Newton's Cradle a "false theory?"

[YouLuckyFox]

I was watching a collaborative presentation by Schuyler Towne and datagram when I noticed something I hadn't noticed the first time I watched it. Schuyler Towne mentions that the idea of a billiard ball transfer or Newton's cradle effect was not true. He cited that MasterLock had done a great deal of research to discover that lots of ricocheting occurs inside the lock rather than a newton's cradle effect. I found it interesting that as Schuyler is talking about this, datagram almost seems unsupportive of this (but it could just be that Schuyler was going "off-script" and datagram wanted to keep "on-script"). I was not able to find a specific write-up on what Schuyler Towne was talking about, but I WAS able to find several write-ups that detail the Newton's cradle effect. I even remember a website that Marc Tobias had several publications on that used physics formulas to show how the Newton's cradle effect worked. Looking at the MasterLock website, you will find that their videos that involve bump-keying DO NOT show the Newton's cradle effect occurring, but neither do I see a ricocheting effect portrayed:
http://www.bumpstopsecurity.com/what-is-lock-bumping/
http://www.bumpstopsecurity.com/what-is-lock-bumping/bumpstop-cylinder-technology.jsp

Here's the video with Schuyler and datagram (the part I'm talking about starts at 8 minutes and 20 seconds into the video and ends about 13 minutes into the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C4Kb3U7sBc

SO, sorry for a huge opening topic, but the reason I bring this up is, I'm slightly curious if anyone has any more information on this ricocheting vs. Newton's cradle idea (this site has been very helpful for supplying me with information beyond my research-scope) and I just purchased some Illco Bump Halts and am wondering why they wouldn't still work even though it is my understanding that they operate to defend against the supposition of a Newton's Cradle effect (excuse the run-on sentence). All comments are welcome, my apologies for such a boring topic, but I could find no other means of sating my curiosity. I will be most interested to see what this community will be able to reply with.

[fgarci03]

That is a nice theory...

I can't vouch for any of those, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[Squelchtone]

I wouldn't trust anything Master lock says. Have you ever seen how they portray their padlock quality on the Keep Out episode of Modern Marvels? I think they actually believe what they're saying, the only thing Master Lock is good at is fooling the American public through effective and misleading marketing. I'm disgusted that they have the gall to put "precision pin tumbler mechanism for superior pick resistance" on the back of the package, yet their locks are very easy to pick, shame on them!

I was at Home Depot last week and their Master No3 padlocks were on a shelf labeled High Security and their new hex shaped shackle padlocks were above them on a shelf labeled Maximum Security.

If there was in fact ricocheting inside a lock while being bumped them bumping wouldn't work half the time, but it does work, so for me at least, I'll stick to the idea that on a basic level bumping does work like Newton's Cradle.

Maybe Master's high speed cameras caught some minor neuances that suggested other interactions inside the pin chambers, but to go as far and say it isn't like Newton's Cradle, that's a stretch.

Squelchtone

[keysman]

If there was in fact ricocheting inside a lock while being bumped them bumping wouldn't work half the time, but it does work, so for me at least, I'll stick to the idea that on a basic level bumping does work like Newton's Cradle.

Maybe Master's high speed cameras caught some minor neuances that suggested other interactions inside the pin chambers, but to go as far and say it isn't like Newton's Cradle, that's a stretch.

Squelchtone

I took the factory class about 2 years ago when " Bump Stop" was first introduced. The class was taught by Mr. B.B Edwards, a legend in the locksmith industry.
Master Lock Company did a lot of research on how and why “ bumping” works in order to make a “Bump Proof Lock” . The research concluded the conventional belief that the “Newton's cradle “ ,“Que ball/ 8 ball” effect was not ENTIRELY correct. There are other minor forces/ factors in play.

The end result is the Master “ Bump Stop “ product line.
Is it bump proof? No one ( 30+- students) at the class was successful at bumping the padlocks supplied.

My opinion: So What? They pick or impression so easily I wouldn't bother bumping one anyway.


Note: (My unscientific,unresearched opinion)The locks were noticeably easier to pick than an “old” style master padlock due to a slight design change enabling the lock to open with 3 of the 4 pins “ set”. The “Bump Stop” pin essentially sets itself when picked.


Being taught what Master Lock Company believes to be WHY bumping works has in no way effected my success bumping any other lock.

Conclusion:
When asked how bumping works I always answer with a description that includes the “Newton's cradle “,“Que ball/ 8 ball” effect.

[Dogrocket]

Interesting talk - but would have been nice to see a paper cited for the differing theory in the presentation (I wasn't able to find it either, and it's been a couple of years since Defcon 18).

My bump theory isn't much better than the demo in the presentation, but the Newton's cradle model seems like it would only hold if the lock was successfully opened on the first separation of the driver and key pins (which is implied by most of the demos/literature I've seen). When the driver pin (ball 3) springs back and hits the key pin (ball 2) into the bump key (ball 1) which is now stationary instead of moving in space, the ricochets (If you assume the assertion that the bump key is using more energy then required to bounce the pins more then once is correct) are going to get chaotic until the initial energy from the bump is dissipated. It might be Master Lock found that the lock is opening at some successive series of random bounces that just happen to clear the shear line after the initial bounce.

Keysman has a great point - Newtons Cradle is a pretty good way to model the effect for teaching purposes.

[YouLuckyFox]

First off, thank you for your input, I am pleased with the lack of contention in this forum .

I don't usually like to follow the advice of calling someone an "idiot" anyway (referring to the presentation, for those who haven't watched it.) It's just bad form. Sure would be neat to see some of that high-speed photography, though.

I agree with the responses that have been made, and that it is either a little of both or is majorly Newton's Cradle with a few nuances, though I also would like to agree with the following that Schuyler said:
"Until you know how something actually works you're not going to be able to build a solution to it"
I understand that bump keying is in not intended to be a precision entry like SPP, so it doesn't really matter if you know what happens inside the lock in order to bump it. Though, I do think that knowing what happens inside a lock when bumped would be important in preventing bumping from happening. I have not yet tried bumping a lock with the Ilco Bump-Halt setup installed, but I guess that would be a good test, judging from what Schuyler has said about Masterlock throwing out all kinds of theories before coming up with their bump-stop technology.

@Squelchtone: Watching that episode right now, thanks for pointing me in that direction. Planning to have a good laugh at MasterLock from what you tell me.

[supercat101]

Schuyler Towne mentions that the idea of a billiard ball transfer or Newton's cradle effect was not true.

In a typical Newton's Cradle toy, the distribution of the balls' masses is symmetrical (typically all balls have the same mass) so that when a combination of balls with a certain mass hits the middle, a combination of balls with a different mass leaves the other side. Behavior in such cases is nice and simple.

If one were to e.g. add a little weight to one of the balls so that the above property no longer held, the toy would cease to operate in its regular fashion, but would operate irregularly--almost chaotically. If the mass leaving the center can equal the mass which strikes the center, the mass striking the center can come to an almost complete stop. If that isn't the case, however, the mass striking the center will either keep moving toward the center or bounce away from it. Since locks have a variety of pins and components with different masses, they are unlikely to show any form of consistent behavior similar to that seen in a Newton's Cradle toy.

[YouLuckyFox]

Good response supercat101, thank you for your thoughts. So just to be clear about your explanation, if I were to take 5 cue balls of different masses (representing key pins) and hit them so that they struck into an eight ball (so five eight balls of the same mass are being hit by an individual cue ball of varying mass) you're saying that the 8 balls would NOT travel at the same speeds and therefore would not be a perfect analogy for lock bumping? Makes sense from what I learned in physics class. Thank you again for your thoughts and welcome to the forum.