Master Lock Applies For Patent On Bump Proof Pins

[Trip Doctor]

N2oah,

+1

... am I cool enough to give +1's here yet or is that reserved for Locknewbie and UW?

[raimundo]

N20ah, our resident scientist, I haven't seen a pair of glasses like that on a scientist since last time I saw the classic 1980's movie "REPO MAN"

A few more bumps and he'll be able to tell us how the pins accelerate under gravity better than under spring pressure, and also tell us how the bongkey works upside down in euro locks.

[whiteknight38]

It seems probable that the evidently much beloved, and highly-regarded theory explaining how locks can be bumped... is about to be relegated to the scientific dumpster.

Well, that’s what science is all about after all – theorizing, testing and retesting, and finding evidence to support a theory… or finding reasons to toss the theory out the window.

Some of you seem to hold this particular theory very close to your hearts. (I'm reminded somewhat of Gallileo's detractors in this regard, and am wondering how well they're getting along directionally speaking.)

Some of you might be actually be surprised to learn that regardless of your opinion, this theory and actually any other theory that you might name for that matter, can never actually be scientifically "proven" by science at any time or at any rate.

That one may be tough for the gigglers around here to swallow, who might theorize that if they shoot me, then I’ll die, or blah, blah, blah, but, scientifically speaking, theories are either supported, or are not unsupported by evidence and tests.

Nothing is ever proved.

Some things, like the aforementioned theory of gravity, seem to be proven. The theory of gravity is almost universally accepted as true, and since it has withstood every test that scientists have been able to conceive and perform since Newton’s time, to the point that it is actually commonly referred to as “The Law of Gravity.”

Notwithstanding, it seems there are certain physicists who are postulating the theory that gravity may not actually be a pull but in fact a repulsive force or a push, at least on a cosmic level.

Nobody really quite understands gravity, not even Newton or Einstein by the way, so don’t be too surprised if theory changes over time.

Hey. Tachyons appear to travel faster than light under certain conditions, and in certain mediums.

Let’s all seriously cross our fingers and hope that the theory of relativity has some serious loop-holes in it, so that they can finally get around to giving me one of those flying cars they promised us.

I know one thing for sure, and that’s that Newton himself would have had no trouble accepting the results of an experiment documented by high-speed photography. Especially, since Newton’s cradle, the executive desk toy version that we’re all familiar with, was never a perfect example of Newton’s third law in the first place, (or bumping either, for that matter) so he likely wouldn’t have been taking it personally.

For the moment, just don’t bet the stock portfolio on the outcome here just yet, one way or another, until we see some peer review and data replication.

Meanwhile, Google Wikepedia for “Newton’s cradle,” just for the fun of it, and follow the links.

The “cradle” is only a sort-of-example of “The Third Law of Motion.” It’s sort-of “Newtonian physics for dummies.”

It’s a pretty good example, of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy, however.

Start by picturing a Newton’s cradle with a similarly-scaled sized lock-cylinder spring pressed against the opposite end. Or a pin-stack turned sideways about to be whacked.

It’s not action-reaction anymore.

Perhaps, it’s the influence of the spring pressing on the driver pin that turns the impact into an inelastic collision, as kinetic energy begins to be instantly absorbed by the spring compression.

(An example of an inelastic collision is when two moving snowballs collide, and both stick together after the collision, both now moving in common, but reduced, velocity and direction.

The return stroke, to use a combustion analogy, may involve the explosive release of energy from the simultaneously expanding springs that causes the separation of the pin stacks in accordance with the law of conservation of energy, (an elastic collision) which slows the driver by half, and kicks the kinetic energy into the descending bottom pin, and thus creating the gap at shear line.

I’d love to see some photography of the pins moving without the influence of any springs whatsoever. Maybe that would be a clear case of pin separation on the forward stroke of energy release, and help to comprehensively explain things.

I’d also like to see the experiment done using a pick gun instead of a bump key, to see if the physics are identical or totally different. I hope the research team at Master had the foresight, or can set things up again.

I thought it was a great article, and light years ahead in terms of sophistication and technical awareness when compared to the Keynotes article of April, 2007 entitled “The Definitive Bump-Key Guide” in which the author seemed unaware of the minimal movement technique, (let alone the pull-out technique… What’s with that!) and further hypothesized that spool and mushroom pins, stronger springs combined with longer than normal drivers, and a few “nine” cuts, might help to significantly mitigate bumping attacks, all stuff that teenagers here on this list have pretty much given up on worrying about.

The fix from Master looks promising. I especially admire the fact that they have thought forward to imagine a situation where forensic trace evidence might be important, and go on to engineer or at least point out an easy determinant.

[zeke79]

Despite all the science and seriousnes here..... N2oah, you freakin kill me .

I think the bong is cashed and so is that mad scientist .

[globallockytoo]

Very nicely written whiteknight38.

The amount and frequency of discussion globally about this subject, evidently has rung some bells with "some" lock manufacturers, who seek to dispell the myths surrounding bumping with advanced engineering.

The fact that they state, the underlying cost can be significantly cheaper than present pin tumbler manufacturing, suggests that they might have known about this technique for quite some time.

Kudos to them for finally shedding light on a universal problem, now brought into the limelight by the locksport community.

[n2oah]

It seems probable that the evidently much beloved, and highly-regarded theory explaining how locks can be bumped... is about to be relegated to the scientific dumpster.

Well, that’s what science is all about after all – theorizing, testing and retesting, and finding evidence to support a theory… or finding reasons to toss the theory out the window.

Some of you seem to hold this particular theory very close to your hearts. (I'm reminded somewhat of Gallileo's detractors in this regard, and am wondering how well they're getting along directionally speaking.)

Some of you might be actually be surprised to learn that regardless of your opinion, this theory and actually any other theory that you might name for that matter, can never actually be scientifically "proven" by science at any time or at any rate.

That one may be tough for the gigglers around here to swallow, who might theorize that if they shoot me, then I’ll die, or blah, blah, blah, but, scientifically speaking, theories are either supported, or are not unsupported by evidence and tests.

Nothing is ever proved.

Some things, like the aforementioned theory of gravity, seem to be proven. The theory of gravity is almost universally accepted as true, and since it has withstood every test that scientists have been able to conceive and perform since Newton’s time, to the point that it is actually commonly referred to as “The Law of Gravity.”

Notwithstanding, it seems there are certain physicists who are postulating the theory that gravity may not actually be a pull but in fact a repulsive force or a push, at least on a cosmic level.

Nobody really quite understands gravity, not even Newton or Einstein by the way, so don’t be too surprised if theory changes over time.

Hey. Tachyons appear to travel faster than light under certain conditions, and in certain mediums.

Let’s all seriously cross our fingers and hope that the theory of relativity has some serious loop-holes in it, so that they can finally get around to giving me one of those flying cars they promised us.

I know one thing for sure, and that’s that Newton himself would have had no trouble accepting the results of an experiment documented by high-speed photography. Especially, since Newton’s cradle, the executive desk toy version that we’re all familiar with, was never a perfect example of Newton’s third law in the first place, (or bumping either, for that matter) so he likely wouldn’t have been taking it personally.

For the moment, just don’t bet the stock portfolio on the outcome here just yet, one way or another, until we see some peer review and data replication.

Meanwhile, Google Wikepedia for “Newton’s cradle,” just for the fun of it, and follow the links.

The “cradle” is only a sort-of-example of “The Third Law of Motion.” It’s sort-of “Newtonian physics for dummies.”

It’s a pretty good example, of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy, however.

Start by picturing a Newton’s cradle with a similarly-scaled sized lock-cylinder spring pressed against the opposite end. Or a pin-stack turned sideways about to be whacked.

It’s not action-reaction anymore.

Perhaps, it’s the influence of the spring pressing on the driver pin that turns the impact into an inelastic collision, as kinetic energy begins to be instantly absorbed by the spring compression.

(An example of an inelastic collision is when two moving snowballs collide, and both stick together after the collision, both now moving in common, but reduced, velocity and direction.

The return stroke, to use a combustion analogy, may involve the explosive release of energy from the simultaneously expanding springs that causes the separation of the pin stacks in accordance with the law of conservation of energy, (an elastic collision) which slows the driver by half, and kicks the kinetic energy into the descending bottom pin, and thus creating the gap at shear line.

I’d love to see some photography of the pins moving without the influence of any springs whatsoever. Maybe that would be a clear case of pin separation on the forward stroke of energy release, and help to comprehensively explain things.

I’d also like to see the experiment done using a pick gun instead of a bump key, to see if the physics are identical or totally different. I hope the research team at Master had the foresight, or can set things up again.

I thought it was a great article, and light years ahead in terms of sophistication and technical awareness when compared to the Keynotes article of April, 2007 entitled “The Definitive Bump-Key Guide” in which the author seemed unaware of the minimal movement technique, (let alone the pull-out technique… What’s with that!) and further hypothesized that spool and mushroom pins, stronger springs combined with longer than normal drivers, and a few “nine” cuts, might help to significantly mitigate bumping attacks, all stuff that teenagers here on this list have pretty much given up on worrying about.

The fix from Master looks promising. I especially admire the fact that they have thought forward to imagine a situation where forensic trace evidence might be important, and go on to engineer or at least point out an easy determinant.

I read through that a few times and I could ever comprehend is "blah blah, I'm a wannabe scientist, blah blah blah".
The fact that you believe master lock's research WITHOUT seeing data for yourself shows how stupid you really are. Just because some company, which you seem quite fond of, released "earth shattering" data doesn't mean a word of it is factual.
Anyways, bumping open master locks really isn't a concern of mine, as long as I have padlock shims, lock picks, a rotary pick, and half of a brain.

[Trip Doctor]

Some of you might be actually be surprised to learn that regardless of your opinion, this theory and actually any other theory that you might name for that matter, can never actually be scientifically "proven" by science at any time or at any rate.

Hence why they're called THEORIES .

[TOWCH]

If they used rapid photography as claimed, I find it hard to believe they just made up their conclusion. What's the alternative? They mixed up the order of the stack of photos?

The newtons cradle principle never made much sense to me seeing as the pin stacks start under compression of the spring. Newtons cradles have nothing pushing the balls together. Gravity acts with equal force on both pins. Both pins are equal in every regard. How is the top pin supposed to have MORE momentum than the pin that transfered that momentum to it?

It wouldn't surprise me if the real cause behind the seperation of the pins was elastic recoil of the pins themselves. Like pulling back on the knot of a water ballon and letting it snap in to the ballon, the actual material of the pin might have shockwaves that compress the pin, and then expand it back again with the slight recoil and momentum this causes seperating it from the top pin.

[greyman]

I'm afraid I'm with N2oah on this one. Whiteknight38's obscure discourse did nothing to shed light on the matter to hand (those who like Connery films will recognise this quasi-quote ). Billy Edwards's Master Lock 4 page note was largely marketing, with some technical merit, but as N2oah just pointed out, zero data and zero explanation of what is going on.

Whiteknight38 - you seem to have read around a bit, but you seem to be concluding that somehow Newtonian mechanics is not enough to explain what's going on in bump keys! If you are right, you could be onto something really wild, hoever I doubt it. Newtonian mechanics is sufficient for most earthbound mechanics problems and I dare say, if you do the modelling properly, taking into account the forces that are acting, you will come up with the goods. Stiction and inelastic collisions are fine to talk about - they are somewhat counter-intuitive, but they all satisfy the principles of Newtonian mechanics, when you bring all the relevant forces into the picture.

I heard you mention google - well, I'm looking forward to some further explanations of what is going on here. (Unless Master want to put their high speed camera data on line so we can all see it.)

[Eyes_Only]

I got my issue of this months NL today and just finished reading the article about Master Lock. I really don't see it being that different from a serrated pin or the security pins used in an ASSA cylinder in my opinion. But they did put a lot of time and effort researching this stuff. I guess we'll have to wait till later this year to test it out though.

[Gordon Airporte]

I really don't see it being that different from a serrated pin or the security pins used in an ASSA cylinder in my opinion.

It /looks/ like an ASSA setup but the main idea seems to be that the upper pin is stopped in the milling so it doesn't contact the bottom pin, which has to be kept short. The lip on the pin and the groove are also beveled instead of square. So I guess when the bottom pin is bumped it jumps up and bounces off the upper pin, but not with enough force to move it.

And would it have killed them to index the illustrations?

[n2oah]

I really don't see it being that different from a serrated pin or the security pins used in an ASSA cylinder in my opinion. But they did put a lot of time and effort researching this stuff. I guess we'll have to wait till later this year to test it out though.

It's not all that different, but the main difference appears to be that ASSAs milling doesn't go all the way around the chamber and it varys in depth. Master's appears to go all the way around the chamber and doesn't vary in depth. Masters pins also don't incorporate a spool design.

[globallockytoo]

Very interesting discussions. However, it doesnt address the issue of master-keying. As soon as there are multiple pin stacks, the theory (and practise)might turn out differently.

This might be a short term solution to independant residences, but in condo villages and appartment complexes, master-key systems are abundant.

With more and more cities building more and more complexes, dont you think that more and more master-key systems will be provided - therefore negating the expected benefit of this product. Perhaps they might be targeting a specific part of the market only (albeit, a large market).

[Eyes_Only]

If the anti-bump pins depth/length doesn't change and therefore I assume there will be a limited length of bottom pins able to be used for that pin stack, can't this lock be bumped the same way a lock with shallow drilling is bumped? Just leave the cuts for certain spacings higher than the other?

The article said that for a master this special pin would only be used in 0, 1 and 2 chambers. You would have to carry a few more keys but it could be done maybe.

[Raymond]

Just some thought on the general subject.......

I have not made up my mind about the research from Master. If the bottom pin truly separates itself from the rest of the pin stack, then the use of ball bearings on the bottom of the first two or three spaces and spool pins on top would cause the separation between the ball bearing and the bottom pin. This lock would never bump open under their theory.

If a bottom pin were slightly tapered with the narrow end toward the top pin, any turning pressure would cause the bottom pin to not move upward as far as it could go. It would go until the taper hit the sides. ???

If a top pin was slightly larger than the true diameter of the bottom pins, and tapered so that the tapered sides can wedge solidly into the bottom pin hole, but, just short enough that it cannot touch the bottom pin, would this small air gap prevent bumping???