Page 1 of 3

384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:21 am
by 10ringo10
Zamak number 3 - the most used metal alloy in north America - not china the usa

with a melting point of 384c its low - naked flame not even needed

Damn silly making drive cams and safe lock parts I would say :???: what happened to brass and milling

cold and hot casting methods the norm looks like from now on ! worldwide in just a few years

LOOK at the temp on this standard plumbers tool I have for pipe work just laying around in the work room

required heat in minutes - melts what it touches .... this stuff is like butter lol :kickyoass:

Re: 384 C

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:08 am
by MartinHewitt
So you want to stick it into a key hole?

When you buy a ... Mauer Primus C for 300 Euro, how can you expect it not to be Zamak?

Actually my favourite modern key lock series here are the cawi 18xx. Steel case, steel bolt, steel levers and CuNi key.

Re: 384 C Bad security - safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:21 am
by 10ringo10
MartinHewitt wrote:So you want to stick it into a key hole?
The cases are made from this stuff bolted onto the doors - No need to heat keyway

when you think about it the less than 1 inch thick door plates will do - Locks will slide right off :soldier:

Can not beat steel or brass engineered parts - guess im old fashioned in many ways its high profit margins that count martin

Unless a relocker or some other form of keeping the doors bolted is introduced - game over

Post up .... seen a safe lock ? with a zamak case on a container ? no re locker to speak of bad security

list of 2018 - worst safes & locks model Nu : make :

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:28 am
by Jaakko Fagerlund
To quote a famous book: "Poc || GTFO"

Sure it melts at quite low temp, but have you actually tested this? The amount of heat you must pour into the lock in short time is not coming from those plumbers pliers, as metals are very good heat conductors. Or even if you are able to melt the lock, how long does it take to actually get an opening?

And as you mentioned, there's relockers in higher grade safes for a reason. Couple different types are heat sensistive and will fire long before you are near the melting point of anything.

In my mind this is like complaining about those Sentry safes being not resistant to brute force or having a tubular key bypass. It's the very reason they are not rated for burglary standards. This is the old age question of "what is enough" in terms of securing something? The counter question is always "what are you trying to protect against", "how much money do you want/need/can spend" and "what other layers do you have in your security".

I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:20 am
by MartinHewitt
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Mercury?

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:54 am
by Werewolf
MartinHewitt wrote:
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Mercury?


I believe Jaakko is refering to this very interesting chemical reaction

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeghGhVdt9s[/youtube]
//why is this not working ?
link

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:44 pm
by 10ringo10
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:To quote a famous book: "Poc || GTFO"

Sure it melts at quite low temp, but have you actually tested this? The amount of heat you must pour into the lock in short time is not coming from those plumbers pliers, as metals are very good heat conductors .

I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.


There would need to be a hole in the container - for this attack and would not be viable due to the long period of time it takes for gallium to work - changing particles etc
direct heat on a panel with bolts mounted is a much better way - red hot plate leading to a low temp alloy

POC II GTFO - Burning the locks and doors of safes is already tried and tested -

so proof of concept as been practised for many years ... get the fuck out could be quoted GTFO for many reasons

ie : Do not believe or think impossible ... Concept its not !

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:48 pm
by 10ringo10
MartinHewitt wrote:
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Mercury?
looks similar - silver in colour thought mercury was used in old thermostats and a poison
Mercury does act the same way as gallium - but do not get it on your skin
see pic :smile:

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:53 pm
by 10ringo10
Werewolf wrote:
MartinHewitt wrote:
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Mercury?


I believe Jaakko is refering to this very interesting chemical reaction

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeghGhVdt9s[/youtube]
//why is this not working ?
link


Its amazing how it works - been out along time changes the particle structure I believe of the alloy.. makes it like putty

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:18 pm
by MartinHewitt
Didn't know gallium is even better than mercury.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:14 pm
by mastersmith
I have drilled A LOT of safes. Sometimes to temperatures that melted the braze holding my carbide drill bit tip in place. Never have I melted anything in the container except the thermal fuse that is in many locks ( this is a pain in the butt ). Thank goodness I have never created that much heat in a container with a separate thermal fuse. Because finding relockers is not a sport for the meek! It may melt at those temperatures in a laboratory environment, but I have never seen it happen in the field.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:46 pm
by 10ringo10
Those small blobs of solder found in some locks - not a problem with no lock present

its the external re lockers fitted in high end safes - people are being ripped off with shitty locks & have no clue

will not fit them -and discourage anyone that does - do not buy this rubbish fit the best when possible

Bin the zamak - BIN THE ZAMAK LOL :D

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:51 pm
by MartinHewitt
What are your favourite key / combination / electronic locks?

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:57 pm
by 10ringo10
MartinHewitt wrote:What are your favourite key / combination / electronic locks?


Anything chubb martin - the pork pie being my favourite lever lock - ban the zamak - BAN THE ZAMAK

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:18 am
by MartinHewitt
Pork pie? Are these locks still produced or have they vanished under Gunebo?