Master Lock Applies For Patent On Bump Proof Pins

[raimundo]

Whats up with this thead, it shows 3 pages at the bottom of page 2 but I keep getting "no topic was found" messages.

[lokedin]

Hi,

Iknow the idea of the site is to promote picking of a lock but reading this article has got me thinking....it appears that the study into bumping looked at a lock with the pins above the key and the spring above that...does anyone know if bumping still works with the pins below the key? ie if the plug (or even the whole lock) was the other way round would the lock still be bump-able (sorry dont know the correct term)?

are the two pins (driver and key pin) made out of different materials and so the reason for seperation could be due to the conservation of momentum (if the driver pin were of a heavier/denser material, it would take more force to stop it and the key pin would have passed on the full force onto the driver pin therefore lost all of its momentum before falling under the force of gravity before the spring and gravity have had a chance to stop the driver pin)?

sorry if these questions seem silly but unfortunatly I am a newbie (as well as a member of the public so not a lockie myself) and have not had a chance to take apart a lock to be able to see for myself.

p.s. sorry for spelling mistakes

[zeke79]

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).

The only method of keeping the design of masters theory in operation would be to only master pin 3 - 4 of 5 chambers or 4 - 5 of 6 chambers leaving one or two chambers constant which should leave their bumping protection in place.

Not an option likely on large systems but could work well on small to medium masterkey systems.

[yoyoguy2]

i would postulate that the pins separate on the BOTTOM pin's way down, but the top pin is still traveling up.

consider:
the newton's cradle analogy is still accurate, but due to surface adhesion and an imperfect collision, both pins move upward. the top pin is given more energy than the bottom pin, but due to the spring effect slowing it, and the possible adhesion of the bottom pin, both move upward.

at some point, the fact that the lower pin has less energy causes it to slow, but the higher energy of the top pin allows it to continue. the bottom pin slows, stops, and starts to fall, but the top pin is still traveling upward, as it has a higher apogee.

by the time the bottom pin falls past the shear line, the top pin has reached it's peak, and started falling, however since it's peak was higher, there's a gap. bump successful. at this instant, both pins may be traveling down, but they did not separate while both were traveling down.

[n2oah]

i would postulate that the pins separate on the BOTTOM pin's way down, but the top pin is still traveling up.

consider:
the newton's cradle analogy is still accurate, but due to surface adhesion and an imperfect collision, both pins move upward. the top pin is given more energy than the bottom pin, but due to the spring effect slowing it, and the possible adhesion of the bottom pin, both move upward.

at some point, the fact that the lower pin has less energy causes it to slow, but the higher energy of the top pin allows it to continue. the bottom pin slows, stops, and starts to fall, but the top pin is still traveling upward, as it has a higher apogee.

by the time the bottom pin falls past the shear line, the top pin has reached it's peak, and started falling, however since it's peak was higher, there's a gap. bump successful. at this instant, both pins may be traveling down, but they did not separate while both were traveling down.

Sounds reasonable. Welcome to the site, and great first post!

[Schuyler]

He's TOOOL Boston

[greyman]

Good first post yoyoguy2 - you've got me thinking there. THe only problem is where you say

[...]
the top pin is given more energy than the bottom pin
[...]

I don't think this is possible. The bottom pin gets most of the hammer blow, some of this is lost in friction and due to the inelastic collision, then what's left gets transferred to the top pin and spring. If more energy were transmitted to the top pin, you could use a lock to generate power! Now there's something worth patenting

[lokedin]

Im still wondering if the top pin is made of a different material (from my earlier post)...therefore it may have a different momentum due to a different weight which could be a possible explanation and still link in with yoyoguy2.

[Jaakko]

greyman, I think yoyoguy2 refers to the fact that the keypin pin doesn't hold the energy it gets from the hammer blow, instead it is transferred to the driver pin, so the driver pin has more energy than the keypin.

[Eyes_Only]

Im still wondering if the top pin is made of a different material (from my earlier post)...therefore it may have a different momentum due to a different weight which could be a possible explanation and still link in with yoyoguy2.

I suppose in theory a top pin made of more heavier and denser metal might slow the bumping process but I doubt that would make any real impact on this technique in the real world..

[greyman]

Having re-read yoyoguy2's post, I think I now agree with the explanation. The bottom pin moves up a little ways because it hasn't transferred all its momentum to the top pin (the collision being less than perfect). The top pin has (a lot) more of the total energy from the collision than the bottom pin, so it moves up further.

OK - so we agree But this still doesn't excuse Master lock saying that the pins separate on the way down, which is either plain wrong or poorly explained. On the other hand, it has given some momentum to this thread.

[Johnny P]

Jimb,

I'm the one who took the rough time and still am in the original thread I started.

I was called a liar, a BSer, a fool, a conniver and on and on. Then, on the same thread today, I posted the findings of the article in TNL and am still being taken to task. One of those taking me to task is none other than Shrub, who holds some sway with what goes on around here.

I thank you, Jimb for starting this thread as I am feeling somewhat exonerated.

I started out on the other thread trying to suggest there may be a different reason than the one we've all come to accept as to why bumping works by stating another member of a secured locksmith only site from another country was working with someone else in this country on the new theory. He would not say who that person was as they were waiting until the patent could be had.

But instead of prodding the brain cells of all these young people here to look at something differently, all that happened was that I was called names.

I have tried to help others, though I haven't posted all that frequently but after this experience of not even being given a chance before being called a liar and other names, I think I will just go on my merry way and let these youngsters remain in their own little world.

Goodbye, LP101

[Jaakko]

Sad you say so, but if you don't provide any proofs to suggested theory, then there is no theory. Period.

You claim that there is just happening some magic that is not within the scope of Newtons laws of motion and that you can't tell about it because some dude over somewhere is trying to patents physics.

You claim that the happenings inside a lock is different when bumped or when snapped/gunned. Why so? What is the difference?

[Johnny P]

I wasn't the one in the know, you blithering fool! The information was postulated by one of the two involved in studying it. Thywere holding it close to the vest. They weren't and aren't showing the video to every Tom, Dick and Harry out there. They only gave the theory and until the patent had been applied for to protect the end result of the theory they weren't going to show their notes to the world.

All I was doing was repeaing what the man wrote and that there may be a different reason bumping works.

You guys wouldn't even dare to think it could be possible and instead decided it would be better sport to bang me around a bit.

[UWSDWF]

I have had reall no participation in this but ummm you've already quit the internet over this so why are you still here posting? or was the above statement just some sort of emo cry fest for attention?