Are we still debating the validity of the sentence that says "... does not require equal angles between the input shaft axis and the joint, and output shaft axis and the joint, to maintain constant velocity"? The basic geometry of the double cardan is identical with or without the centering element, and is identical whether the intermediate coupling is a short shaft, long shaft or yolk (as in the case of the joint) - the references provide sufficient information to make this clear - no more references are required - the whole point of a centering element with a DC joint is to fix the differential angle problem.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather you've have been assuming all along that the double cardan must include a centering element (while I have assumed the more general case), and this is why you've been challenging the validity of some aspects of the article?What is your view of my previous post or are we close to reaching an agreement?