Possible simple defeat for bumping?

by **zeke79** » 3 Sep 2006 18:31

well I just tried adding master pins on top of the driver pins in a schlage everest lock. I added #3 schalge master pins in 5 of 6 chambers and bumped the lock open on the second tap.

by **zeke79** » 3 Sep 2006 18:46

I just tried the #9 pin without top spring and top pin. Same results, I bumped the lock open twice with a total of 9 strikes for both openings. 6 spin schlage everest.

by **Schuyler** » 3 Sep 2006 18:46

I am shamed! Disappointing!

I continue to contend that the solution is valid, but obviously needs development.

by **zeke79** » 3 Sep 2006 18:48

Schuyler wrote:I am shamed! Disappointing!

I continue to contend that the solution is valid, but obviously needs development.

I intend to try again with larger master pins than the #3's. I think a telescoping top pin would be a great defense against both bumping and picking. But that is not a simple solution.

by **zeke79** » 3 Sep 2006 20:49

How about this idea:

A bump proof pin :wink:

.

Of course this would not be a fix for those using the pull back bumping method.

by **Schuyler** » 3 Sep 2006 21:45

My clever idea would be very expensive, though I've been talking to a company about a prototype. It would involve a small pnuematic cylinder. A very very small one, but I found a company who can make it.

My hope is that with economies of scale it could become a financially viable solution that doesn't invalidate the pin tumbler lock.

BUT

I'm a 22 year old, underpaid, graphic designer, so, we'll see how affording to make the prototype pans out

by **Bud Wiser** » 3 Sep 2006 22:31

I think DB was looking for a way to modify existing locks, and not design new locks. There are locks already that can't be bumped, but that doesn't help all the millions of kwicksets and schlages out there. So if you really wanted to defeat bumping you could just replace your lock with one of the existing ones.

This is a interesting thread! How to modify an existing lock to defeat bumping. I can just see every one pondering on this puzzle

by **digital_blue** » 4 Sep 2006 1:20

Ok.. LSI Winnipeg meeting is over, and there was quite a bit of testing done. Out tests confirm Zeke's tests. Adding master pins seems to have no effect on bumping whatsoever. Not in any config we could dream up, nor with any size we tried.

However, the lone key pin continues to resist bumping on all accounts. So, barring the possible increased failure rate, I gotta say that this actually works. And, as was mentioned before, if there ever WAS a failure, it would likely be fixed pretty easy with a shot of lube and a going over with the key.

So here's my take on it all. Though this may not be something locksmiths will care to implement in the field for the average Joe, this could be used by any one of us who have even a little bit of knowledge. I would still recommend that a 6 pin lock be used, so as not to reduce your lock to a 4 pin lock. And be sure that it is not the 6th position that it is employed in.

But I still think there's something to this. It's such a simple mod to an existing lock, it costs nothing, and the only real down side it the possibility that a pin will get stuck. If it happens at my house, I've got another door to go in so I can get my can of spray lube.

db

by **digital_blue** » 4 Sep 2006 1:31

P.S. One of the thoughts that was brought up (by Zeke, in a private convo) was that a 10 10 10 key might work to defeat this. So, as another test, I loaded up an 8 cut, thinking that if an 8 cut could be bumped with a 999 key, then a 9 cut could be bumped with a 10 10 10. There was no openings with the 8 cut either. I didn't test any further, but my guess is, that even a lone 6 or 7 would work to defeat bumping. If this is true, it opens the door to a lot more permutations, and thus makes that concern moot as well.

db

by **Schuyler** » 4 Sep 2006 9:20

Awesome work, DB. Sounds like you've come up with a solid solution.

Congrats, man.

by **EricM** » 4 Sep 2006 11:04

hrmmm, technically the adding of a top pin or ball bearing shold work, I'm astonished, as by physics alone it should work. I'm just got back from camping and I have a few theories but I need a cutaway to see it in action, and test a few postulations before I post on this matter again.

(proceeds to sleep under desk for two weeks)

by **zeke79** » 4 Sep 2006 11:10

I have not been able to duplicate DB's results using the #9 pin alone. I attempted this earlier and posted results above.

by **Schuyler** » 4 Sep 2006 11:26

Zeke, you and DB should compare notes, retest (both of you) and see what comes out.

by **zeke79** » 4 Sep 2006 11:33

And have a bunch of cylinders on hand to test :lol:

. I think there are a number of methods that need to be tested that could be put into production at a minimal cost.

One other method that would be worth a shot is a moderately undersized diameter pin in one chamber to increase tolerances. This ideally would be on a 0-3 size pin in a schlage lock or a 1 or 2 pin size in kwiksets to maximize the effect, but it could be done with all pin sizes so not to limit the application to only some locks with certain bittings. Ideally though you would want the undersized diameter pin on the lowest pin height in the stack.

by **Schuyler** » 4 Sep 2006 11:42

Now, what about the previously mentioned idea of different spring strengths? Does it actually alter the pace at which things both rise and return? or only the pace at which they return? Because it seems to me that eventually the amount of force being put into the bump will eventually raise everything over the shear and the weaker springs would just compress further and longer, rather than sooner and faster, and everything would be returned at a similar moment.

Does this actually have any greater effect than a whole bevy of strong springs?

Possible simple defeat for bumping?

Who is online