# Why is there a difference between get\_inverse\_kin and is\_within\_safety\_limits? **URL:** \ **Category:** URScript\ **Created:** [December 5, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://forum.universal-robots.com/t/why-is-there-a-difference-between-get-inverse-kin-and-is-within-safety-limits/5761 "2019-12-05T10:33:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![Ebbe](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.universal-robots.com/ebbe/32/1413_2.png) [@Ebbe](https://forum.universal-robots.com/u/Ebbe)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2020, 6:16am UTC](https://forum.universal-robots.com/t/why-is-there-a-difference-between-get-inverse-kin-and-is-within-safety-limits/5761/9 "2020-08-06T06:16:55Z")
I have posted a workaround in this post: > [@Inconsistent behaviour of is\_within\_safety\_limits and get\_inverse\_kin](https://forum.universal-robots.com/t/inconsistent-behaviour-of-is-within-safety-limits-and-get-inverse-kin/6342): > > Software version:5.6 Robot generation: E-series (not tested on CB-series) Steps to reproduce: We have identified a bug that makes it almost impossible to run our program properly on physical robots. The documentation about is\_within\_safety\_limits says “If a solution is found when applying the inverse kinematics to the given target TCP pose, this pose is considered reachable.” However, it seems that is\_within\_safety\_limits does NOT use the actual calibration data, while get\_inverse\_kin does … --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.universal-robots.com/t/why-is-there-a-difference-between-get-inverse-kin-and-is-within-safety-limits/5761)._