Bumpkey Proofing Locks.

by mh » 8 Apr 2006 4:02

Varjeal wrote:How about repinning the lock, 'cept in a position or two inserting a ball bearing of proper diameter as the "bottom pin", then making up the remainder of the bitting position with a proper sized pin... One shallow depth and one deeply cut bitting position should do the job.

The "pool-ball" effect might actually drive the "bottom pin" into the shearline, blocking it from turning. Haven't tried it, but just a thought.

Well, the "pool-ball" effect can also cause the "middle pin" to stay where it is, that is, if its momentum is transferred to the top pin;
I guess you have seen these ball pendulums before: http://salvator.net/salmat/physik/fu/kugpend.htm
(on that site there is no picture of the effect, but basically, if you lift one ball at one side and let it hit the other balls, the momentum will be transferred through all balls, and only one ball on the other side will fly away.)

Of course that depends on the mass of the pins (in the ball pendulum above, all balls have the same mass), but there is a good chance that this will not make the lock bumpproof.

by **DaveAG** » 8 Apr 2006 5:57

What about a top pin in two parts that will cause the uppermost part to move, yet not create an additional shear line?

Hopefully the momentum would cause the spool to simply extend, rather than get out of the way.

by **pip** » 8 Apr 2006 7:37

i think DaveG has a possible solution
but i think you would need to use a weaker spring
to allow the nesting to extend

by **Raccoon** » 8 Apr 2006 8:02

A weaker spring should not be necessary. The same force which compresses the spring with normal top pins will cause this modified top pin to compress the spring just the same. The only difference is the kinetic energy is (in theory) transferred to the top half of the top pin while the bottom half remains stationary against the bottom pin and in the way of the sheer line.

DaveG, I insist you patent this idea at once. If you do not, I will!

However, I do believe the suggestion of magnetizing steel pins is quite valid. Even a small amount of magnetic force would overcome the pendulum effect and force the bottom pin to jump with the top in. The problem with magnetizing steel pins is the overall mass of the pins is tiny, and the magnetism wouldn't last for more than a few years in ideal conditions. Neodymium core pins would be pretty neat.

by **DaveAG** » 8 Apr 2006 8:49

Raccoon wrote:
DaveG, I insist you patent this idea at once. If you do not, I will!

I'm afraid that in the UK at least, by publicly posting it I have ruled myself (and indeed any other independant inventors) out of getting a patent.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/howtoapply/index.htm

UK Patent Office wrote:If you are thinking of applying for a patent you should not publicly disclose the invention before you file an application because this could be counted as prior publication of your invention. Any type of disclosure (whether by word of mouth, demonstration, advertisement or article in a journal), by the applicant or anyone acting for them, could prevent the applicant from getting a patent. It could also be a reason for having the patent revoked if one was obtained. It is essential that the applicant only makes any disclosure under conditions of strict confidence.

by **jordyh** » 8 Apr 2006 8:58

Request for your posts to be removed and apply.

Yours,

Jordy

by **DaveAG** » 8 Apr 2006 9:05

Nah, with lawyers fees and filing fees etc I don't want to risk spending money and then not getting a manufacturer interested in licensing it.

I'm still at uni anyway, and under their rules that you sign, it would be their patent not mine.

by **jordyh** » 8 Apr 2006 9:17

by **maxxed** » 8 Apr 2006 17:27

I must admit I like DaveG's idea, another solution may be to make the top pins out of a material that will absorb kinetic energy. Plastic or a hard rubber may possibly be alternatives

by **pip** » 8 Apr 2006 21:22

i was just looking at another thread
and followed a link to deviating.net

has anyone heard of shallow drilling

http://deviating.net/lockpicking/08.24-shallow04.html

by **Isakill** » 8 Apr 2006 22:31

Actually I think that is applied to a few new bump resistant locks now.

The CES VA5/VB7 comes to mind

The Toool movie "What the bump" covers this in detail

by **n2oah** » 8 Apr 2006 22:36

The Corbin/Emhart interlocking pin design comes to mind when talking of bump-"proof" locks. It's a very simple, yet high security design.

by **pickin** » 8 Apr 2006 23:31

my personal idea of bump proofing a lock is to make the key way accept only the correct key into it fully. I'm a bit tired at this moment but will attempt to make a drawing of what I mean sometime tomorrow.

If nothing else my idea would at least make it so that a do it yourselfer could make their locks much harder to bump.

by **maxxed** » 9 Apr 2006 0:10

I made top pins out of styrene rod and keyed three cylinders to the same key. The only difference: one cylinder had brass top pins, one had three brass pins and three styrene pins, and the last had all styrene top pins. The styrene didn't add any difficulty when bumping or picking.

by mh » 9 Apr 2006 1:51

maxxed wrote:I made top pins out of styrene rod and keyed three cylinders to the same key. The only difference: one cylinder had brass top pins, one had three brass pins and three styrene pins, and the last had all styrene top pins. The styrene didn't add any difficulty when bumping or picking.

It would however reduce the torque a lock could stand in a brute force attack.

Bumpkey Proofing Locks.

Who is online