Information about locks themselves. Questions, tips and lock diagram information should be posted here.
by Lock Jock » 9 Sep 2012 18:25
Some months ago, I hinted at a concept for an ultra high security mechanical lock I've been developing. The cylinder design is sound, but at the time there remained the serious issue of potential key duplication. I've made significant progress on that front, as well as making it adaptable for audit trail electronics, but now I have a question regarding mastering: What's the highest level you've run across the need for and how often have you seen it? In other words, do high security locks need to provide more levels than the garden-variety 4 (C, M, GM, GGM)? Do you run across (or install for) anyone using GGGM or greater levels? The design I'm working on, which also provides user-configurable mastering/remastering, may experience problems due to size constraints if I must go beyond GGM in order to give it universal appeal -- that is, if I keep it drop-in friendly with standards of typical housings. Complexity and manufacturing cost would also slightly increase as additional levels are added. That is to say, the cylinder would be available in versions of all levels, with a cost increase per additional level of support added (e.g., a M version would be less expensive than a GGM). I did this based on the logic that higher levels would be needed by correspondingly larger entities who would likely be less averse to the higher unit price. I don't subscribe to Microsoft's philosophy, where you must pay for the full package even if you don't need most of it. 
-
Lock Jock
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2 Apr 2012 3:12
- Location: Texas
by cledry » 10 Sep 2012 6:47
My typical customer will use a grand master, a submaster for each floor for the cleaning crew, then individual tenants may also have a master key for their space within the building. That is about the extent of it. We will also employ sectional keyways so that we can further expand on this basic plan. For example all the electrical rooms might be on their own sectional, the grand master will enter this sectional but the cleaning and tenant keys will not.
Jim
-

cledry
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009 23:29
- Location: Orlando
-
by Squelchtone » 10 Sep 2012 8:19
Lock Jock wrote:Some months ago, I hinted at a concept for an ultra high security mechanical lock I've been developing. The cylinder design is sound, but at the time there remained the serious issue of potential key duplication. I've made significant progress on that front, as well as making it adaptable for audit trail electronics, but now I have a question regarding mastering: What's the highest level you've run across the need for and how often have you seen it? In other words, do high security locks need to provide more levels than the garden-variety 4 (C, M, GM, GGM)? Do you run across (or install for) anyone using GGGM or greater levels? The design I'm working on, which also provides user-configurable mastering/remastering, may experience problems due to size constraints if I must go beyond GGM in order to give it universal appeal -- that is, if I keep it drop-in friendly with standards of typical housings. Complexity and manufacturing cost would also slightly increase as additional levels are added. That is to say, the cylinder would be available in versions of all levels, with a cost increase per additional level of support added (e.g., a M version would be less expensive than a GGM). I did this based on the logic that higher levels would be needed by correspondingly larger entities who would likely be less averse to the higher unit price. I don't subscribe to Microsoft's philosophy, where you must pay for the full package even if you don't need most of it. 
Don't lose focus on what you're actually designing and making. High Security Lock doesn't always mean having all the features of an institutional lock system, although if your keys are hard to copy, blanks are restricted, and they come in useful formats such as SFIC, you will have more customers, but if your lock design doesnt lend it self to the master pinning abilities of something like a 7 pin BEST SFIC, then all is not lost. You may find a better audience for your lock such as a medical lab or secure govt facility where they simply do not want things on a master, or if there is a master it's a GMK and then change keys under it, with no floor or building masters. Can't wait to see your design, Squelchtone

-

Squelchtone
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 11316
- Joined: 11 May 2006 0:41
- Location: right behind you.
by cledry » 10 Sep 2012 17:39
How does your design handle maison keying?
Jim
-

cledry
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009 23:29
- Location: Orlando
-
by Evan » 10 Sep 2012 20:08
Lock Jock wrote:What's the highest level you've run across the need for and how often have you seen it? In other words, do high security locks need to provide more levels than the garden-variety 4 (C, M, GM, GGM)? Do you run across (or install for) anyone using GGGM or greater levels?
The design I'm working on, which also provides user-configurable mastering/remastering, may experience problems due to size constraints if I must go beyond GGM in order to give it universal appeal -- that is, if I keep it drop-in friendly with standards of typical housings.
Speaking in general here: Level IV systems are pretty much as big as they get in most places, as larger organizations would have deployed some sort of standardized employee ID card and use integrated access control so that a compromised or lost upper level master key does not require an expensive corporate re-lock which can cost many tens of thousands of dollars up to a million if a ring of great grand masters is lost on a college/university campus... More complex systems generally exist at colleges and universities but you see more and more leaving the concept of one huge master keying system with one TMK campus-wide for multiple smaller systems... The thing with the larger keying systems which cledry has touched upon is how they can handle cross keying and selective master keys... How will your product handle suites where there are more than one private office accessed by one common entry space ? Also how would your cylinders handle having surrogate TMK's like ENG, JAN, SEC which can be keyed into or out of any cylinder in the system without causing an interchange ? High security cylinders which feature interchangeable cores are much less secure than their conventional cylinder equivalents as separating the core and housing is often more easy than manipulation of the pins/locking mechanisms... I guess the question you have to ask yourself is which type of hardware are you trying to be compatible with: mortise/rim or key-in-knob/lever ? Much less space in a KIK/KIL cylinder for anything, basically all the magic of the HS lock has to happen within the space of the plug rather than the shell of the cylinder... ~~ Evan
-
Evan
-
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 5 Apr 2010 17:09
- Location: Rhode Island
by Lock Jock » 12 Sep 2012 15:11
squelchtone wrote:Don't lose focus on what you're actually designing and making.
Good point. In trying to create a Jack of all trades, master of all, I risk alienating certain market segments if I don't perform the balancing act properly. A goal is to make an affordable, high security lock that Joe Schmoe would like to use on his front door, while offering increased flexibility (mastering options) and robustness (e.g., tougher, more durable components) to "industrial" users at somewhat higher cost (with, presumably, a correspondingly better warranty). In order to appeal to diverse manufacturing interests, complexity (component count and ease of machining) must be kept at tolerable levels.
-
Lock Jock
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2 Apr 2012 3:12
- Location: Texas
by Lock Jock » 12 Sep 2012 16:23
cledry wrote:How does your design handle maison keying?
Killjoy! Since cross keying compromises security and dramatically reduces key differs, I hadn't given it much consideration. However, the coding scheme would support it. To satisfy this segment of the market, minor modifications of components would be required. At this time, I prefer not to describe why a substantially different version of the lock wouldn't be necessary. I will say that it isn't a disc (à la Protec) or stacked pin tumbler, so you can rule out methods applicable to those types of mechanism (such as widened gates or multiple shear lines).
-
Lock Jock
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2 Apr 2012 3:12
- Location: Texas
by cledry » 12 Sep 2012 17:15
Thanks, no I wasn't asking for details. I should have asked "how well". I agree it isn't something we like either, but our customers sometimes demand it. Generally it is a common area that isn't secure anyway and the security lies in the doors after the maison keyed one. Lock Jock wrote:cledry wrote:How does your design handle maison keying?
Killjoy! Since cross keying compromises security and dramatically reduces key differs, I hadn't given it much consideration. However, the coding scheme would support it. To satisfy this segment of the market, minor modifications of components would be required. At this time, I prefer not to describe why a substantially different version of the lock wouldn't be necessary. I will say that it isn't a disc (à la Protec) or stacked pin tumbler, so you can rule out methods applicable to those types of mechanism (such as widened gates or multiple shear lines).
Jim
-

cledry
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009 23:29
- Location: Orlando
-
by Lock Jock » 12 Sep 2012 17:57
Evan wrote:Also how would your cylinders handle having surrogate TMK's like ENG, JAN, SEC which can be keyed into or out of any cylinder in the system without causing an interchange ?
The design offers a high degree of selective mastering flexibility. I'm not sure how to describe it without giving away the nature of the mechanism. Some working scenarios, where the lock grants access only to: 1. all janitors, all security personnel, COO, CEO 2. all janitors, all security, CEO 3. one specific janitor, all security, building manager, CEO 4. all security, building manager, CEO 5. head/chief of security, CEO 6. building manager, COO, CEO 7. all janitors, all security, all doctors, hospital admin 8. one janitor, all security, one doctor, admin As noted, I assume the head honcho will have access to every lock on campus in most situations -- though if it's desirable to restrict this user, it's easily and quickly done. In certain situations a user may need to carry more than one key (e.g., "all janitors vs. specific janitor" locks). High security cylinders which feature interchangeable cores are much less secure than their conventional cylinder equivalents as separating the core and housing is often more easy than manipulation of the pins/locking mechanisms...
Good point. What about active retainers, though? Don't they make "dent puller" attacks very difficult? I guess the question you have to ask yourself is which type of hardware are you trying to be compatible with: mortise/rim or key-in-knob/lever ?
Difficult to say at the moment. I don't have a physical prototype yet for a torture test. If it turns out that the components are not robust enough, I may have to rely on increased size to make up for it.
-
Lock Jock
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2 Apr 2012 3:12
- Location: Texas
by Evan » 12 Sep 2012 19:38
Lock Jock wrote:Evan wrote:Also how would your cylinders handle having surrogate TMK's like ENG, JAN, SEC which can be keyed into or out of any cylinder in the system without causing an interchange ?
The design offers a high degree of selective mastering flexibility. I'm not sure how to describe it without giving away the nature of the mechanism. Some working scenarios, where the lock grants access only to: 1. all janitors, all security personnel, COO, CEO 2. all janitors, all security, CEO 3. one specific janitor, all security, building manager, CEO 4. all security, building manager, CEO 5. head/chief of security, CEO 6. building manager, COO, CEO 7. all janitors, all security, all doctors, hospital admin 8. one janitor, all security, one doctor, admin As noted, I assume the head honcho will have access to every lock on campus in most situations -- though if it's desirable to restrict this user, it's easily and quickly done. In certain situations a user may need to carry more than one key (e.g., "all janitors vs. specific janitor" locks).
The TMK is usually keyed into every lock in the system unless special conditions exist where that operation is not desired for whatever reason... The condition is usually called SKD and the lock is not part of the complicated master keying system unless there are some lower level master keys which should operate the lock but there are no typical patterns for this as far as which masters should operate a lock when the TMK is excluded... The selective master keys ENG, JAN, SEC, etc are able to be activated in or left out of any cylinder in the system and are generally for advanced personnel in those departments to gain access to spaces under different branches of the hierarchy with a single key which does not operate all locks as does the TMK but only those for which is has been specifically keyed into... I.E. there may be several doors keyed up to allow change key AA-1 to operate but only the door leading into the room where an electrical panel which must be accessible to a person carrying the ENG key would be keyed AA-1(ENG) to allow them to access the door without needing any other keys... Or there could be several offices in an area closed off by entry doors, the ENG key would only be keyed into the individual office doors where perhaps a plumbing clean-out access or something else important like that is located where the person using the ENG key is not to be issued the TMK for whatever reason... Lower level janitors or security staff would have larger key rings with the lowest level master keys (or even individual change keys) for their areas of responsibility but would not have a special individual master key for their functional area unless you are using master ring cylinders... Lock Jock wrote:Evan wrote:I guess the question you have to ask yourself is which type of hardware are you trying to be compatible with: mortise/rim or key-in-knob/lever ?
Difficult to say at the moment. I don't have a physical prototype yet for a torture test. If it turns out that the components are not robust enough, I may have to rely on increased size to make up for it.
What I was trying to point out is that there is very little space in a KIK or KIL cylinder for any parts of the high security devices to be located outside of the cylinder plug, as there is room for little other than the springs and driver pins in the shell, unlike in a mortise or rim cylinder where you have a lot of area to play with outside the plug for adding various functions or features to the lock... ~~ Evan
-
Evan
-
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 5 Apr 2010 17:09
- Location: Rhode Island
by Lock Jock » 17 Sep 2012 0:00
Evan wrote:I.E. there may be several doors keyed up to allow change key AA-1 to operate but only the door leading into the room where an electrical panel which must be accessible to a person carrying the ENG key would be keyed AA-1(ENG) to allow them to access the door without needing any other keys... Or there could be several offices in an area closed off by entry doors, the ENG key would only be keyed into the individual office doors where perhaps a plumbing clean-out access or something else important like that is located where the person using the ENG key is not to be issued the TMK for whatever reason...
Thanks for the clarification. It should be able to handle that. I'll see how this looks on paper (or CAD). What I was trying to point out is that there is very little space in a KIK or KIL cylinder for any parts of the high security devices to be located outside of the cylinder plug
I know. I did a poor job of explaining what I'm going after. I've done my best to stuff all the components into a KIK/KIL style, while making it adaptable to larger mortise/rim cylinders. The parts won't necessarily be in the same locations, but with minor modifications, the general scheme would remain the same and the parts would be more robust, due to the additional space afforded by the mortise/rim style (i.e., thicker, stronger parts). As you suggested, the majority of parts are relatively diminutive in my KIK concept. Although the majority of components in question don't experience torsion or shear forces -- I won't elaborate on that point -- they still must offer high durability/reliability with repeated use over many years. If I discover these parts offer an acceptable level of reliability in KIK style, so much the better. If, OTOH, I discover they wear too quickly and fail from repeated use, I'll either have to move to mortise/rim cylinders which would allow more room for bulkier/stronger components (goodbye KIK market) or use much more costly materials to achieve the desired toughness and maintain the KIK/KIL component concept dimensions (goodbye Joe Schmoe market). Simulations are useful to some extent, and I can guess based on known material characteristics and experience with similar parts of similar size in other (than lock) types of mechanism, but the only way to know for certain is via torture test with a functional prototype, which I have yet to construct. So, my intention is to make the scheme compatible with both KIK and mortise cylinders to appeal to those markets. Of course, what I intend to do and what I'm ultimately able to do could be different things. 
-
Lock Jock
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2 Apr 2012 3:12
- Location: Texas
by cledry » 17 Sep 2012 21:50
Not to sound too discouraging but you won't have a market if you can only supply rim and mortise cylinders. Almost every installation I deal with will have a mix of these and knob/lever cylinders. I can only think of one account that has all mortise locks throughout. To make it in the commercial market you must cover a fairly wide range of adaptions.
Jim
-

cledry
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009 23:29
- Location: Orlando
-
by Evan » 18 Sep 2012 0:57
cledry wrote:Not to sound too discouraging but you won't have a market if you can only supply rim and mortise cylinders. Almost every installation I deal with will have a mix of these and knob/lever cylinders. I can only think of one account that has all mortise locks throughout. To make it in the commercial market you must cover a fairly wide range of adaptions.
That comment only shows how poorly facilities planning and maintenance is carried out after a building is constructed, rather than adhere to the design specs locks as they fail are replaced with whatever model is cheapest at the time of failure... I have yet to see a building that was not all one type of lock at its construction, all the changes occur later on during various remodeling because the standard hardware schedule does not get applied to the renovation process... All commercial buildings should be constructed with mortise and rim exit device hardware as those are the most flexible options for changing the building security later on without having to custom order special retrofit cylinders or wait for product availability... I have also not yet seen a cylindrical lock which could be easily modified to be various standard functions by adding/removing/repositioning small parts on the assembly like some mortise locks are capable of... You would have to replace the entire cylindrical lock to accomplish such a change in use after the initial installation... ~~ Evan
-
Evan
-
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 5 Apr 2010 17:09
- Location: Rhode Island
by GWiens2001 » 18 Sep 2012 5:46
I have to agree with cledry. While I am no locksmith by any stretch of the imagination, I have yet to see a building where there are mortice and rim locks on individual office doors, janitor closets, etcetera. Primarily, I see the M&R cylinders on external doors, and perhaps on an especially secured area such as the server room, accounting or the donut-stash room. The remaining rooms use lever or knob handlesets.
Just when you finally think you have learned it all, that is when you learn that you don't know anything yet.
-

GWiens2001
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 7570
- Joined: 3 Sep 2012 16:24
- Location: Arizona, United States
by cledry » 18 Sep 2012 6:13
Not sure how much experience you have but I frequently work in brand new buildings, even in the design stage and it is almost unheard of to have mortise locks specified on all doors. Most single story office complexes use a storefront using a mortise cylinder, interiors using cylindrical locks and rear exits usually come simply with a grade 1 lever. Later deadbolts may be added to rear doors or a panic bar may be installed. Stores around here will generally have delayed egress exit devices on exterior doors, a storefront and cylindrical locks on interiors. Multistory offices will use mortise locks on doors from the hall to individual spaces quite often but will almost always use cylindrical locks on interior doors. In fact many even use cylindrical on the hall doors. Evan wrote:cledry wrote:Not to sound too discouraging but you won't have a market if you can only supply rim and mortise cylinders. Almost every installation I deal with will have a mix of these and knob/lever cylinders. I can only think of one account that has all mortise locks throughout. To make it in the commercial market you must cover a fairly wide range of adaptions.
That comment only shows how poorly facilities planning and maintenance is carried out after a building is constructed, rather than adhere to the design specs locks as they fail are replaced with whatever model is cheapest at the time of failure... I have yet to see a building that was not all one type of lock at its construction, all the changes occur later on during various remodeling because the standard hardware schedule does not get applied to the renovation process... All commercial buildings should be constructed with mortise and rim exit device hardware as those are the most flexible options for changing the building security later on without having to custom order special retrofit cylinders or wait for product availability... I have also not yet seen a cylindrical lock which could be easily modified to be various standard functions by adding/removing/repositioning small parts on the assembly like some mortise locks are capable of... You would have to replace the entire cylindrical lock to accomplish such a change in use after the initial installation... ~~ Evan
Jim
-

cledry
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009 23:29
- Location: Orlando
-
Return to Locks
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
|