Having read the FAQ's you are still unfulfilled and seek more enlightenment, so post your general lock picking questions here.
Forum rules
Do not post safe related questions in this sub forum! Post them in This Old Safe
The sub forum you are currently in is for asking Beginner Hobby Lock Picking questions only.
by digital_blue » 20 Sep 2005 15:09
No, I was thinking safes. But, if the film were used on the other side of the whole safe, wouldn't you be x-raying the front door of the safe, the lock, all the contents of the safe, and the rear wall? I would assume that wouldn't be effective, but I'm just talking outta my DoNkEy here anyway.
So, someone who's familiar with this, fill me in here. When x-rays have been used to decode a safe lock in the past, does it involve using a film behind the rear wall or is there some other way? I'm pretty sure I'll never find myself x-raying a safe lock, but sinse I've been followng this thread it's got me curious, and now it's pretty much just academic for me.
db
-
digital_blue
- Admin Emeritus
-
- Posts: 9974
- Joined: 6 Jan 2005 15:16
- Location: Manitoba
-
by kodierer » 20 Sep 2005 16:45
I am personally not very educated on hospital X-ray machines. Just live sources, and how that is done, and works.
So perhaps there is something I don't know. However you are right DB if you placed film on the back of a safe the contents would get in the way of the picture. Also it costs a lot to perform X-ray, so it would be cheaper just to drill in most cases. My guess is that they some how managed to slip film inside the safe. However keep in mind light can expose film, and dirt can ruin it. So film is cartriged in a cloth material. My only determination is that the safes you've heard about were already open, and they just needed the combo.
As to ultrasonic I would have to say no as far as I know. In non destructive testing ultra sonic is only used for testing thickness.
Next thing you know someone will ask about die penetrant
-
kodierer
-
- Posts: 819
- Joined: 27 Aug 2004 12:45
- Location: Utah
-
by quickpicks » 20 Sep 2005 17:45
Im not trying to get into anything using this technique. It was just a neat idea I had pop into my brain one day.
-
quickpicks
-
- Posts: 751
- Joined: 9 Jun 2004 14:44
- Location: Ontario. Canada
by wtf|pickproof? » 20 Sep 2005 19:03
kodierer wrote:As to ultrasonic I would have to say no as far as I know. In non destructive testing ultra sonic is only used for testing thickness. Next thing you know someone will ask about die penetrant
I don't know about steel, but I'm well aware US is used to produce 3d images of babies, organs, ...
It is also used in geological researches, in submarines, ....
Personally I think the biggest problem might be the air between the pins and the body of a lock. The echos of the pins might be too weak.
Read this before you post to avoid serious flaming!
-
wtf|pickproof?
-
- Posts: 387
- Joined: 4 Jun 2005 8:13
- Location: Austria
-
by The KeyMaster » 21 Sep 2005 1:23
SFGOON wrote: Your also not to leave a radioactive source unattended when not properly stored, and locked as the general public may get a hold of the source.
Just make sure it's not locked with a #3 Master Lock!
BTW, thanks for the informative post
-
The KeyMaster
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 9 Sep 2005 11:08
by ndgreen » 22 Sep 2005 20:31
DB,
I have used X-Ray for many imaging applications over the years, but have absolutely no exp in doing so with safes or vaults. I have always drilled and scoped.
I don't know if I am telling you guys how to 'suck eggs', but x-ray is a non-live system, where the picture obtained is static, i.e. it doesn't move.
A machine called a fluoroscope is available that provides a live, moving image, but can be much more dangerous in untrained hands.
In either case, AFAIK, the film or receptor will need to be either inside the safe, or behind the rear wall.
N.
Sometimes I beat the lock, sometimes the lock beats me!
-
ndgreen
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 24 Mar 2005 0:34
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by ndgreen » 22 Sep 2005 20:58
Chopitup,
There is no doubt that x-ray COULD potentially be used to decode dial-based locking mechanisms, and the process would be very easy with a padlock, as access to both sides is easy.
The two questions in issue are:
1. Could the same thing be done with safes (I don't know)
2. Can it be used to decode locks (I don't think so, and there are easier ways).
All IMHO of course!
N.
Sometimes I beat the lock, sometimes the lock beats me!
-
ndgreen
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 24 Mar 2005 0:34
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by chopitup » 22 Sep 2005 21:01
I'm also curious about the possibility of ultrasound, as mentioned above.
-
chopitup
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: 15 Mar 2005 22:52
- Location: USA
by ndgreen » 22 Sep 2005 21:09
Chopitup,
I'm not too sure about ultrasound, as the resolution is not very good, and a lot of modern sytems use digitised images, which don;t help for fine detail.
I have used ultrasound for larger applications (imaging of suspected IED's and the like), but never tried it for locks. I may give it a go and find out for the group!
N.
Sometimes I beat the lock, sometimes the lock beats me!
-
ndgreen
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 24 Mar 2005 0:34
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by digital_blue » 22 Sep 2005 23:52
I'm not sure I get the "30 minute protection against radiographic attack" thing. I mean, wouldn't it either be possible or impossible. I'm not sure I follow how a lock could resist a radiographic attack for a limited amount of time, then succumb to it eventually. I can understand that for drilling and the like, but I don't get it in that case.
db
-
digital_blue
- Admin Emeritus
-
- Posts: 9974
- Joined: 6 Jan 2005 15:16
- Location: Manitoba
-
by chopitup » 23 Sep 2005 0:20
I would assume that additional shielding increases the time to decode the lock, and thus raises the time rating.
-
chopitup
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: 15 Mar 2005 22:52
- Location: USA
by sivlogkart » 23 Sep 2005 0:50
You are right, this does not make physical sense as it stands. However it might make sense in the context of a particular bit of kit being used, so I guess that is were it comes from.
KJ
-
sivlogkart
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005 1:43
by Shrub » 23 Sep 2005 6:22
To ultra sound a lock youve got to fill it with gel, ultra sound doesnt go through air very well, ive been looking at this since the thread last year on it but have yet to find a cheap machine,
To x-ray a safe you do get the contents in the picture but its all relitive, the metal parts of the lock is at the front of the pic and stands a darker shade than things behind it, its the same as looking at bones through the skin, the denser the material the easier it is to see, on safe xrays you see the money etc but can make out the lock parts very clearly,
-
Shrub
- Moderator Emeritus
-
- Posts: 11576
- Joined: 23 May 2005 4:03
- Location: uk
by sivlogkart » 23 Sep 2005 7:54
The problem with ultra sound is worse than that, as the two materials in that case are so very different. You would probably want to fill it with something that was much more solid. Ultra sound would be a bad option for this and several other reasons too.
KJ
-
sivlogkart
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005 1:43
Return to Got Questions? - Ask Beginner Hobby Lockpicking Questions Here
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests
|