Master Lock Applies For Patent On Bump Proof Pins

[jimb]

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

Your welcome. Hang around and see how this ends up. I'm hoping that they release more info on the video and it shows that the pins do seperate on the way down.

I have done many experiments with bumping and I will buy the first bump proof lock I see. We will not know for sure if Master Locks new bump proof locks are bump proof until people start getting their hands on them.

[Jaakko]

And by the way: If the pin stacks separate while coming down, then how the heck the bumping works on upside-down locks also??

[Afisch]

I don't suppose there is a chance that the pins both hit the top of the bible, (after overcompressing the springs) and then split due to the second inpact force, seems slightly unlikely to me but I thought I'd put it out there to see where it falls.

[greyman]

I thought we had this sorted! The pins don't separate on the way down, they separate as they are on the way up but the bottom pin can move up a little before it starts to come down (during which the top pin is still moving up).

For the pins to separate on the way down, the net force on the bottom pin would have to be more than the net force on the top pin since if the bottom pin separates, it would be accelerating away from the top pin. We know this isn't the case because the top pin also has the spring force on it.

Regarding bumping locks mounted with the chambers down (like in the EU), it still works because while the bottom pin (key pin) can move down relatively slowly (having transferred almost all its energy to the other pin), the top pin (driver pin) moves down much faster and this still creates a gap across the shear line.

[jimb]

And by the way: If the pin stacks separate while coming down, then how the heck the bumping works on upside-down locks also??

It would be interesting to know which bumping method Master Lock used. It could be possible that if very light tension is used on the key with the minimal movement method then the pins might just be caught at the shear line, or separate on the way up because of plug tension on some of the bottom pins. Or if they were trying to catch the pins with a gap between them with minimal movement or the pull out method? If they did not use all of methods then their results, if true could be faulty.

I have never said that I believe Master Locks results, but I have said I hope they are correct. I have a very open mind, this has come with age and I'm not as closed minded as I use to be. This has kept me from having to eat my words on a few occasions.

[jimb]

I thought we had this sorted! The pins don't separate on the way down, they separate as they are on the way up but the bottom pin can move up a little before it starts to come down (during which the top pin is still moving up).

I have read this several times and to me if the bottom pin starts to come down then this is seperation on the way down.

I said this in the 1st page, 5th post of this thread.

My Quote: I have a theory that the spring tension keeps the pins from separating while they are on there violent way up. At least enough for both pins to pass the shear line. at some point past the shear line the bottom pins drop. This would only take a split second for the bottom pins to drop back down. While the bottom pins make their journey down the top spring and pin are still moving upward.

[Eyes_Only]

Sounds like Barry Wells is gonna have to present another "bumping revisited" workshop.

[whiteknight38]

Yoyoguy2 is entitled to “postulate” as he calls it, to his heart’s delight, but we all have to establish clear distinctions between “postulations,” and what is actually being recorded by high-speed photography.

For the benefit of those of you who didn’t read the article, this is what Billy Edwards CML (Certified Master Locksmith) says in the article: “When the pin stack reaches the zenith in its rise in the chamber the bottom pin begins to descend and separates before the top pin begins to descend.”

The experiment was photographed in slow motion. With high-speed, high-resolution, high-magnification digital imaging at 2,162 frames per second, and all measurable in micro-increments of time and distance. Does anyone seriously think that if the lower pin began moving downwards before the spring was fully compressed, and while the upper pin was still moving upward, the engineers would have missed noticing it?

Consequently, since the bottom pin did not in fact begin to drop before the upper pin reached apogee, then Yoyoguy2’s explanation is meaningless, and discussion of an hypothesis of “Why events that did not happen… happens…” is just the intellectual equivalent of pounding sand.

It’s just drivel. Sorry if that seems a little harsh, but if a theory doesn’t fit the facts, it’s just… drivel.

Okay guys? This may be hard to understand, and perhaps greyman finds this posting too, a little “obscure,” but in fact it is neither vague nor ambiguous.

N2oah admits he never actually fully understood my first post, but felt obliged to comment on it regardless. “I read through that a few times and I could ever comprehend is "blah blah, I'm a wannabe scientist, blah blah blah." I wonder if he’s comprehended things up to now. I imagine he’s either nodding off at this point as his ADD kicks in, or alternatively may be wobbling around having another high-speed, hysterical hissy fit.

Greyman seems to think that Master’s R&D boys, the engineers, scientists, master locksmiths, and precision machinists, are all guilty of some kind of heresy, and the opinions of a bunch of high school kids and the president of a local lockpicking club trumps their knowledge and expertise and their proprietary experimental data. “OK - so we agree.” He says, “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.”

(Heresy was a word carefully chosen there, as some of you are clinging to orthodoxy in the face of evidence like a bunch of 17th century Vatican inquisitors.)

Greyman, you’re backing the wrong horse here, Sir. I’d suggest you use you contact the R&D people at Master and maybe talk to the author of that post before you make any more statements you may come to regret. Afterwards you can determine for yourself if the technology qualifies as high or higher security.

Greyman, permit me to ask you a question. What percentage of the general public do you think is currently aware of lock bumping?

I’m a locksmith, Sir, (in North America) in a city with a population of 2.5 million people.
I would estimate that it is significantly less than one percent at the present time. I certainly get fewer than one inquiry per hundred calls. More like one per thousand calls. Conduct a “man on the street” interview and ask 100 people in a mall, if you doubt me.

When Master brings this initiative on line, (they’re calling the line Bump Stop, by the way) I’m betting that public awareness is going to spike for a bit. There will be more questions, very soon. More articles, and news broadcasts, and more bumping related crime.

Anyway, let me get back to my point. Scientists and engineers don’t win the respect and admiration of their colleagues by fudging data. Quite the contrary. Reputations are at stake here, not to mention a whole lot of money. A patent has been applied for. That means peer review. And the requirement of the petitioners to present empirical evidence, and allow the investigation, and examination of experimental models. Ultimately the replication of the experiment in a controlled environment is required. All of which Master seems to have covered.

It all boils down into fact, boys and girls. Like it or not.

Bumping solutions based of the presumption that separation worked on the up stroke evidently weren’t working. In the article, CML Edwards went on to state, “After analyzing the video (shot at 2162 frames per second) we changed design direction based on what was really happening in the cylinder.”

The investigative research employed five people for eight months. Over three hundred cutaways were assembled in a wide sample of lock styles, each lock being bumped three or four hundred times, with and without torque, with varying amounts of torque, and impact force. And the testing is ongoing.

They naturally approached the testing with the working hypothesis of bump separation on the upward stroke of the cycle. After 5 and a half months, they brought in the camera to test the hypothesis and found it erroneous.

They found that the pins slide up the slope of the key cut, not as a rebound reflex, but a violent push or thrust upward.

In one test with an open topped cylinder, no springs, or chamber cap/bible, they recorded that a normal bumping tap propelled the pins upward ten feet in the air in under half a second. It’s a tremendous amount of released energy in the confined space of the chamber.

The filming required a 100,000 dollar camera taking 2,162 frames a second. The entire bumping cycle, however, takes place in 15 frames, and takes place in only 7 milliseconds! But as I said earlier, lots of time to measure what’s going on.

Repeated.

Time after time.

32 films were ultimately created, for peer review, and posterity.

Unfortunately, the films are considered proprietary trade secrets by Master, but you can watch a video if you take one of Billy Edwards classes for locksmiths.

The result is a product that Master claims will be 99.99 percent bump proof, although they doubt that even one lock in 1000 will ever fail to a bump attack.

If a scientist happens to notice that reality doesn’t correspond with a theory, it means that the theory is probably bent, and not necessarily space and time.
What’s the big deal here?
The pins appear to move differently than expected.
So what?
Bumping is still effective, and solutions must be found, and free exchange of accurate data to help facilitate this end must be freely available.

Why are we not congratulating companies that are concerning themselves with developing new anti-bump technologies? Wasn’t that the whole point of the original whistle blowing in the first place, and the justification of people here posting bump key bypass information on public forums?

Marc Weber Tobias is probably not at this moment, spitballing theories as to why the photographic evidence is in some way still supporting the cradle idea. No, he is likely investigating the data, and preparing to revise the next version of LSS.

I appreciate the fact that certain moderators are sick to death of talk about bump keys, having become bored with them, and as serious hobby lockpickers equate their use with the disdain crossword puzzle aficionados afford people who use dictionaries to solve puzzles.

But I happen to agree with Mr. Tobias that bumping is the most serious security issue that we as a society face at this moment in time. So if I seem a bit of a kill joy to some of you when I attempt to interject an element of seriousness into serious posts, some of you will just have to try and deal with it.

I have attempted to share what knowledge and insights I have in a serious manner, and as a general rule, I have disdained from arguing with people here. For example, if someone says “Weiser keys fit into Kwikset locks,” and I say, “Sorry, but it’s the other way around.” I have always resolved that I would not be drawn in should a statement of such a simple fact become disputatious.

Lately, however, I am noticing lately that this site is growing more and more influential. The success of this forum is such that it is being linked to by trade publication forums such as The National Locksmith, particularly on the subject of lock bumping.

More and more often, I see links to LP101 forum articles on search engines, and consequently, people are linking in while searching for answers on serious issues, like lock bumping. If someone were to Google say, Pickbuster, or “Lock Jaw Security” they may very well find links to this forum on the first or second page.

If some preposterous piece of misinformation that confuses this or that issue, is allowed to remain unchallenged by members of this community who ought to know better, then the world has not become a better, happier place.

So I’m afraid that I’m going to revisit a few posts, and reopen a few issues, and I apologize in advance if a few toes get stepped on in the process.

I too, am getting a little tired of the bullying behavior of some of the moderators and junior posters on this list, but I will continue to publish news reports on Digital Blue’s post on Bumping and Crime. This post is frequently being linked to as a research resource, as internet news stories are frequently deleted within a few weeks of publication, and a permanent sticky on the subject is a useful tool for researchers. Gentlemen, even though in General Chatter (the ideal area for goofing around) I for one would appreciate it if we all resisted the temptation to turn that one into a giggle fest.

That’s the end of my post.

Now, if you’ll permit me… please allow me to address N2oah’s comment on how stupid he thinks I am.

Enough is enough.

It’s time to put another layer of tinfoil on your hat, Sir. I assure you that I was not being deliberately offensive or provocative. But please pay attention now. I’m sure you’ll be able to tell when I am actually being deliberately provocative.

As for your claim that you have “half a brain,” I would like to share my condolences, but also my assurance that I believe that you are doing yourself a disservice. Don’t sell yourself short, Sir. I doubt you have quite as much as say, three-quarters of a brain, but even a chimp clocks in with an IQ of 80 or thereabouts, and I’m convinced that you’re brighter than an average chimp.
I happen to share with Howard Stern, the radio guy, membership in MENSA. (The high IQ society.) My membership # in MENSA Canada is 9685, by the way.
Mr. Stern is fond of saying to people who call him an idiot, “I’m not an idiot. I’m a genius. You’re an idiot.”

I refuse to stoop to calling you an idiot in reply to your challenge, however, but I will assert my belief that not only is it reasonable to imagine that not only am I smarter than you, manifestly and empirically verifiably smarter than you, but that practically everybody here is smarter than you. And certainly better grounded emotionally.

I am further prepared to bet that I am better educated, older, with more general and specialized experience, from travel, study, work, and conversations with grown ups.
I have owned and run locksmith business since 1993, so I have been working with locks back when you were playing with blocks. I have been a professional firefighter, and forcible entry instructor for 18 years, and was kicking down doors before you could reach the handles on your own.

Actually finishing a post before freaking out on the author is important N2oah. There are drug therapies available for ADD. Don’t be shy about bringing it up with your guidance councilor.

Please govern yourself in your future replies to me, Sir, because the next time you go off your meds I won’t be so patient.

Now for those of you who’s world view is such that it absolutely depends on adherence to the inertia cradle concept, then here’s a straw for you to cling to…
It has been noticed by quantum physicists, that sub-atomic particles behave differently in experiments that are directly observed, as opposed to when recorded and observed later. It’s hard to imagine, that the mere act of observing or not observing reality can sometimes affect outcomes. So, perhaps bumping represents similar phenomena and really does rely on the cradle theory… except when observed by scientists with high-speed cameras.

That, by the way, was a joke, guys. Not the stuff about observed particle behavior at the subatomic level, that’s true. I meant the other stuff. I was just being provocative again.

(Somebody wake up N2oah, and let’s watch him spin around a few times…)

Yes N2oah, I believe Master Lock’s research without seeing the data for myself. The proof ultimately will be in the patent, and the results will quickly be established as the new orthodoxy, and I imagine that you and a few others will soon be denying this post, and your participation in it ever happened.

If I thought you were an honorable man, I’d publicly bet you money.

But I doubt that you are, Sir, and I suspect that you probably don’t have any money regardless.

Are you still awake, Sir? Are you still paying attention? That was me going beyond merely provocative.

[Schuyler]

If I see one more personal attack on this thread it's done.

Get over it, all of you, and stick to the subject at hand. Presently TOOOL Boston are trying to get our hands on a high speed photography rig to recreate these experiments.

What are you doing?

[greyman]

whiteknight38

Thank you for your informative, if not lengthy, post. You provide quite a lot of extra information that, if it had been available at the start of the thread, would probably have changed many people's views on this matter (me included). It is good to know that Master Lock is doing some serious R&D on this matter. But permit me to say that the 4 page article that was reproduced here is really not convincing - I still see it largely as marketing.

You clearly appreciate the value of experimental data in backing up a scientific theory. So do I. I'm a big fan or peer review also. There is always going to be a lot of resistance when someone tries to buck an existing theory (be it bump keys or something else), but the evidence must be presented in a convincing and accessible way. Master Lock's 4 page article fails this test. That is not to say they are being untruthful - they are just being unscientific in disclosing their discovery in this way.

I will believe that the pins separate "on the way down" as they put it, when I see some hard evidence (raw data) or a sensible physical argument. But I haven't seen this yet.

BTW when things are moving relative to each other, you have to be very carfeul to specify the frame of reference you are using to measure things. For instance, the bottom pin could be on its downward path and the top pin on its upward path, in which case saying "on the way down" is bound to cause confusion.

cheers

greyman

[mh]

This i how I understand it (also summing up some thoughts that have been mentioned by others before):

Assumptions:

(A1) A U.S.-style lock with key pin at the bottom, driver pin on top of it, and a spring on the very top. (I just mention that because locks around here are the other way...)

(A2) The bump key's slope hits the key pin, and the slope forces it to a certain velocity upwards. During this period of time, the driver pin is also forced to move with the same velocity as the key pin.

What happens next:

(1) Both key and driver pins now have a kinetic energy and move upward, both with the same velocity, both touching each other.

(2) Now what will slow then down?

(a) Gravity. But concerning their speed, gravity has the same impact on both of them (cf. objects dropped inside a vacuum, they all will fall with the same speed), so there's no effect from this.

(b) Force from the spring. That force will act on the driver pin, and also on the key pin if they touch each other.
(b1) Now assume a setup where the key pin has a greater mass (is longer) than the driver pin. The spring's force F=m*a would slow down the key pin less than the driver pin, but the key pin can't get past the driver pin, so they will stay together.
(b2) In a setup where the key pin has a smaller mass than the driver pin, the spring's force would slow down the key pin more, but only until they separate, because then there's no force on the key pin anymore. So I think they will stay together anyway.

(c) Friction. This will have a much larger impact. Without tensioning the lock, the friction could be the same on both pins, but that also depends on their shape, which edges or surfaces cause the friction, etc.
Anyway, with tension, while the shear line goes through the driver pin, friction will have a greater impact on the driver pin. But the same as in (b1) happens, both pins still go together.
When the driver pin goes past the shear line (if the bottom pin doesn't stop there anyway because its edge hits some other edge),
now friction will be stronger on the key pin. This can now really slow the key pin down more than the driver pin, and there can be a gap.
Although of course (as in (b2)), the spring's force will have an impact on the driver pin; but maybe there will still be a gap.
However, the gap is higher than the shear line at this point.

(3) Both pins can now reach 0 velocity at the same time or at a different time.

(4a) If the key pin reaches 0 velocity earlier, it will drop down and there can be a gap across the shear line. But that wouldn't work on European style locks where the key pin will not "fall up"...

(4b) In the other cases: When the uncompressing spring moves the driver pin down - and if there is a gap -
the driver pin will hit the key pin and a collision takes place where a gap could be created again. In that case the gap could move downwards across the shear line...


About (A1): On Euro style locks (upside-down), the part starting at (3) would be slightly different but essentially similar.

About (A2): This assumes that the bump key is actually moved inside the lock, and the slope of the cuts will make both pins move at the same time. If the key does not move much but just transfers a shock wave to the key pin, then a collision would happen immediately and the driver pin could separate on the way upwards.
Is this what's meant by 'minimal movement method'?

Cheers,
mh

[n2oah]

For the benefit of those of you who didn’t read the article, this is what Billy Edwards CML (Certified Master Locksmith) says in the article: “When the pin stack reaches the zenith in its rise in the chamber the bottom pin begins to descend and separates before the top pin begins to descend.”
N2oah admits he never actually fully understood my first post, but felt obliged to comment on it regardless. “I read through that a few times and I could ever comprehend is "blah blah, I'm a wannabe scientist, blah blah blah." I wonder if he’s comprehended things up to now. I imagine he’s either nodding off at this point as his ADD kicks in, or alternatively may be wobbling around having another high-speed, hysterical hissy fit.

A patent has been applied for. That means peer review. And the requirement of the petitioners to present empirical evidence, and allow the investigation, and examination of experimental models.

Why are we not congratulating companies that are concerning themselves with developing new anti-bump technologies? Wasn’t that the whole point of the original whistle blowing in the first place, and the justification of people here posting bump key bypass information on public forums?

I have attempted to share what knowledge and insights I have in a serious manner, and as a general rule, I have disdained from arguing with people here.

I happen to share with Howard Stern, the radio guy, membership in MENSA. (The high IQ society.) My membership # in MENSA Canada is 9685, by the way.
Mr. Stern is fond of saying to people who call him an idiot, “I’m not an idiot. I’m a genius. You’re an idiot.”

I refuse to stoop to calling you an idiot in reply to your challenge, however, but I will assert my belief that not only is it reasonable to imagine that not only am I smarter than you, manifestly and empirically verifiably smarter than you, but that practically everybody here is smarter than you. And certainly better grounded emotionally.

Actually finishing a post before freaking out on the author is important N2oah. There are drug therapies available for ADD. Don’t be shy about bringing it up with your guidance councilor.

Please govern yourself in your future replies to me, Sir, because the next time you go off your meds I won’t be so patient.

(Somebody wake up N2oah, and let’s watch him spin around a few times…)

Yes N2oah, I believe Master Lock’s research without seeing the data for myself. The proof ultimately will be in the patent, and the results will quickly be established as the new orthodoxy, and I imagine that you and a few others will soon be denying this post, and your participation in it ever happened.

If I thought you were an honorable man, I’d publicly bet you money.

But I doubt that you are, Sir, and I suspect that you probably don’t have any money regardless.

Are you still awake, Sir? Are you still paying attention? That was me going beyond merely provocative.

Ah, another boring flam bait from quite a boring person. Oh, and don't worry, I took my Adderall this morning. But to be safe, I'll take a few more before writing this post.
Billy Edwards sounds like quite an important man. He's not only a locksmith, but a certified master locksmith. Ooh. I wonder whose dick he had to suck for that title.
I found the ADD thing quite funny. I really want to know how you and your best buddy Billy B. Edwards Jr., CML could possibly diagnose me with ADD over the internet.
A patent? Hmm...Can't anyone apply for a patent? Even if the patent is granted, it doesn't prove Master's idea. I wonder how many "free energy" machines are patented each year. I wonder how many of them work.
I'm not congratulating Maser Lock because their locks are still giant hunks of garbage, even if they are "bump-proof". You asked about what percentage of the general public knows about lock bumping. I can assure you more people in the general public know about hacksaws than lock bumping. If Master's crappy locks resist bumping, who gives cares if you can just saw them off?
Your serious "insights" and "knowledge" are just overshadowed by your weak attempts to insult and discredit me.
I don't care if you share with Howard Stern, because he is a useless human being with a big mouth. I would guess you two get along quite well.
Guess what? I have tea with Warren Buffet, so I suppose that makes me important? MENSA? I've heard of it before. I think I was invited to join your little club at one time, but unfortunately, I'm not an elitist and I don't have a superiority complex.
I think I have done a dandy job of governing myself in my reply. I can't wait to see what happens when you're not patient. You'll probably spew another immature insult and tell me I have erectile dysfunction.
Patent? There's no patent! No patent, no proof. Once real evidence is given to support Master's theory, I will accept it. I don't have a problem admitting that I'm wrong, but you sure would if things went the other way. If you turn out to be right and the majority of LP101 agrees with you, I will post a thread in general chatter admitting that you are right.

I have quite a few dollars to my name, but I still don't take it lightly when people call me poor. My money doesn't mean a thing, but I'm grateful for it. You, I would guess are man of great "monetary" and "intellectual" wealth (of course, you proclaimed that yourself), but you are severely lacking any type of spiritual wealth. In the end, your money doesn't mean a thing, and neither does your intellect. Your cold, dead body will eventually rot away and nothing will be left of you. Your time on earth won't be remembered.

I don't take pride in myself, due to my religious beliefs. Pride, one of the seven deadly sins, is defined as "...a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to give compliments to others though they may be deserving of them, and excessive love of self." Your personality seems to fit right in with that definition.

But now the meds are kicking in, and I'm feeling a bit drowsy. I'll catch you later.

[Isakill]

CHILDREN!!!! Don't make me turn this car around... cause it's all fun and games till someone loses an eye!
After that it's hilarious

[lunchb0x]

I don't suppose there is a chance that the pins both hit the top of the bible, (after overcompressing the springs) and then split due to the second inpact force, seems slightly unlikely to me but I thought I'd put it out there to see where it falls.

this is the same thing that i was thinking, that maybe when the top and bottom pin are moving up there is a small gap between the two pins, and as the top pin hits the spring the bottom pin hits it and bouncesback down, but i can only see it worknig like this if there was'nt any turning pressure on the plug, but because there is all the top pins will be slightly binding in the plug from the turning pressure, and when the bottom pin is hit by the bump key, or pick gun the top pin shoots up and then the bottom pin it cought on the shear line which will stop it from moving higher from the shearline and then fall back to the bottom of the plug

[n2oah]

But I doubt that you are, Sir, and I suspect that you probably don’t have any money regardless.

If I am so poor, how could I ever afford this?


You and your friend Billy B. Edwards Jr., CML might not have ever seen these types of locks before, so I'll let you in on them. They're cutaways of EVVAs high security locks: The MCS, 3KS, DUAL, DPI-6, and DPI.