Manipulation #1SARGENT AND GREENLEAF R6700 Series
(standard ... Group 2 ... 3 wheel ... key change ... spring loaded fence
First off, I'd like to introduce my girlfriend Alison. And noooo, I did not NAME my lock. lol
In addition to being the love of my life, she is my official (*and certified*
) "combo change girl"
With an unknown combination.... the excitement begins.
Graph #1 produces the Grand Canyon (kinda hard to miss lol
). In addition, there's a questionable area (10-20).
I amplify both areas by taking a reading at every increment (X's and red marker
) and find their true centers
I thought I had found 2 gates in the first graph! Although 10-20 appeared to be a legit gate signature,
further testing of the area revealed nothing convincing enough to run with. So I let it go for now,
and focused on the Grand Canyon. High-low tests determined the gate @ R70 to be on w3. - - R70
. . . . My next step was to graph wheels 1+2 together while placing w3 on its' known gate:
This graph left little to pursue. My findings up to this point were sound, so
I could only assume that one of the two remaining wheels was masking
My course of action was to park w1 in a low area in hopes of being able to read w2.
This worked. Without the high area on w1 over-shadowing the gate on w2, the outline of a gate appears. - L91.5 - R70
All that's left to do is run w1 around while placing wheels 2 and 3 on their known numbers. Somewhere within a revolution
of w1 the lock will open... IT DID NOT. I was so close to the opening I had gotten overzealous when I should have still been
graphing. Not only was the lock not open, but I had produced nothing to refer back to in order to try and figure out why.
Up until now I'd been running everything in increments of 2.5. Before investing any more time into graphing,
I thought I'd run w1 around once more, but this time only 2 incs each time before testing the drop-in area.OPEN: R34 - L91.5 - R70. . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .Woohoooo!! Lock open.... next contestant please?!! Not quite.
One of the most opportune learning periods is AFTER the lock is open.
With my graphs laid out in front of me... it's time to re-hash some things.(1)
I now know that there's a gate @ 91. Looking at graph#1 (85 - 95), there is some hint of this gate.
Had I a more 'seasoned eye
' at the time, would I have investigated this area further? And if I had pursued it,
would I have been able to coax a definitive gate from it with the more refined touch I have now? I think so, yes.
This manipulation occurred some weeks ago, but the dial is still set to the same combo.
I decided to recreate the first graph, doing my best to disregard the known combination.
My sense of touch has certainly improved over time. I also decided to read every 2 increments rather than every 2.5.
If you take a look at this new graph in comparison to the original graph#1, there is indeed a higher resolution. In fact,
there were now 3 areas of interest. I amplified all three areas while using an even lighter touch. As we already knew,
70 showed as a definite gate. 75-80 was ruled out. And our main
concern for the test; 91 showed to be a possible gate.
My high-low tests (not pictured here
) further proved that 91 was indeed a gate.... and it was on w2.
So I caught 2 of 3 gates in the first graph. Also, had I not known the combination at this point,
I believe my paperwork would've been more than convincing enough for me to roll with it.
This lock would've opened fairly quick, and with no need for a second sheet of paper.(2)
I'm still disturbed that I missed the final gate (@ 34) on w1. Dialing every 2.5 incs landed me on either side of it: 32.5 & 35.
I found that even an extreme amount of oscillation at both these points was insufficient to coax the fence into dropping.
So even if the odds are slim, I can conclude that dialing every 2.5 increments COULD at times, allow for error.. . . . . . . . . . . . QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .(1) How would you have approached this lock? In a similar way? Completely different?
I've really takin' a liking to the idea of first running only w3, but here I stuck with the fundementals.
But, running the entire w-pack also has advantages (ie. finding 2 of the 3 gates the first time through).(2) INCREMENTS: How often should readings be taken? Every 2 increments, or every 2.5?
I'm assuming the answer to this will also depend upon the lock in question. But after this experience (conclusion #2),
I am leary of going 2.5. I'm also still quite slow, so just one graph is a time investment for me. It's disturbing to think I
could miss something after all that. If I were to take readings at every 2 increments - the cost is 10 additional readings
(50 versus 40). But this way, I not only alleviate my doubts but heighten my accuracy. Seems like an acceptable pay-out.(3) PARKING: I am VERY interested in your thoughts on how to strategically decide the optimal place to park a wheel.
The more I manipulate the more I realize that my success is often times dependent upon my ability to park.
In graph#3: Why on earth did I choose 70 to park w1 at? Well, I made this decision based on the low area in graph#1.
But isn't this incorrect? That low area seen in graph#1 is the profile of the gate on w3. Since every graph thereafter
has this gate under the fence... it stands to reason this low area may very well be gone. When deciding where to
park w1 for graph#3, shouldn't I have been looking to graph#2 for a low area? (like 42.5 or 50)?