains — every one with ten binary links and two ternary, so the assortment with a quaternary link is empty exactly as four of the planar ones are. Out of the plane

In space there is one chain

A body in space has six freedoms and a revolute joint takes five, so a mobility of one needs (6n−7)/5 joints — an integer only when the link count leaves a remainder of two on division by five. At seven links every link is binary, the graph is a single seven-cycle, and there is exactly one spatial chain.

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

One freedom and four hundred links

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

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

Pin the tool and it is a loop

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

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

Seven lengths and a hundred corners

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

 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. Drawn wrongly

Six things a network is not

A count that is right about a difference and read as an answer, a nullity taken for a mobility, a flat state that cannot tell a mechanism from a structure, a scissor ring that closes nowhere, a vertex that folds while its sheet does not, and a null space computed with an instrument whose floor is above the answer. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

 53/11, instant by instant. The ratio a 53-tooth sprocket and a 11-tooth sprocket actually deliver, against the driver's rotation. The quoted 4.818 is the flat line, and it is exactly right as an average — the mean over a turn comes out at 4.8182, which the computation is never told. Within every tooth the ratio swings from 4.756 to 4.948, a fluctuation of 3.99%. The sharp corners are pins seating: the identity of the pin the strand runs from changes 53 times a turn on one sprocket and 11 times on the other, and the two do not coincide. Machines you have met

The chain is a polygon

A chain's pins sit on a polygon, so the radius that matters swings by 1 − cos(π/n) within every tooth: four per cent on an eleven-tooth sprocket. The quoted 53/11 is the mean of that, exactly — and how much of the fluctuation reaches the back wheel is decided by the fractional number of pitches in the taut strand, which nobody adjusts and which can take the drive from perfectly uniform to two per cent.

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

The circle a point stays on longest

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

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

The cutter takes back the tooth

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

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

Two flanks, one law

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

 What the repeated constraints cost the drawing. Move an interior vertex of the flat pattern and the folded state generally stops existing. It survives if the change to the vertex closures can be absorbed by a change in the fold angles — and the part that cannot be absorbed is exactly the part that lies along a dependency, because a dependency is a direction in residual space the fold angles cannot reach. So the number of conditions a pattern's shape has to satisfy is at most the number of dependencies among its constraints, and on the Miura family it is exactly that: one at three by three, four at four, nine at five, measured by taking the rank of the obstruction. A twelve-by-twelve sheet has a hundred conditions on where its vertices may be. That is why a grid whose vertices are anywhere at all does not fold, and it is the same number, read the other way round, as the amount by which the count is wrong. Many of one thing

What a pattern has to satisfy

Move an interior vertex of a crease pattern and the folded state generally stops existing. How many conditions the drawing has to meet is not a matter of taste: it is exactly the number of dependencies among the constraints, measured at one, four and nine on three sizes of sheet, and a hundred on a sheet of a hundred and forty-four panels.

 A 4-sided bar, and the 13.6% it is out by. 3 flat jaws advancing together on a regular 4-sided bar of unit circumradius, with the bar turned 10.3° from square. The dashed circle is the axis the chuck is turning about and the marked point is where the bar's own centre has ended up: 0.13567 of a circumradius away. The arithmetic is one line — the jaws touch when c·u_k + h(u_k) = d, three unit vectors at 120° satisfy Σ u u ᵀ = 3/2 I, and so c = −⅔ Σ h(u_k) u_k — and it says that the offset vanishes exactly when the bar's own support function is unchanged by a 120° turn. Round, triangular, hexagonal, nine- and twelve-sided bars centre at any orientation; everything else does not, and by an amount that depends on how it happened to go in. Checked here against a linear program that closes the jaws without knowing the identity. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Contacts that only push

Where the jaws put it

Three jaws closing on a bar put its axis at −⅔ Σ h(u_k) u_k, which vanishes exactly when the section's support function is unchanged by a 120° turn. So a three-jaw chuck centres round, triangular and hexagonal stock perfectly and a square bar by up to 17.3 per cent of its own circumradius — and the workshop rule about symmetry that predicts this is wrong, because a six-jaw chuck centres a square.

 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

A band with a direction in it

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

 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

A curvature is a size with a minus sign

Everything in the curvature field is a similarity invariant in shape and a reciprocal length in value. Scale a moving plane and its inflection circle scales, its cubic of stationary curvature scales, and every curvature it computes is divided by the factor — so a bigger machine traces gentler paths than its drawing suggests.

 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. More than one input

The transmission angle has no size

The geometric half of force transmission is an angle in a triangle whose three sides scale together, so it is the same at every size — 54.31° at its worst on this machine, whatever units the drawing is in. Which means a measurement that cannot recover a single length recovers the whole of what this field computes.

 Every body of the Stephenson six-bar, sliced by one line. One random complex line, and a point on each body of the Stephenson six-bar required to lie on it. Every system has Bézout number 32. crank: 8 configurations drawing 2 distinct points, each 4 times, so degree 2; ternary coupler: 12 configurations drawing 6 distinct points, each 2 times, so degree 6; rocker: 8 configurations drawing 2 distinct points, each 4 times, so degree 2; arm: 18 configurations drawing 18 distinct points, each 1 time, so degree 18; output: 12 configurations drawing 2 distinct points, each 6 times, so degree 2. The configurations are what the tracker counts; the points are what the curve has. How many answers

The curve nobody eliminates

A point on the arm of the site's dwell six-bar draws a curve whose equation nobody writes down and no fit can find: at degree eighteen a fit needs a hundred and ninety coefficients, and its singular values have no gap to decide by. Sliced by a random line, the same machine has thirty-two paths to track and eighteen arrive, on every line tried, all eighteen distinct and all on one curve.

 Three legs and four, at 0°. The same slice of positions at a platform angle of 0°, shaded by how well the platform is held — pale is near singular. Left, three legs: 3,312 reachable samples and a singular curve through them in 102 segments. Right, the same three legs and a fourth: 3,198 reachable, because the fourth leg must reach too, and no curve. What is left of the singular set in this slice is 1 isolated point, at (-1.449, -0.811), where all four lines meet. Positions held above 0.1 go from 2,989 to 3,178, and at no sampled position is the four-legged platform held less well than the three-legged one. Several legs, one platform

What a fourth leg buys

Three leg lines fail to hold a platform when they meet at a point, which is one condition, so in every slice of the workspace the failures form a curve. Four lines fail only when all four meet at a point, which is two conditions, so the curve becomes isolated points. The fourth leg buys that and more, and it costs a machine that can no longer be assembled from any four motor angles.

 A yoke 70 wide on a constant-breadth cam, at 60°. The cycloidal programme — rise 10 over 120°, return over 120° — cut for flat faces on a base circle of 30 and held between two parallel faces 70 apart, turned to 60.0°. The upper face rests at 5.000 above the base circle, which is the programme's lift there. The lower face touches the cam too: the distance across the cam along the follower's line is 70.000 at this angle and at every other, so the follower is driven up by one face and down by the other with no spring and nothing to spare. Prescribed motion

A cam that holds its follower both ways

Two parallel faces joined into a yoke can drive a follower out and back with no spring, but only if the cam's breadth along the follower's line is the same at every angle — s(θ) + s(θ + 180°) constant. That makes the second half-turn the first one reflected. The cam field's standing programme misses by 9.502, and a second disc that frees the programme needs a yoke at least 60.66 wide.

 Every pivot on these arcs gives a 60° swing at a time ratio of 1.2. The rocker's pivot O₄ is fixed and its two limit positions B₁ and B₂ are 60° apart. At a limit the crank and coupler are in line, so the crank pivot sees the chord B₁B₂ at the angle δ = 180°(Q − 1)/(Q + 1) = 16.36°, and the points that see a chord at a fixed angle are arcs of two circles. The thick stretches are the 828 sampled pivots that give a crank-rocker with exactly this swing and ratio; the rest of each circle gives a linkage of another kind. The linkage drawn is the member whose worst transmission angle is largest, at both limits: ground 1.222, crank 0.478, coupler 1.130 and rocker 1, with its worst transmission angle 40.32°. Linkages

A swing and a time ratio

A shaper's specification gives the rocker's swing and how much quicker the return must be than the cut, and those two numbers do not fix a linkage. They leave a one-parameter family of crank-rockers on the arcs of two circles, every member exactly right, and the transmission angle chooses between them — which is also what decides that a 60° swing cannot return more than 1.207 times as fast and keep 40°.

 Three machines drawing one oval, and where each keeps its area. The crank-rocker with ground 4, crank 1, coupler 3.5 and rocker 3, its tracing point at (0.45, 0.5) of the coupler, and the two other four-bars Roberts's construction gives for the same curve, each drawn holding the same point of one oval and each with its input pin's path dashed in the input colour and its output pin's in the output colour. The shaded oval encloses 2.116354 for all three. In the crank-rocker the crank pin goes round and carries 1.727876 of it; in the double rocker neither pin goes round and the coupler's turn carries 1.727876; in the rocker-crank the output pin goes round and carries 1.727876. The remaining 0.388478 is the same in all three. The paths points trace

Where three machines keep one area

Roberts's theorem gives every four-bar two others that draw the same coupler curve, and so enclose the same areas. Measured, they do, to 10⁻¹² — but each keeps the area in a different place: the crank-rocker in its crank pin's circle, the double rocker in its coupler's turn, the third machine in its output pin's circle. What is left over has no closed form, and it is one number in all three.

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

A name for each overconstraint

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

 A reduction made out of a difference. A compound epicyclic's reduction is 1/(1 − z₁z₄/z₂z₃) — a ratio of two integers, so it is exactly what a catalogue says, at every position, forever. It is the only number in this field that survives being measured, and the reason is that it is a count. What it is not is insensitive: each row's denominator is a difference of two nearly equal products, and the last two rows differ by one tooth on one ring. Machines you have met

A ratio that is a count

A compound epicyclic's reduction is a ratio of two integers, because it is a ratio of tooth counts — 2176/106 for the drive here, exact at every position and on every unit ever made. It is the only quoted number in this field that survives being measured, and it is fragile in a way exactness does not protect against: one tooth on one ring moves it by forty per cent.

 The pose set is finite exactly when the part is held. Two arrangements, both with 0.06 of clearance on every contact, with the set of positions the part's centre may occupy drawn to scale. The one on the left holds: its pose set is a small bounded polyhedron, and every dimension of it is proportional to the clearance. The one on the right does not: its pose set runs off the page in the direction the part slides out of the vee, and giving the contacts a tighter tolerance narrows the box without ever closing that direction. A tolerance cannot buy a hold. The clearance decides how big a finite pose set is and the arrangement decides whether it is finite, and the second question has to be settled first because no amount of the first will settle it. Contacts that only push

Held is not located

Back every obstacle off by a clearance and the permitted poses become a polyhedron — bounded exactly when the arrangement is a hold, since an unbounded direction of it would be a ray of the escape cone. So whether a part is held is whether its pose set is finite, the clearance is what gives that set a size, and the two questions have to be settled in that order because no tolerance settles the first.

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

How long a pivot stands in for a linkage

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

 One piece, and still not reachable. The state of a linear ratchet — a cable tie — is how far in it is pulled, and its free space is the whole interval: every state is connected to every other, with no barrier anywhere. What it does not have is a way back. From the marked state the reachable set is everything forward and only as far back as the tooth the pawl has already dropped into, so 52.1% of ordered pairs are reachable and 4.2% are reachable both ways. Connectivity is symmetric; reachability is an order, and a component count answers the first question and cannot be asked the second. Motion that stops

One piece, and still not reachable

The site decides whether two configurations can be joined by asking whether they are in the same connected component, and that relation is symmetric because a path run backwards is a path. A one-way mechanism breaks the symmetry and leaves the connectivity alone: its free space is a single interval with no barrier anywhere in it, and about half of the ordered pairs of states cannot be joined by any admissible motion.

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

One rack and every wheel

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

 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. Drawn wrongly

Six things a hold is not

A rank read as a restraint, a count read as an answer, four contacts placed the wrong way round, a nullity taken for a spin, a part free in every direction and unable to leave, and a tolerance offered as a cure for an arrangement that was never a hold. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

 Forwards it settles, backwards it runs away. A trailer starting a hundredth of a radian out of line, with the steering held straight. Driving forwards the angle decays as e^(−s/d); reversing, the same equation runs the other way and it doubles every 4.16 m. Nothing about forces is involved and nothing about the driver: it is the sign of one exponent, and the length scale is the trailer's own length. The curve flattens at the top because the sine that generates it saturates — the runaway is exponential only while the angle is small. Wheels, and where they may not go

The angle that doubles

A trailer a hundredth of a radian out of line decays back into line as e^(−s/d) driving forwards and grows as e^(+s/d) reversing — doubling every 4.16 m for a six-metre trailer. And a jackknifed rig is not a rig that has lost anything: its growth vector is 2·3·4·5 at a hitch angle of zero, of ninety degrees and of a hundred and eighty.

 A network with no boundary at all. The kagome lattice, drawn out to 5 cells across and continuing for ever. The measurement is made on one cell: 3 joints, 6 bars, and a bar that leaves the cell comes back into it, written against the far end's position in the neighbouring cell. There is no boundary anywhere in the arithmetic, and the size of the network has gone from being a parameter to not existing. The highlighted triangle is the cell; every other line on the page is a copy of one of its six bars. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Many of one thing

The cell that repeats for ever

Take the size of a network to infinity and it stops being a parameter. What is left is one cell, six bars, and a question nobody has to ask about a finite assembly: does the pattern's period count as a body? A square grid is rigid if it does not and shears if it does, and so does the kagome.

 Why this measurement is not a derivative. The honest failure mode of the field's instrument, drawn rather than hidden. Every set looks like its own tangent space near the identity — that is what a tangent space is — so a chain sampled over a thousandth of a radian reports the dimension of its velocities, which is the number the screw system already gives. Four pins at random has four joints, and sampled over 10⁻⁹ radians its displacements occupy four dimensions; sampled over two radians they occupy six. The step is at 10⁻⁶, which is where the departure from the tangent space falls below the rank tolerance — so the position of the step is a fact about arithmetic and the two plateaux are facts about the mechanism. A group is a statement about displacements you could compose, and no derivative can make it. What a joint is

The instrument that is not a derivative

Sample a chain of four random pins over a millionth of a radian and its displacements occupy four dimensions, exactly as a SCARA arm's do. Sample the same chain over two radians and they occupy six. The step is at 10⁻⁶, and where it sits is a fact about arithmetic while the two plateaux are facts about the mechanism.

 Reverted trains of 12 : 1. A reverted train has its input and output shafts in line, which means the two stages share one centre distance — so the tooth counts must satisfy z₁ + z₂ = z₃ + z₄ and give the ratio asked for. Two equations in four integers, and there is no reason for a solution to exist. For 12 : 1 there is none at all until the wheels are allowed to reach 63 teeth; below that the coaxial condition and the ratio simply cannot both be met. This is the same kind of arithmetic as the clock trains of the timing field, with one extra equation, and the extra equation is what a shaft position costs. More than one input

Two shafts that must be in line

Asking a two-stage gear train for a ratio is easy. Asking it for a ratio and for its input and output shafts to be coaxial is asking for a solution of two equations in four integers, and there is no reason for one to exist. A twelve-to-one reverted train needs a sixty-three-tooth wheel before it has any solution at all — while sixteen to one, a larger ratio, manages with fifty-six.

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

Where an error at the shoulder ends up

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

 What a tensioner can take up, and where it stops being one. The run's length as the arm swings, over the whole interval in which the idler is actually touching the strand: 4.123 to 4.774 radians, and 1013.37 to 1030.99 mm — a range of 17.62 mm on a strand of a metre. Outside that interval the geometry still returns tangent lines and a length; what it returns is not a strand, because the path it describes cuts through the pulleys. The curve is flat at the left-hand end and steep at the right, which is the whole of a tensioner's design problem: its authority is proportional to the sine of half its own wrap, so an idler set near the edge of contact travels a long way and takes up nothing. Members that pull

Where a strand stops touching

A body joining a run costs length as the square of how far it intrudes — exponent 2.0000, measured over four decades — so at the moment contact begins the strand's length is stationary. That is why a tensioner set at the edge of its own contact takes up 0.000245 mm of belt per millimetre it travels.

 The ratio survives; the continuity does not. An involute pair holds its ratio at any centre distance, and that is not the same as working at any centre distance. The contact ratio — the length of the contact path divided by the base pitch, which counts how many pairs of teeth are engaged at once — starts at 1.647 for this 24 : 36 pair and falls as the shafts move apart, because the useful part of the line of action is bounded by the two tip circles. It reaches one at 2.82 mm, and below one a pair of teeth lets go before the next has picked up: the drive stops being continuous and becomes a series of arrivals. That is the real limit on the involute's indifference, and it is a limit on the teeth rather than on the tooth form. The shape is the unknown

Where two shapes stop touching

A conjugate pair is exact at every instant it has a contact. It does not have one for ever: a profile is an arc rather than a curve, and both ends of that arc are somebody's decision — which is why the useful question about a pair of shapes is not whether they mesh but for how long.

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

A cone has no size

What a set of contacts permits is a cone of twists, and a cone is closed under positive scaling by definition — so nothing about it changes when the part it holds is made bigger. Except that a twist is a screw, a screw has a pitch, and a pitch is a length.

 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 wheel that cannot report its radius

Rolling relates a wheel's turning to a vehicle's travelling, and the relation has a length in it. So a rolling constraint is the one place on this site where an angle measurement does carry a size — and the size it carries is the one thing a vehicle's own odometry can never separate from its wheelbase.

 The instrument's error, multiplied. The error in the recovered shape against the error in each reading, over four decades, each point the mean of six independent calibrations and the open marks the worst of the six. The slope is 0.9994 — the error is linear in the noise, with no threshold and no saturation — and the constant is 1.90. So a protractor good to a milliradian gives a shape good to about 1.9 milliradians' worth, and the factor belongs to the mechanism and the poses rather than to the instrument. The bound from the smallest singular value is 2.16, which the measurement sits under, as it must. Numbers that were measured

The instrument's error, multiplied

Repeat a whole calibration on independently noised readings at four levels three decades apart and the error in the recovered shape is linear in the noise, with a fitted slope of 0.9994 and a constant of 1.90. That constant belongs to the mechanism and the poses, not to the instrument — and it is bounded by one over the smallest singular value.

 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

What a synthesis assumes it knows

Every construction in this field is handed a demand in absolute coordinates — three positions of a coupler plane, at stated places — and returns a linkage in the same coordinates. Scale the demand and the answer scales, which means the construction's whole content is about shape and its answer carries a size it was given.

 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

Where the boundary moved again

The practice field's inventory ended by naming what the work after it should do first: take the feature positions as the variables and derive the lengths. That is done, and it turned out not to be an extension of the tolerance field but half of a different one — because where a length comes from and what a measurement determines are the same question.

 A geared five-bar at 3 : 2, its coupler pin traced over 2 input turns. Two cranks of length 1 on pivots 3 apart, meshed through gears whose pitch circles, dashed, have radii 1.800 and 1.200, so the second crank turns 1.5000 times for every turn of the first and the other way. Coupler bars of 3 and 2.5 join them at the pin C, and the thin curve is where C goes over 2 turns of the input. The two crank pins are always between 1 and 5 apart and the bars can span 0.5 to 5.5, so the chain never meets a dead position. After 2 turns the machine is exactly where it began and the curve is closed. What can move

One freedom, and a motion that never repeats

Mesh a gear on each crank of a five-bar and the count and the rank agree that one freedom is left, at every gear ratio. Whether the machine ever comes back to where it started is a different question, and neither instrument can see it: at 3 to 2 it is home after two turns, at 37 to 23 after twenty-three, and at the golden ratio never, with its nearest returns at the Fibonacci numbers.

 Every position loses its hold at -150° and 30°. The smallest singular value of the six leg lines of the Gough–Stewart platform, held level, as it is turned through a whole revolution at 4 positions: (0, 0, 2.4), (0.4, -0.3, 2.4), (0, 0, 3.2), (-0.5, 0.2, 1.8). At -150° and 30° all 4 curves reach zero together — the largest of them is 9.7e-9 — and 1° either side the least is 1.28e-3. Nowhere else does any of them touch zero. Several legs, one platform

A yaw that is singular everywhere

Turn the standard hexapod platform 30° about the vertical, hold it level, and it is singular: not at one pose, but at every position it can be put in, with one screw motion that none of its six locked legs can resist. The angle is not a property of the dimensions. It comes out of one line of trigonometry that no spread of the anchor points can change.

 A roller on an arm of 50 pivoted on the left, at 35.8° of the rise. The cycloidal programme — rise 20 over 90°, return over 170° — on a prime circle of 40 with a roller of 10, followed by a roller on an arm of 50 whose pivot is on the left of the cam, at (−49.92, 42.79). The pivot angle balances the two strokes, and the cam is turned anticlockwise to 35.8°. The faint arc is the path the roller's centre swings through. The contact normal leans 23.48° from the roller's direction of motion, which is the pressure angle, and off the drawn pitch curve it is 23.48°. At this instant the roller's line of motion passes 2.98 from the cam's centre. Balanced, the arm peaks at 23.48° on both strokes; a sliding follower at its best offset of 5.88 peaks at 21.81°. Prescribed motion

An arm is an offset that grows with the lift

Carry a cam's roller on a swinging arm instead of a slide and its pressure angle obeys the offset follower's formula exactly, with the offset replaced by the distance of the roller's line of motion from the cam's centre. That distance turns with the arm. On a cam whose strokes are mirror images the best arm is worse than a centred slide by about 5,000/L² degrees and leans the follower by its own tilt on the dwells. On a quick-rise cam the pivot's angle rebalances either side of the cam for under a degree, where a sliding offset moved to the wrong side costs eleven.

 Four offset slider-cranks, one from each region the limit leaves. One slider-crank from each region of T₂ = b − a + e and T₃ = b − a − e, with the slide the dashed vertical line a distance e from the crank's pivot and the ground line dashed across. The thick arc round the pivot is where the crank's pin can go and the thick stretch of the slide is where the slider can: crank-rocker + +, crank 1, rod 3.5, offset 0.8, the crank reaching 100% of a turn and the slider between 2.37 and 4.43 on each side of it; double rocker − −, crank 3.5, rod 1.2, offset 0.6, the crank reaching 22% of a turn and the slider between 2.22 and 4.66 on each side of it; 0–π rocker + −, crank 2, rod 2.5, offset 1.6, the crank reaching 65% of a turn and the slider running from −4.21 to 4.21 through the ground line; π–π rocker − +, crank 2, rod 2.5, offset −1.6, the crank reaching 65% of a turn and the slider running from −4.21 to 4.21 through the ground line. These are the four of the eight four-bar kinds in which T₁ is positive. Linkages

Four kinds of slider-crank

An offset slider-crank is a four-bar whose output bar and ground have grown without bound, and in that limit the three signed sums that sort four-bars into eight kinds lose one of their signs. Four kinds survive. A census of four thousand finds every slider-crank moving as its region predicts, the textbook condition for a full crank turn turns out to be one region exactly, and each of the four kinds that vanish is carried, at a length that can be written down, into the survivor that shares its other two signs.

 How many times each curve passes through the circular points. For each body of five machines, the degree of the curve a point on it draws, from a random complex line, and the number of finite points where that curve meets a line through the circular point I, x + iy = c, and one through J, x − iy = c. The difference is how many times the curve passes through that circular point. Four-bar, crank: degree 2, 1 and 1 finite, circularity 1; four-bar, coupler: degree 6, 3 and 3 finite, circularity 3; four-bar, rocker: degree 2, 1 and 1 finite, circularity 1; Watt six-bar, coupler: degree 6, 3 and 3 finite, circularity 3; Watt six-bar, second coupler: degree 6, 3 and 3 finite, circularity 3; Watt six-bar, output: degree 2, 1 and 1 finite, circularity 1; Stephenson six-bar, coupler: degree 6, 3 and 3 finite, circularity 3; Stephenson six-bar, arm: degree 18, 9 and 9 finite, circularity 9; Stephenson six-bar, output: degree 2, 1 and 1 finite, circularity 1; slider-crank, crank: degree 2, 1 and 1 finite, circularity 1; slider-crank, coupler: degree 4, 3 and 3 finite, circularity 1; elliptic trammel, rod: degree 2, 2 and 2 finite, circularity 0. Every body of the three machines built from pins alone has circularity exactly half its degree; the slider-crank's coupler curve and the trammel's ellipse do not. How many answers

Nine times through each circular point

A line through a circular point meets a curve at that point once for every time the curve passes through it, so counting its finite meetings measures how often, with no equation. The Stephenson six-bar's arm curve, degree eighteen, meets such lines in nine finite points: it passes nine times through each circular point. Every curve drawn by a body of a machine built from pins alone does this at exactly half its degree; a slide breaks it.

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

A stack that has to fit

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

 A tooth flank is the end of an unwound strand. A strand wrapped on a circle of radius 45.105 mm, unwound while kept taut. Its free end traces the involute — the same curve the gears field builds from its own parameterisation, agreeing to 1.5e-14 mm over the whole flank. The strand is the important part of that sentence and not the curve: the taut portion is a tangent to the base circle, its length is the arc it has left, and both of those are statements about a strand rather than about a tooth. At this position the free length is 27.965 mm. positioned by solving, not by drawing. Teeth

A tooth flank is an unwound strand

Unwind a taut string from a circle and its free end traces the involute, to 1.5·10⁻¹⁴ mm of the curve the gears field draws. That is not a curiosity: the line of action of an involute pair is a crossed strand on the two base circles, so the property the involute is chosen for — a ratio that does not care where the shafts are — is a belt's property rather than a curve's.

 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

Six hold nothing

Every exact-constraint coupling on this site — Kelvin, Maxwell, three-two-one, and a Kelvin clamp with a seventh pad added — has rank six and holds the part not at all. The escape a Maxwell coupling leaves is a pure vertical translation with nothing else in it, which is not a defect: it is what a coupling is, and gravity is the seventh contact nobody draws.

 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. Drawn wrongly

Six things a chain is not

A count read as a verdict, a rank trusted where it is blind, a fingerprint used as a proof, a list of five taken for a complete one, a solver treated as a convenience, and a census read as a catalogue of machines. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

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

The road a wheel carries with it

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

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

What a calibration cannot see

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

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

A body is all size

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

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

A drum is a size, a wrap is a shape

A strand's whole behaviour is decided by where it leaves each body and how far round it goes, and both are angles. So a belt drive's velocity ratio, its wrap angles and its tackle's mechanical advantage transfer between drives of any size — and the one thing that does not is how much strand there is.

 Where a fit's singular values fall away, on each motion of a parallelogram. The 28 singular values of the degree-six fit, largest first and relative to the largest, for points traced on the parallelogram's circle motion, on its quartic motion, and on both. On the circle motion the last 15 lie below a drop of 3.7 × 10¹³, from 0.232 to 6.2 × 10⁻¹⁵; on the quartic motion the last 6 lie below a drop of 3.0 × 10¹⁰, from 6.3 × 10⁻⁵ to 2.1 × 10⁻¹⁵; on both motions the last one lies below a drop of 2.5 × 10¹², from 3.1 × 10⁻⁴ to 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁶. A drop of ten decades or more is a null space that is exactly there: fifteen sextics vanish on a circle, six on a quartic, and one on both. The paths points trace

A null space of fifteen is not noise

Points traced on one motion of a parallelogram four-bar leave a degree-six fit with fifteen polynomials that vanish on them, behind a drop of thirteen decades: the circle times every quartic. Half an oval of an ordinary coupler curve leaves two to five, behind drops of two. The count is the same kind of number in both cases, and only the drop beside it says which one is algebra.

 A roller in the groove of a quick-rise cam at 600 rpm. The cycloidal programme — rise 20 over 90°, return over 170° — cut as a groove on a prime circle of 40 for a roller of 10, driving a follower of 0.5 kg pressed toward the cam by 20 N, and turned anticlockwise to 59.9° at 600 rpm. The groove must supply m·s″·ω² + F along the follower's travel, −66.6 N at this angle, so the roller bears on the outer wall. The marks on the groove are the four places in a turn where that force changes sign and the roller changes walls: 47.87°, to the outer; 87.13°, to the inner; 151.35°, to the outer; 193.65°, to the inner. The stretches of deceleration begin to cross over at 267.6 and 505.5 rpm. Prescribed motion

A roller in a groove changes walls with the speed

A groove holds its roller between two walls and chooses between them by the sign of one force, the follower's mass times its acceleration plus the load pressing it in. Below a threshold speed that force never changes sign and the roller stays on the inner wall; each stretch of deceleration adds two crossovers above its own threshold. On a quick-rise cam at 20 N and half a kilogram the count goes from none to two at 268 rpm and to four at 506. A cycloidal law brings the roller across smoothly; a constant-acceleration law throws it across by a step of 3,200 N at 3,000 rpm.

 Two identical rotors in mesh, and the one place they touch. Two rotors, each with 2 cycloidal lobes on a pitch circle of radius 50, on centres 100 apart and turning at the same speed in opposite senses, drawn with the first turned −20°. Each rotor's roots were computed from its tips, and the mate is the same rotor turned. At this position they touch at one point, on the first rotor's tip, and the common normal there misses the pitch point by 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁰. The contact sits on the describing circle tangent to both pitch circles, within 8.5 × 10⁻¹⁰, so the normal is the chord from the pitch point to it. The normal's moment arm about the mate's shaft is 32.14, positive when the contact turns the mate forward. The shape is the unknown

Rotors that mesh and cannot drive each other

Two identical lobed rotors on shafts turning one to one are each other's conjugate: give half of a lobe and the meshing equation computes the other half so exactly that the rotor is its own mate. The pair holds its ratio at every instant and still cannot drive itself, because the one contact between them pushes the driven rotor backwards for exactly half of every turn.

 A 3-RPR with similar triangles at 0°, its leg lines meeting wherever it is put. A planar platform with three extending legs, its base pivots on a circle of radius 2 and its platform points on one of radius 0.6 at the same angles, so the two triangles are similar, turned to 0° and drawn at two positions. Each leg's line is continued past its ends. With the platform's centre at (0.4, −0.3) the three lines meet at (0.5714, −0.4286), within 1 × 10⁻¹⁶ of every line, which is where a scale factor of 0.3 about that point carries the base triangle onto the platform; the smallest singular value of the three legs is 3 × 10⁻⁹. With the platform's centre at (−0.55, 0.3) the three lines meet at (−0.7857, 0.4286), within 2 × 10⁻¹⁶ of every line, which is where a scale factor of 0.3 about that point carries the base triangle onto the platform; the smallest singular value of the three legs is 0. The meeting point moves with the platform, and the three lines meet wherever it is. Several legs, one platform

Two orientations no position can rescue

A planar platform on three extending legs whose platform triangle is a scaled copy of its base is singular at every position it can be put in, at exactly two orientations: its three leg lines meet at one point wherever it is. The two orientations are read off the attachment points, a platform a few per cent from similar is held at its worst orientation only in proportion to how far from similar it is, and the revolute-legged 3-RRR, built on the same similar triangles, does not inherit any of it.

 A drag link driving a crank-rocker at a phase of 284.8°. A drag link, ground 1, crank 2.5, coupler 2.25, output 1.5, whose output crank carries the crank of a crank-rocker with a 60° swing, ground 1.2223, crank 0.4783, coupler 1.1298, output 1, turned 284.8° ahead of it, drawn at an input angle of 40°. The two cranks on the middle pivot are one rigid part. The thick arc at the right is the rocker's swing. At this phase the whole machine returns 2.71 times as fast as it works; the crank-rocker alone, driven at constant speed, returns 1.2 times as fast. Linkages

A drag link ahead of a crank-rocker

A crank-rocker with a 60° swing keeps a transmission angle of 40° only up to a time ratio of 1.207, and at a ratio of 2 no crank-rocker keeps even 20°. Drive its crank from the output of a drag link, whose cranks both turn but not at the same speed, and a pair in which each stage keeps 40° returns 2.71 times as fast as it works. The phase between the two stages decides almost all of it: the same two linkages give anything from 1.003 to 2.71.

 The closed path of a geared five-bar's pin at four gear ratios. A five-bar with two cranks of length 1 on pivots 3 apart, couplers 3 and 2.5, and a gear on each crank, drawn over one whole cycle at ratios 1 : 1, which closes after 1 input turn; 2 : 1, which closes after 1 input turn; 3 : 2, which closes after 2 input turns; 5 : 3, which closes after 3 input turns. Both assembly branches of the coupler pin are drawn, one in each colour. The curves they make together have degree 6, 10, 16, 26. How many answers

Every rational gear ratio has a degree

Mesh a gear on each crank of a five-bar and the pin where its couplers meet draws a closed curve at every rational ratio. Its degree is 6 at 1 to 1, 16 at 3 to 2, 68 at 13 to 8 and 178 at 34 to 21: four times the larger term of the ratio plus twice the smaller, read off the span of one polynomial in one variable. Along the golden ratio's convergents the degree grows by the golden ratio at each step, and at the golden ratio itself no fit finds any.

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

A machine with one dyad in it

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

 Two pins, and what their bracket costs. The bracket, on the smallest case there is. Two revolute joints span a two-dimensional set of twists whichever way they are arranged, and no count on this site can tell the two arrangements apart. Their brackets can. Two parallel pins bracket to a translation, which was not in the span, and the span closes at three — planar motion, which is the group the pair of them lives in. Two skew pins bracket to something that closes at six: nothing smaller than the whole of the rigid displacements contains them. The defect column is how far the bracket lies outside the original span as a fraction of its own length, and in both cases it is of order one — which is the ordinary case, and is why a mechanism confined to a subgroup is the exception. Wheels, and where they may not go

One bracket, two subjects

A wheel can be parked sideways because the forbidden direction is the bracket of two permitted ones. A mechanism's motion is a group when the brackets of its permitted twists are already permitted. Same operation, same two plateaux, and the two fields want opposite answers — which is why the two are named for different things here, with each one saying beside itself that the other exists.

 What one point can and cannot see of a group. For each of the twelve: the group's dimension, the dimension of one point's orbit under it, and the difference — the stabiliser, the motions that leave that particular point exactly where it is. The orbit is the only picture a group has, and this table is the honest caption on it. Planar motion and spherical motion are both three-dimensional and both sweep a point over a two-dimensional surface, so each leaves one motion doing nothing at all: a turn about the plane's normal in one case, a turn about the radius in the other. A point does not see the whole group, and no drawing of one trajectory can be a complete picture of what a joint permits. Drawn wrongly

Six things a joint is not

A freedom count read as a description, a screw system read as a group, a pair list read as a convention, a trajectory read as a determination, a nominal alignment read as a delivered one, and a higher pair read as a larger joint. Six claims, each of them what a careful person would say, each answered with a number.

 slider crank: the closest pair at one position. Crank 1, connecting rod 3, the block sliding on the frame's own line. Every joint is where the solver put it, exactly as in the linkage field; the material is the only thing added. The heavy segment joins the two closest points over every pair of parts that is tested — which excludes pairs sharing a pin, since their material surrounds that pin by construction — and its length is the gap: -0.1400 here, between rod · guide, upper. A negative value is a penetration depth, the distance the pair would have to be moved apart, and it is drawn in the warning colour. What a joint is

The block in the guide has a length

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

 Tolerancing the holes rather than the lengths. The output band from ±0.01, computed on the four link lengths and then on the features those lengths are derived from. The ground length is the distance between two frame holes, and what happens to it depends entirely on how they were made: located separately, two independent errors combine to √2 times one and the lengths-only answer is optimistic by 11%; bored in one setup, the common part of the machine's error cancels out of the distance between them and the lengths-only answer is pessimistic by 34%. Neither is a correction to apply; it is a question for the machine shop, and this site can compute the sensitivity and not the answer. As built

Tolerancing the holes

A drawing does not tolerance link lengths. It tolerances holes, and the lengths are derived from them — so what a length's tolerance really means depends on whether its two holes were bored in one setup. Located separately, a lengths-only stack-up is optimistic by 11%; bored together, it is pessimistic by 34%. Neither is a correction to apply blind.

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

Where the pad touches

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

 Whether the part goes in is one inequality. Two of the four contacts are moved and the other two left where the drawing says; the horizontal and vertical axes are those two errors, inward positive. The shaded region is where the part still goes in and the unshaded region is where it does not fit at all — not fits badly, not is located wrongly: there is no position and no orientation the part can take. The boundary is the straight line 0.250·e₁ + 0.250·e₂ = 0, whose coefficients are the shares from the previous figure. Four probe points are marked, each checked twice — once by the inequality and once by a linear program that looks for a pose and reports the program infeasible when there is none — and the two agree at every one. A hold turns a set of tolerances into a single condition, and the weights in it are what say which contact is worth making accurately. Contacts that only push

Which contact to make accurately

A hold turns a set of contact tolerances into one linear inequality, and the weights in it are the coefficients of the combination that cancels — a quarter each on a square held by four, and 0.144 to 0.424 on a hexagon held by five. Above that line the part goes in and below it there is no pose it can take at all: not badly located, not out of position, no fit.

 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

A compiled machine and its own scale

A linkage compiled from a polynomial has bars whose lengths are the polynomial's coefficients and joints whose angles are its phases. Scale it and every coefficient scales — so the machine computes the same polynomial multiplied by a constant, which is a different polynomial with the same roots.

 Nine bars joining two sets of three joints, at three placements of one motion. Joints B₁, B₂ and B₃ lie on the horizontal line at -2, 1, 3, joints W₁, W₂ and W₃ on the vertical line through the same point at -1.5, 1, 2.5, and every joint of one set is barred to every joint of the other. Counted, nine bars on six joints leave no freedom. Drawn here at three placements, the joints have slid along their lines — B₂ at 0.632 and W₂ at 1.265; B₂ at 1.000 and W₂ at 1.000; B₂ at 1.265 and W₂ at 0.632 — and every one of the nine bars has the same length in all three, to 4.4e-16. What can move

Nine bars that ought to be rigid

Join each of three joints to each of three others and the nine bars leave no freedom, by the count and by the rank, wherever the joints are. Put one set on a line and the other on a line at right angles and the framework moves, all the way round a loop, with no bar repeating any other: take away any one of the nine and the motion is unchanged, take away any two and it gains a freedom. Tilt the lines by a degree and it still has a freedom by rank and cannot move at all.

 What region each four-bar's two cognates land in. One row per region of length space. Against each, the regions of the two four-bars Roberts's construction gives for the same coupler curve, and how many of the 24000 chains in the census landed in that region. Every row has one entry: across the whole census, and at each of 5 tracing points, the original's region decides its cognates' regions with nothing left over. The four Grashof regions are above the rule and the four triple rockers below it, and no row crosses it — a crank-rocker has a double rocker and a rocker-crank, a double crank has a double crank and a double crank, a rocker-crank has a rocker-crank and a double rocker, a double rocker has a crank-rocker and a crank-rocker, a 0–π rocker has a 0–π rocker and a 0–π rocker, a π–π rocker has a π–π rocker and a π–0 rocker, a π–0 rocker has a 0–0 rocker and a 0–0 rocker, a 0–0 rocker has a π–0 rocker and a π–π rocker. The paths points trace

The kind is decided before the lengths are

Roberts's construction hands a four-bar two others that draw its curve, and which of the eight kinds those two are is settled by the kind of the first — not by its lengths within that kind, and not by where the tracing point sits. Twenty-four thousand chains at five tracing points produce no exception, and the reason is one line: the tracing point enters the construction only as a scale, and a region is scale-blind.

 The chain's whole configuration space, drawn on its two angles. A slider-crank asks one thing of its two angles: a cos θ + b cos φ = e, with θ the crank's angle and φ the rod's. Each panel is the square of those two angles from −π to π, with the curve that equation cuts out, followed by arclength on the equation alone. The number under each panel is how many whole turns θ, φ and φ − θ make around a circuit. A curve that crosses the square from side to side carries a turn in that angle; a closed loop inside the square carries none. The two regions where a member turns have two circuits each and the two where none does have one, which is what the four-bar regions these came from predict. Linkages

Three rotations, and four benches

The slider-crank chain's four inversions are four famous machines, and they are not four classifications. Four links make six pairs, one of those pairs cannot rotate at all because a slide is a rotation of nought, and the five that are left are three quantities between them. So an inversion chooses which two of the chain's three rotations sit at its bench, and the four regions of length space already say what all three do.

 Two rotors cut undersize, and the gap that is their seal. The conjugate pair at three positions of its turn, each rotor cut 3 undersize — its boundary moved that far inward along its own normal, with the full-size outline dashed behind it. At full size the two are in contact at every angle, so cutting both back by 3 leaves exactly 6.0 between them wherever they were touching. Measured over a whole lobe pitch the gap runs from 5.9965 to 6.0000 against a prediction of 6, a worst departure of 3.46e-3. The shape is the unknown

The clearance that is the seal

Two rotors that are each other's conjugates touch at every angle of their turn, so cutting both back by the same amount leaves exactly twice it between them, everywhere. Open the shafts by the same amount instead and the gap runs from four per cent of it to all of it. And a pair that is not conjugate has no seal to cut: over one lobe pitch it swings from two and a half units inside itself to two and a third apart.

 A fourth leg through the meeting point, and one beside it. The platform with similar triangles at its singular orientation, at one position, with a fourth base pivot at (0, -2). Left: the fourth platform point placed where the similarity puts it, so the fourth leg's line passes 2.8e-17 from the point the other three meet at, and the smallest singular value of all four is 2.59e-9 — nothing has changed. Right: the same base pivot with the platform point moved 0.28 round the platform, so the fourth line misses the meeting point by 0.3993 and the four legs hold at 2.914e-1. The ringed point is where the three original lines meet, and it moves with the platform. Several legs, one platform

One placement of every placement

A planar platform whose two triangles are similar is singular at every position it can be put in, at two orientations. A fourth leg removes both — unless its own pair of attachment points is related by the same similarity, and then it changes nothing at all. Swept right round the platform, exactly one placement of the fourth attachment fails, the similarity names it in advance, and the holding a placement buys is proportional to how far it sits from that one point.

 A flat face on a swinging arm, and the cam it asks for. The cam a flat-faced follower needs when its face is carried on an arm pivoted 300 from the cam's centre, with a base circle of 20 and a lift of 20, drawn in the cam's own frame at three cam angles. The heavy line is the face, the dashed line is the perpendicular from the cam's centre to it, and the dot is the contact. Its distance from the foot of that perpendicular is the offset, which for a sliding face would be the programme's own velocity and here is a quantity with the arm in it. Over the turn it runs from -20.41 to 17.95, so the face must be 38.4 wide. Prescribed motion

A flat face on an arm is worse

Carry a cam's roller on a swinging arm instead of a slide and the pressure angle improves — a long arm beats an offset. Carry a flat face on one and the opposite happens. The cam sees the sine of the follower's rotation rather than the rotation, and the distortion costs convexity: the smallest workable base circle rises from 10.66 on a slide to 28.68 at a pivot three base circles out, and below a certain arm length no base circle works at all.

 The same five-bar with its gears meshed outside and inside. A geared five-bar drawn over a whole cycle at four ratios, with its two cranks turning against each other in the top row and together in the bottom one — an external mesh and an internal one, which is the same machine with the ratio's sign changed. Both assembly branches are drawn. The curves have the same degree in both rows — 1 : 1 at 6, 2 : 1 at 10, 3 : 2 at 16, 5 : 3 at 26 — and they are not the same curves: the lower ones are the maximally circular members of their degree and the upper ones are not, which is a difference nothing about the drawing shows. How many answers

The mesh inside keeps the half

Mesh a geared five-bar's two gears inside each other instead of side by side and the cranks turn together rather than against each other. The curve its pin draws has exactly the same degree at every rational ratio — and it passes through each circular point half that degree, which is as often as any curve can, where the counter-rotating machine manages between a third and two fifths. The sign of the ratio is the whole difference.

 A variator that spans under four to one, driving a machine that spans everything. The whole machine's ratio against the variator's own, for an engine split between a variator and a straight path and summed by a planetary with 50 sun teeth and 70 ring teeth. The variator's travel runs from 0.544 to 2.045, a span of 3.76 to one, and the output's ratio is (1 + K) / (K − v) with K = 1.4: a hyperbola with a pole at v = 1.4. Left of the pole the output turns one way, right of it the other, and the vertical scale is cut at ±12 because nothing else would fit. The measured extremes over the travel are 2.80 and -3.72, and between them the ratio passes through every value there is. More than one input

A bounded ratio made unbounded

Split an engine between a variator and a straight path and add the two with a planetary, and a variator that spans 3.76 to one becomes a machine whose ratio passes through infinity. The setting at which the output stands still is the planetary's own tooth ratio and nothing the belt does moves it. The price is a sensitivity that grows as the reciprocal square of the distance to that setting, and the variator's one and a half per cent becomes a hundred and ten before the setting is reached.

 The gap is a straight line in the width. Three machines, four widths each, every width a fraction of that machine's own limit. Each set of points is collinear to the last bit of a double — the slopes wander by less than 10⁻¹³ across the range — because a feature-to-feature distance is linear in the corners of the two bodies and a bar's corners are linear in its width. The slope reads the contact: Chebyshev's linkage at -2.692, a crank rocker with a post at -1.350, a crank passing a stud at -1.350. A bar's boss grows 1.35 times as fast as its side, so −1.35 is a boss against something that is not growing and −2.70 is boss against boss. Extending each line to zero gives the widest link the machine will take, and the bisection that finds it the hard way agrees — 0.30113 against 0.30112, inside the bisection's own residual. Links with a width

The gap is a straight line in the metal

Thickening every link by the same amount subtracts the same amount from every clearance, exactly, and moves the angle at which the worst one occurs by nothing at all. So a whole swept check can be done once on bars of any width and every other width read off by subtraction — until the closest pair changes hands, and never past zero.

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

The linkage, put back from two curves

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

 5 braces, and it is rigid. A 3×3 grid of squares with 5 of its cells braced by a diagonal, and no freedom left. The bipartite graph on the 3 columns and 3 rows, with one edge per braced cell, has 1 component — and the number of freedoms is one less than that, at every bracing there is. Nothing in the rank computation knows about columns, rows or graphs. Many of one thing

Which diagonal rigidifies a grid

A three-by-three grid of squares needs five diagonals and eighty-one of the hundred and twenty-six ways of placing five will do. Which ones is not a rank question at all: it is whether a graph on the grid's columns and rows is connected, and eighty-one is the number of that graph's spanning trees.

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

What a leg of three joints leaves free

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

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

Where a pin becomes a slide

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

 Every way the same bars can be put together. The machine compiled from a rectangular hyperbola has 4 parallelograms, and a parallelogram's four bars also close as an antiparallelogram — so there are 16 ways to assemble it. One mark per way. 4 of them put the tracing point on the curve, 4 put it somewhere else, and 8 do not close at all. The ones that are wrong are not broken: they satisfy every bar to 9.6e-15 while the polynomial at their tracing point reads 1.5e-1. This is the gap in Kempe's original argument, and no tolerance on the closure could ever have found it. Drawn wrongly

Six things a compiled linkage is not

A closure residual read as a verdict, a theorem read as a design, an exact answer read as an accurate one, a degree read as a cost, a construction read as a search, and a neighbourhood read as a turn. Six claims, each of them what a careful person would say, each answered with a number.

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

The ratio that has a tolerance

Every dimension in this collection has been given a range at some point, and the ratios never were, because a gear ratio is a count and a count has no tolerance. A belt ratio is a quotient of two solved lengths, so every length in the mechanism is in it — and the amplification from belt length to ratio runs from 2.7 to 6.4 across the travel, which puts a whole per cent on a mechanism whose gearbox equivalent has none at all.

 What each machine is sold with. Every mechanism in this field arrives with a number. The middle column is that number; the right-hand column is what the mechanism was measured to have, by the library named under the row. The coloured bar and the word under each machine are the verdict: exact means the mechanism has the number at every position, mean that it is the average of something that varies within every cycle, bounded that it is false by a stated and negligible amount, point that it is the value at one position, and quoted that the mechanism has no such quantity at all. The lit row is the one this essay is about. Of the 14 rows, 6 are quoted and 3 are exact. Machines you have met

Which numbers survived

Fourteen machines were measured against the numbers they are sold with. Three survived exactly, and all three are counts. One is false by a stated bound, two are exact means of things that vary, three are honest values at a stated position, and six name quantities their mechanisms do not have. The pattern is not about honesty; it is about what kind of thing a number is.

 Watt chain: 7 pins, and nothing else. A kinematic chain drawn as what it is — a graph. Each disc is a link and carries its number; each line is a pin joining two links. There are no lengths here, no angles and no positions, and every quantity this field computes survives moving any disc anywhere: the picture is a way of reading the graph and not a picture of a machine. The fill says how many pins a link carries — 4 binary, 2 ternary — which is the coarsest thing that can tell two chains apart and the first column of every census table. The count reads two numbers off this picture and nothing else: 6 links and 7 pins give 3 × 5 − 2 × 7 = 1. The chain before the lengths

A graph has no numbers at all

Every other field on this site has parameters a measurement could try to recover. This one has none. A chain is a graph, a graph is a set of links and a set of joints, and there is nothing about it that a scaling touches, a tolerance perturbs or an instrument determines.

 The configuration space of a crank rocker. Every point of the square is a pair of angles — the crank's and the rocker's — and the curve is where the coupler is exactly the right length to join them. That curve is the mechanism: one equation in two angles leaves one freedom, which is the mobility. It has 2 components, and that is the two assembly branches. A built linkage cannot cross between them, because there is no path in the set to cross by — and each goes all the way round, which is what makes the crank a crank. The square's left and right edges are the same line, and so are its top and bottom. One path to the tool

Branches were components all along

Seven words have been used for one thing. An assembly branch, a circuit, an assembly mode, a working mode, a posture and a branch defect are all statements about the connected components of a mechanism's configuration space — and once that is said, a four-bar's two circles, a platform's six modes and a synthesis defect stop being three subjects.

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

The regions overlap and the parts never meet

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

 Three circles at one point, at 50°. The osculating circle of the fixed centrode at the pole, the osculating circle of the moving centrode there, and the inflection circle. All three pass through the pole and all three have their centres on the common normal — which is what makes the relation between them a relation between three numbers on a line. The two centrode radii are 16.180 and 9.730, signed along that normal, and the inflection circle's diameter is 24.398 against the 24.409 the other two give. Nothing in that arithmetic knows there is a linkage. The window is 30.25 wide and the larger osculating circle is 32.36 across, so it is cut at the edge: what is drawn is the neighbourhood of the pole, where the three curvatures are the same three numbers however far the circles carrying them reach. The motion, not the mechanism

The two numbers are the curves' own

Every essay in this field runs on the inflection circle and the pole tangent, and every one has taken them from the motion's derivatives. They are the two centrodes' radii of curvature at the pole, combined harmonically — measurable off the curves with no mechanism in the arithmetic, and carrying a sign that changes eight times in a turn.

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

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

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

 A Geneva's acceleration against three cam laws, at the same index angle. The output's acceleration through one index, divided by the step over the square of the input angle it takes — the unit in which a cam law's acceleration coefficient is quoted — so every law is one fixed curve whatever the step. The dark curve is a Geneva of 6 slots: its step is 360°/6 and its input turns 120° while indexing, and a cam indexer is given exactly those two numbers. The Geneva's coefficient is 5.653 against cycloidal 6.283, modified sine 5.528 and simple harmonic 4.935, so at 6 slots modified sine and simple harmonic have the lower peak. The Geneva's curve starts and ends away from nought, at tan(π/6) = 0.577 in absolute terms: its acceleration steps the instant the pin enters. Dragging the slot count moves only the Geneva. Motion that stops

When the index law becomes a choice

A Geneva's motion law is forced by its slot count and a cam indexer's is chosen, so the fair comparison gives the cam the Geneva's own index angle and step. On peak acceleration the cam wins only below a slot count that depends on the law — 5.19 for cycloidal, 6.23 for modified sine, 8.06 for simple harmonic — and above it the Geneva does. What no slot count removes is the step: the pin arrives with an acceleration of exactly tan(π/n).

 A paired platform with its pairs rotated 60°, turned through a revolution. The paired Gough platform — base anchors in pairs 25° apart on a radius of 2.2, platform anchors in pairs 40° apart on 1.1 — with the platform's pairs centred 60° round from the base's, held level and turned through a revolution at four positions. All four curves reach nought together at 30° and −150°, which is 90° − ρ and 180° from it. At the centred position the platform is held at 0.0363 at a yaw of 0°, and it can turn ±17° before that falls to half. Dragging the rotation carries the two dead yaws across the revolution together. Several legs, one platform

The dead yaw is a design choice

A paired hexapod held level is singular everywhere at a yaw of 30° because its platform pairs sit 60° round from its base pairs. Rotate them by ρ instead and the dead yaws move to 90° − ρ and 180° from it, exactly, at every rotation from 0° to 120°. The furthest they can be from home is a quarter-turn each way, at ρ = 0 — where the platform is also best held at home and can turn ±75.5° before its holding halves, against ±17° for the usual 60°.

 Sliding the variator's travel across the pole. The variator of the power split — travel 0.544 to 2.045 — geared by a fixed ratio k ahead of a planetary with K = 1.4, so the planetary sees k times the variator's ratio. At each k the travel is trimmed wherever the output's ratio is uncertain by more than 10%, and what is left gives a forward span and a reverse span. Solid lines use the variator's own tolerance, which grows from 0.98% at one end of its travel to 2.24% at the other; dashed lines use one tolerance of 1.6% everywhere. With one tolerance the forward span peaks sharply, at 5.59 where the travel's top meets the trim, and falls as the pole moves into the travel. With the variator's own it peaks at 4.81 at k = 1.00 and stays within a tenth of that from k = 0.6 to 1.2, while the reverse span climbs from one, meeting the forward span at k = 1.26. More than one input

Sliding the travel across the pole

A power split's ratio has a pole the variator's own tolerance makes unusable, so the question is where to put the variator's travel relative to it. With a tolerance that is one number, the best forward span comes where the travel's top just meets the trim — 1 + τ(1 − r)/p, with no gearset in it. With the variator's real tolerance, which grows along its travel, that peak flattens into a plateau: the pole can be moved well inside the travel, buying reverse, for under a tenth of the forward span.

 The same patch twisted 17.2°: 35 mechanisms, all at the edge. A rhombus of 8 × 8 kagome cells — 192 joints, 346 bars — with every up-pointing triangle turned by 17.2° about its own centre. Each joint is drawn with an area proportional to its weight: its share of the diagonal of the projector onto the patch's mechanisms, which does not depend on how the mechanisms are written down and adds up over the joints to the number of mechanisms, 35. That number is Maxwell's count, 2 × 192 − 346 − 3, and the rank agrees with no redundant bar. The mean weight is 0.341 on the outermost ring of cells and 0.015 on the innermost. The twist kinks every line of bars at every joint, and the mechanisms fall away from the edge 23-fold in 3 cells. Many of one thing

The count says how many and not where

A kagome lattice has three joints and six bars in every cell and counts to exactly nothing, so a patch cut from it has as many mechanisms as its edge has lost bars: 5L − 5 for a rhombus of L cells a side, which the rank confirms at every size with no bar redundant. Straight or twisted, the number is the same. Where the mechanisms are is not: a straight patch keeps nearly half its edge weight in the middle, and a patch whose triangles are turned by 17° keeps a twentieth.

 Six coupler points of one slider-crank: three at other distances from the crank pin, three exactly a rod away. A slider-crank with a crank of 1 and a rod of 3 on a slide through the crank's pivot, drawn at one position with the closed curves six points of its rod trace over both assemblies. A point is given as (u, v) in the rod's own units — u along the rod from the crank pin, v across it. On the left (0.4, 0.5), (−0.3, 0.2), (1.2, −0.6): their distances from the crank pin are 0.64, 0.36, 1.34 rods. On the right (0.6, 0.8), (0, 1), (−0.8, 0.6), each exactly one rod from the crank pin, as far as the slider pin is. All six are quartics, all six are bounded — no real branch runs off the page — and nothing in the drawing tells the two panels apart. The difference is at infinity. How many answers

Where a slide puts the rest of the degree

A slider-crank's connecting rod draws a quartic that passes once through each circular point, which leaves two of its four meetings with the line at infinity unaccounted for. They are not along the slide. A point u along the rod and v across it sends them to the complex slopes [2v ± i(1 − u² − v²)] / [(1 + u)² + v²], whatever the crank, rod or offset — confirmed by slicing and by the fitted equation — and they are real only for points exactly a rod's length from the crank pin, where they merge into one direction at half the point's angle.

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

A coupling that only translates

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

 One shaft angle, five places along a twisted rotor. A mismatched pair — a cycloidal rotor against a circular-tipped one of the same height, which are not each other's conjugates — with the rotors twisted by 1 lobe pitch along their length. The section at a given place along the shaft is the flat pair at an input angle shifted by the twist so far, so at one instant the five sections shown are at five different phases of the same mesh: the two bodies are into each other by 2.42 at the tightest section and 2.34 apart at the widest, with a mean of -0.408 across the whole seal. All five are drawn at one scale, and nothing here is meshed twice: one planar profile is read along a window. The shape is the unknown

A twist steadies what it cannot tighten

A helical rotor's sections are at different phases of the same mesh, so the clearance a machine has at one instant is a window along its own profile rather than a point on it. A wrap of exactly one lobe pitch holds the seal's open area constant through the turn — every harmonic at once, whatever the profile — and leaves its average, its tightest place and its widest place exactly where they were.

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

An arm is a tree

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

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

Six things a body is not

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

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

The error that is an integral

A tolerance on a link length moves an output by a bounded amount. A tolerance on a wheel radius moves a vehicle by an amount that grows with how far it has driven: one per cent of mismatch between two wheels bends a commanded straight line onto a 30 m radius, and a four-metre square comes back 1.60 m from where the machine thinks it is.

 The roller's flight across a 0.05 mm clearance at every crossover. The cycloidal quick-rise programme carrying 0.5 kg against 20 N at 600 rpm, with 0.05 mm between the roller and the wall it is not bearing on. At each sign change of the groove's force the roller leaves its wall, and each curve is the gap it opens, from nought to the far wall at the top of the plot: leaves at 47.9° and lands 6.6° later at 80 mm/s; leaves at 87.1° and lands 7.1° later at 63 mm/s; leaves at 151.4° and lands 14.6° later at 35 mm/s; leaves at 193.6° and lands 13.4° later at 42 mm/s. Dragging the speed moves the crossings, lengthens or shortens each flight, and just above a stretch's threshold shows a flight that never reaches the far wall. Prescribed motion

The time a crossover takes

A roller in a groove changes walls where the groove's force changes sign, and it gets there by flying across the clearance. How hard it lands depends on the clearance through an exponent the motion law decides — two thirds where the force passes through nought, one half where it steps — a flight that ends in a dwell lands at √(2cF/m) whatever the speed, and just above each threshold the force changes sign and the roller never arrives at all.

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

The frame seen from the coupler

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

 A ball bearing turned by its inner race. A bearing of pitch diameter 40 with 8 balls of diameter 8, its outer race held and its inner race turned 60°. Rolling without slipping at both contacts leaves the cage — the ring that keeps the balls apart, marked by the dark tick — turned 24.00°, a share of 0.4000 of the race, and each ball spun 120.0° backwards about its own centre, marked by its own tick. The share is (1 − d/D)/2, less than a half by d/2D; the gear-train solver, handed a planetary with a sun of 32 teeth and a ring of 48, returns 2/5 for its carrier. Dragging turns the inner race. Wheels, and where they may not go

A bearing is a planetary with no teeth

Roll a ball between two races and nothing but the two rolling constraints decides how fast its centre goes round. Solved, they put the cage at (1 − d/D)/2 of the inner race's speed — always less than half — and the gear field's train solver, handed a planetary with a sun of D − d teeth and a ring of D + d, returns the same fraction exactly. And a tapered roller rolls without slipping along its whole line only if its axis meets the bearing's at the apex, the wheel field's concurrency one dimension up.

 Watt chain with 1 slide: 3 chains, 11 mechanisms. The same 6 links and 7 joints with 1 of the joints made a slide instead of a pin, drawn as a block astride the line. There are 7 ways to choose the joint, and the chain's 4 symmetries fold them into 3 that are genuinely different: with the slide at 0–3, 2 mechanisms; with the slide at 0–1, 6 mechanisms; with the slide at 1–2, 3 mechanisms. The mechanism count is the number of orbits of a held link and the slide set together, so a slide breaks symmetry the pin-only chain had, and links that gave one machine between them give two. The pin-only chain gave 2; one slide gives 11. The chain before the lengths

A slide turns nothing

Make one joint of a chain a slide instead of a pin and the graph has a second decision in it before any length exists. The symmetries that counted mechanisms count these too — Watt's chain with one slide is three chains and eleven machines — and two facts read off the graph say which placements still work: a loop of slides alone is freer than the count, and a pin in a group of links the slides hold at one orientation cannot turn. Across 102 placements on the three smallest chains, both agree with the rank of the constraint Jacobian.

 Eight contacts at once, and the sense each turns the disc. The 12-pin drive at 40° of its eccentric. 8 pins are in contact with the disc at this instant, and each one's line is the common normal, which passes through the pitch point on the pin circle. A pin can only push, so the sense in which it turns the disc is decided by which side of the disc's own centre its normal passes: 4 of the contacts turn it one way and 4 the other, with the largest arm in each sense 42.2 and 45.0 on a pitch offset of 55.0. A pair with one contact has no such choice, which is the whole of why two identical rotors cannot drive each other. The shape is the unknown

What a second contact is for

Two identical rotors that are exactly each other's conjugates cannot drive each other, and the reason has nothing to do with conjugacy. A ring of pins and the disc they generate is just as exactly conjugate, has eight to eleven contacts at once instead of one, and never loses more than thirty per cent of the arm its geometry allows.

 Two circles, one term. The curve r² = 1.44 together with r² = 2.56, whose squared radii sum to 4.00 — four times the square of the arm's link length. Their product equation expands to 1 term, which is what either circle costs on its own, so the second circle is free. The machine compiled from it has 17 bars against 11 for the single circle, runs over 5.200 radians against 1.560, and stays on the outer component throughout: its radius varies by 4.15e-13 over 240 solved positions. A mechanism moves continuously and the two circles are disjoint, so no assembly of it reaches both. The curve as an equation

Two circles for the price of one

Search every multiple of a curve's equation by a polynomial of degree two and the cheapest is the curve's own equation, on four curves and by exhaustion. On the circle a second multiplier ties — and what it describes is two concentric circles, whose squared radii sum to four times the arm's link length squared, at exactly the cost of one.

 The taut inner, and the walls it is actually held by. A sheath of two 8° bends on a radius of 40, its bore drawn at a clearance of 4, with the shortest path from ferrule to ferrule inside it. Nothing about a bend goes into that path: it is the shortest route the tube allows, found by tightening a funnel against every cross-section in turn, and the places it reaches the wall are where it is held. At this clearance the two bends hold 53% and 53% of their own turn, and the inner is short of the centreline by 0.854 against the closed form 1.117 — 76% of it. Widen the bore and the path lifts off. Members that pull

Which walls a strand is held by

A Bowden inner is short of its sheath by the clearance times the total turning — a law with no bend radius in it and no route shape. It is exact while the inner touches the inside of every bend, and a bend shallower than the turn the inner spends crossing the bore is not touched at all. Past that the law is an over-estimate, and what the inner actually loses flattens onto a ceiling that has no clearance in it.

 What each branch carries, against what the engine delivers. The power in the variator's branch and in the straight path, as multiples of the engine's own, for a planetary of K = 1.40. Both are ratios of powers, so the load cancels and nothing here is a force: the split comes from requiring the gearset to be lossless at every admissible set of speeds, which fixes the torques at 1 : K : −(1+K). The variator carries v/(K − v) and the straight path K/(K − v), and both run away at the pole. The variator first carries the engine's whole power at v = 0.700, which is exactly half the way to the pole — and the straight path is already carrying more than the engine everywhere past nought, flowing the other way through the planetary. That excess is the circulation. More than one input

The power that goes round twice

Sliding a power split's travel towards its pole buys ratio span for nothing, on the kinematics. It is not for nothing. The variator's own branch carries v/(K−v) of the engine's power and overtakes it at exactly half the way to the pole, and the tolerance trim the span was computed from is not reached until the variator is rated for six times the engine — which no machine is.

 A SCARA arm, and where it can put its tool. A SCARA arm at its home position, with the axes dashed and a cloud of the tool positions reached over random joint values. The displacement set of an open chain is the product of its joints' groups, one factor per joint, and the question this field asks of it is whether the product is itself a group. Here the logarithms of the reached displacements occupy 4 dimensions, so the motion lies inside Schoenflies motion and composing two of its displacements gives another one. The cloud is a fact about the reach and not about the group: a chain of finite links covers a bounded piece of its group and never the whole of it, which is a separate question and a different field's. One path to the tool

The arm that is a group

A SCARA arm has four joints and a six-axis robot has six, and the usual explanation is that four is enough for the job. The better one is that the job is a four-dimensional group of displacements which is not the symmetry group of any surface — so it cannot be one joint, and four is what it costs. The arm's tool face is level everywhere it can reach, and the reason is not that anybody checked.

 Nine parameters, two of them invisible. A Watt six-bar has seven lengths, a fraction that says where a point rides on its rocker, and a third ground pivot with two coordinates. Reading its output link with a protractor over 28 poses gives a matrix of rank 7: two directions are invisible, at 8.24e-10 and 5.06e-10 against a largest of 7.49e+0. One is scaling the whole machine, with a zero against the fraction, because a fraction is not a length. The other is scaling the second loop alone about O₄ — that loop is a four-bar in its own right and its own size does not reach the output angle. The two wrong guesses a reader would try, scaling those five parameters about O₂ or scaling the first loop alone, are refused at 1.5e-1 and 2.0e-1. Numbers that were measured

Nine parameters, two of them invisible

A Watt six-bar has seven lengths, a fraction and a ground pivot's two coordinates. Read by a protractor on its output link, its identification Jacobian has rank seven — and the second missing direction is not a scaling of the machine at all. It is a scaling of the second loop alone, about the pivot the two loops share.

 A four-bar at 1°, 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 3.3e-14 — 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 54.3°. Drawn wrongly

Six things a measurement cannot tell you

A calibration with a perfect residual whose fourth number is a starting guess, a rank that says nothing about a second answer, an improvement that proves nothing about a parameter, a class with no margin, a plan scored on poses that were refused, and a model missing something no data can find. Six claims, each with the number that kills it.

 The field of action, straight and slanted. The rectangle a contact lives in: its width is the usable line of action, its height is the face width, and a new contact line enters every base pitch. On the left the teeth are straight, so the lines are vertical and each one arrives and leaves all at once — the total length in contact jumps by a whole face width, 40 mm, every base pitch. On the right the same pair with a 20° helix: the lines lean by the base helix angle, so a tooth enters at one end of the face before it has left at the other, and the total changes by 3.44 mm instead of 40. Nothing about the profile is different between the two panels. Teeth

Contact that runs along the tooth

A straight tooth engages along its whole face at once, so the amount of contact at a mesh is a square wave. Slant the tooth and a second contact ratio appears that has no tooth count in it and no pressure angle — bought with face width and helix angle alone, and able to reach a value at which the total length of contact stops varying at all.

 Three laws in the band: a third, a sixth and a sixth. For bands from 3% to 10 ppm of the output's swing, three things measured on the symmetric six-bar itself: the longest dwell at any angle at the rocker pin, the dwell at the sixth-order angle γ = 120.8024°, and how far below γ the best angle sits. The dots are measurements and the lines are the two-term model's predictions from two coefficients read off the output's even part. Over the four tightest bands the fitted exponents are 0.173, 0.172 and 0.333, against a sixth, a sixth and a third. At 10 ppm the best angle is 0.490° below γ against a prediction of 0.488°, and the dwell at γ is 26.43° against 26.23°. The loosest bands sit above the lines, where the terms the model leaves out are no longer small. The paths points trace

The dip that buys the dwell

A symmetric coupler curve's six-bar dwells longest a little below the angle that makes its error sixth order, and three bands gave three numbers. Across three and a half decades of tolerance the best angle's distance from that angle grows as the cube root of the band, both dwells as its sixth root, and their ratio is (27/4)^(1/6) = 1.3747 at every band — because the best machine spends the whole band on one dip and ends its dwell where the output comes back.

 How evenly the rocker is driven through the working stroke. The rocker's speed through the working stroke, divided by its mean over the stroke, against the fraction of the stroke's duration, for a crank-rocker with a 60° swing and a time ratio of 1.2 of its own, ground 1.2223, crank 0.4783, coupler 1.1298, output 1. Every curve must start and end at nought, because the rocker stops to reverse; what differs is the middle. The number after each name is the fastest speed over the slowest while the rocker covers the central 80% of its swing. Driven directly at constant speed the crank-rocker gives 1.91 at a time ratio of 1.20. The drag link that gives the highest time ratio, 2.71, gives 2.77: a hump in the middle of the cut. The most even design that still reaches 2, a drag link of ground 1, crank 5, coupler 4.5, output 2.25, gives 1.21 at a ratio of 2.03 — more even than the crank-rocker alone. Dragging moves that design's phase. Linkages

A quick return that cuts evenly

A drag link ahead of a crank-rocker buys a shaper its time ratio of 2 with both stages at 40°. The drag link that buys the most ratio drives the cut unevenly — its fastest speed through the middle of the stroke is 2.77 times its slowest — and a different drag link at a different phase reaches 2.03 with a ratio of 1.21, which is more even than the crank-rocker driven alone at constant speed. Up to a ratio of about 2.4 the second stage can improve both specifications at once.

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

The arm that hits itself

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

 The same multiplier, applied to the error. A tong whose units are cut to an angle 0.01 radians away from the drawing. If one unit is out, the span is out by that unit's share and nothing more; if every unit is out the same way — which is what a machine setting or a worn tool produces — the error is multiplied by the unit count, exactly, to 7.6e-14. The third column is what would happen if the errors were independent and equally likely either way: the accumulation goes as the square root of the count instead, and the difference between the two columns at thirty-two units is a factor of 5.66. Which column applies is a question about how the parts were made, not about the mechanism. As built

The error that is repeated

Thirty-two units cut on one setting of one machine are thirty-two copies of one error, not thirty-two draws from a distribution — so a tong's span is out by thirty-two times a unit's, not by the square root of thirty-two times it. The two estimates differ by a factor of 5.66, and the second one is the comforting one.

 A machine measuring its own shape. A four-bar with an encoder at each end of its one freedom. Every pose gives one scalar equation — Freudenstein's, which is linear in the three invariants — so 40 poses make a three-column least squares with a condition number of 8.758 and no instrument outside the machine anywhere in it. With perfect encoders the invariants come back to 8.64e-15; with encoders good to a milliradian they come back to 5.40e-3, an amplification of about 6.26. What comes back is a shape and only a shape: the same three numbers describe this machine and one a quarter of the size, and nothing an encoder can read separates them. Numbers that were measured

A machine that measures itself

Put an encoder at each end of a one-freedom loop and every pose gives one scalar equation. The equation is Freudenstein's, it is linear in three unknowns, forty poses make a three-column least squares at a condition number of 8.76 — and no instrument outside the machine is involved anywhere.

 Two circuits at an ordinary change point, and how far apart a length error leaves them. A four-bar on the Grashof boundary g + a = b + c — ground 4, crank 1, coupler 2.50, output 2.50 — with its crank short by 1e-3, near the one input angle at which its two assemblies would meet. Built exactly, the two curves would cross at the origin. Built with the error they pass each other 0.0400 radians apart at the flat input angle, against the law 2√(2bδ/c(g + a)) = 0.0400, and the pin clearance that rejoins them is 1.0000e-3: the error itself. Dragging the coupler's share of b + c moves the separation and leaves the clearance where it is. What can move

Every change point lies flat

A parallelogram a thousandth wrong is rejoined by a pin clearance of exactly a thousandth, at any of its four bearings. The obvious guess is that an ordinary change point — a linkage on one Grashof boundary with no equal bars — would need a clearance with a constant in front and would reveal which bearing is loose. It does neither, because every change point has its four joints on one line. What does acquire a constant is the angle: 2√(2bδ/c(g + a)) when the circuits separate, and a stall constant with no coupler or output in it at all.

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

Where the shortest loops are

A tolerance stack-up goes round a loop, and every link the loop passes through is a dimension in it. Two eight-link chains with the same links, the same pins and the same number of loops can need twelve link lengths in their shortest independent set or fifteen — decided by the graph, before any dimension is chosen.

 Where a length comes from. A coupler 3.5 units long is a part with two holes in it, and neither hole's position is the length. Each carries an error of 0.010, of which 60% is common to both because they were bored in one setup — the whole pattern shifts by that much and the distance between the holes does not change. What survives is the independent part, 0.0063 at each hole, combining to 0.0089 on the length. A drawing that tolerances the length at ±0.010 is describing a part nobody makes, and it is out by a factor of 0.894 — optimistic below a shared fraction of one half and pessimistic above it. Numbers that were measured

Where a length comes from

A coupler 3.5 units long is a part with two holes in it, and neither hole's position is the length. What reaches the length is only the part of each hole's error the two do not share — so a drawing that tolerances the length is describing a part nobody makes, and is out by a factor of √2 in one direction or by everything in the other.

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

Where the two analyses cross

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

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

Exactness a micron destroys

Lengthen one bar of a compiled machine by a ten-thousandth and its tracing point leaves the curve. On the smallest machine the error comes out smaller than it went in; on a fifty-bar one it comes out ninety times larger — and the bars that matter are the reflectors, which are the cheapest part of the machine.

 Which feature to hold tight. A budget of 0.020 divided between the four lengths in inverse proportion to their sensitivities, and the same budget divided between the features those lengths are derived from — a frame jig-bored in one setup at 0.90 shared, a crank drilled twice at 0.10, a coupler at 0.60 and a rocker at 0.30. The tightest tolerance moves from b to a. And the null result matters as much: with one process for the whole machine the two allocations are identical to the last digit, because the transmission factor is then common and divides out. Feature-based tolerancing changes the answer when the parts are made differently and not merely when they are made. Numbers that were measured

Which feature to hold tight

A budget divided between four lengths in inverse proportion to their sensitivities gives one answer. The same budget divided between the features those lengths are derived from gives the same answer exactly — unless the parts are made differently, in which case the tightest tolerance moves from the rocker to the crank and the frame's loosens by a factor of two.

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

A clearance inside a tolerance box

Every quantity derived from the lengths becomes an interval when the lengths become ranges. This one has a sign, and an interval that reaches zero is not a wider answer to the same question — it is a different answer, because on that side of it the parts do not go together.

 A number that runs away. The Denavit–Hartenberg offset of a pair of nominally parallel axes, against how far from parallel they actually are, for a fixed out-of-plane tilt of 0.05°. The marks are extracted from the geometry by finding the common normal; the line is the closed form −A cos α cos β sin β / (sin²α cos²β + sin²β), and the two agree to 2.4e-16 relative over three decades. At 30° of twist the offset is 0.0030 of a link length; at 0.01° it is 1102. The dashed line is the worst case over the tilt, which sits at β = α and is exactly A/2α. Nothing about the machine has changed by as much as a degree. Numbers that were measured

A number that runs away

A hundredth of a degree of unintended twist on a nominally parallel pair of joint axes puts the Denavit–Hartenberg offset at −1,102 link lengths. The extraction from the geometry and the closed form agree to 5 × 10⁻¹⁶ over three decades, and the worst case over the tilt is exactly A/2α.

 The machine is fine; the description is not. Above: the offset the Denavit–Hartenberg chart assigns to a pair of nominally parallel axes, over three decades of twist, running from 0.0030 to 1102 link lengths. Below: the condition number of the identification Jacobian in a chart that describes the second axis by two small rotations from the first and never asks for a common normal, over the same range. It is 7.5501 at every one of them, flat to 2.4e-9. The machine is the same machine in both rows and it is perfectly well behaved. What breaks is a convention that locates its parameters on a line which, for two parallel axes, does not exist. Numbers that were measured

The chart breaks, the machine does not

The same two axes, over the same three and a half decades of twist. In one description a parameter runs from 0.003 to 1,102; in another the condition number is 7.5501 and does not move in the fifth figure. A quantity that diverges in one chart and is constant in another is a property of the chart.

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

Six per joint is two too many

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

 Which numbers have a size. Twelve quantities from eight fields of mechanism kinematics, each scaled by taking every length in its mechanism up and down together and fitting the power its value follows. A shape lands on zero, a length on one, a curvature on minus one, an area on two, and every row lands on an integer to 3.3e-11. The sorting is not a units argument — it is measured from each field's own library, by asking that library the same question. What it says is that most of what kinematics computes is a shape: a mobility, a Grashof class, a transmission angle, a contact ratio and a velocity ratio are all unchanged by making the machine bigger, so all of them are recoverable from a measurement that cannot recover a single length. The row worth stopping at is the tolerance band: held to a fixed ±0.01 it lands on minus one, because ±0.01 is a length and a bigger machine held to the same absolute tolerance is a better machine. Written as a percentage the same band lands on zero. One quantity, two drawing conventions, two different kinds of number. Numbers that were measured

Which numbers have a size

Take every length in a mechanism up and down together and fit the power each computed quantity follows. A transmission angle lands on zero, a coupler point's speed on one, a path curvature on minus one, an enclosed area on two — and a tolerance band held to a fixed ±0.01 lands on minus one, which nobody would guess.

 Which numbers have a size. Twelve quantities from eight fields of mechanism kinematics, each scaled by taking every length in its mechanism up and down together and fitting the power its value follows. A shape lands on zero, a length on one, a curvature on minus one, an area on two, and every row lands on an integer to 3.3e-11. The sorting is not a units argument — it is measured from each field's own library, by asking that library the same question. What it says is that most of what kinematics computes is a shape: a mobility, a Grashof class, a transmission angle, a contact ratio and a velocity ratio are all unchanged by making the machine bigger, so all of them are recoverable from a measurement that cannot recover a single length. The row worth stopping at is the tolerance band: held to a fixed ±0.01 it lands on minus one, because ±0.01 is a length and a bigger machine held to the same absolute tolerance is a better machine. Written as a percentage the same band lands on zero. One quantity, two drawing conventions, two different kinds of number. Numbers that were measured

A count is neither

Every quantity in the scaling survey lands on an integer power — zero for a shape, one for a length, two for an area. A mobility lands nowhere. It has no dimension at all, it does not move under any perturbation, and the probe that sorts the rest of the site's numbers returns nothing for it.

 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 calibration is a synthesis with more equations

The site's second field prescribes three input–output pairs and solves a 3 × 3 linear system for a linkage. This one measures thirty pairs and solves the same system in the least-squares sense. Same matrix, same coefficients, same closed form — and the only structural difference produces every question this field is about.

 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

Two instruments disagree about the worst

A protractor recovers three of a four-bar's parameters at a condition number of 5.2. A coordinate machine recovers six at 162. Neither number says which parameter is worst recovered, and when both are asked, they name different ones — because a condition number is a summary of a list and the list is what a report needs.

All themes