Tolerance — where it appears
Named by 13 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Almost every pattern fails
Kawasaki's condition is one equation for each interior vertex, and a drawing satisfies an equation with probability zero. Every pattern on this site folds because it was constructed to, and the fraction that would fold by accident can be measured.
Error is folded too
A folded position is a composition of reflections, and a reflection in a line that is slightly off turns everything beyond it by twice as much. So an error does not stay where it was made — and whether it grows with the crease count or with its square root depends on whether it is the same error every time.
Nowhere to put the error
Paper takes a misplaced crease and spreads it along its whole length as a curvature nobody notices. A panel is flat by definition and cannot, so the error arrives at the hinge — and the room to receive it is a length that has to be drawn, is paid for in fold angle, and has to grow with the crease count.
A near miss is nearly as rare
Flat-foldability is a coincidence of measure zero, which is usually where the argument stops. Measure how far a random vertex is from folding rather than whether it does, and the answer is thirty-one degrees a sector — so the tolerance real paper has does not buy back anything at all, and a pattern that nearly folds had to start near one that did.
Where an error goes
A misplaced crease in a folded sheet has to be paid for somewhere, and this subject has two answers already — the error is folded too, and the hinge is where it ends up. There is a third. In a quadrilateral mesh a mistake in one row has no consequence in that row at all: it is felt by the columns, which is to say by every other row on the sheet.
Solved is not built
A mesh that folds because an equation holds and a mesh that folds because one crease family runs straight through every vertex are not two examples of the same thing. Cut a Miura's every dimension five per cent wrong and it still folds exactly. Cut a solved general mesh a fifth of a millimetre wrong on a 150 mm sheet and the closure is gone.
Exact is not accurate
This site has two ways of dividing a strip into equal parts: a ladder that lands on the fraction as a rational number, and Fujimoto's method, which never arrives. Read as mathematics that settles it. Read as instructions for somebody with a sheet of paper it settles nothing, and past four parts the method that never arrives is the one whose crease lands nearer the mark.
A tolerance is a direction
Cut a solved mesh a fifth of a millimetre wrong and its closure is gone. That is true of the errors it was tried with and false of errors in general: the solutions form a surface sixteen directions wide, an error along it costs five thousand times less than the same error across it, and the fifth of a millimetre is the allowance in one direction out of twenty.
The allowance is spent at the end
A tolerance on a solved mesh was priced at one fold angle, because that is where a tolerance is priced. The surface of solutions turns out not to move as the sheet folds — the free directions at a third of a radian are the free directions at two and a half, to twelve figures — and the price of leaving it rises by a factor of thirteen along the way.
What buys the reach costs the accuracy
A reference is a crossing of two creases, and a crossing transmits a folding error multiplied by one over the sine of the angle the creases make. Measured across the whole closure on a square, the four linear axioms never produce a crossing shallower than thirty-seven degrees — and the conic axiom, the one that sends a point onto a line and reaches the heptagon, produces crossings under seven.
The helix chooses the lattice
A strand can cross to the next helix only where its backbone faces that helix, and a double helix turns about 34.3° a base. Three neighbours a third of a turn apart are faced exactly every seven bases. Four neighbours a quarter of a turn apart are never faced exactly by any whole number of bases — the nearest miss by 4.3°, and the misses do not average out, they add: 17° over thirty-two bases, 137° over two hundred and fifty-six. The lattice a design is drawn on is decided by the molecule before any shape is chosen.
A stub is never alone
A crossing is a crease running past another and it has a depth. A stub is a crease that simply stops, and it has one too — how far from the rim it stopped, which is also how much shorter than a crease it is. Measured across a hundred and twenty drawings: sixty-six stubs, from 0.27 mm to 35 mm at printed size, every one of them paired with another at exactly the same distance, and not one on a drawing that did not already have a crossing.
Two faults, not four
A drawing departs from its crease list in four named ways — a crossing, a stub, a junction and a fragment — and a checker tests for all four. Counted side by side on two hundred and forty drawings, two of the tests find nothing the others do not. No crease anywhere ends on another crease: every junction the reading finds is a crease meeting the rim, which is where creases are meant to end. Every stub is on a drawing that already has a crossing. What is left is two independent faults, and the clipped construction, which makes no crossings, still makes the second — creases a thousandth of a millimetre long, in pairs.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Error propagationIdealisationFold angleKawasaki's theoremManufacturingQuadrilateral meshRigid foldingClosureCrease patternCrossingGenericityMeasurement