fgarci03 is learning manipulation

[femurat]

Sorry I said shadowing but I meant it's not shadowing. So one or more wheels may be shadowing the others in the rest of the graph but not in the 10 - 40 area.

Cheers

[GWiens2001]

Shadowing shows most strongly on high spots of the wheel, but the valley between high spots of two wheels near each other can look similar to a gate.

A round wheel will make a pretty level line in your graph. Your graph shows a clear rising area, and low areas in a fairly smooth arc. This shows that the wheels are probably not round, but either oval or non-symetrical shapes.

Shadowing in lower areas, I believe, is another wheel with a low area that the fence touches first, instead of being able to drop into the gate. Since that wheel is higher than the top edges of the gate, it shadows (or masks) the gate, hiding it from your eyes.

You are learning fast, fgarci03! Was just a very beginner myself, spinning my first dial a few months ago. I have learned a lot, but have so very much more to learn. Luckily, we have spinners here who are willing to share their knowledge and valuable advice.

Gordon

[fgarci03]

Thank you all for being so helpfull.
I haven't had much time to play with this since I last posted, as I need to study

Anyway, I'm still struggling with the hi-lo tests. I'm always thinking what I did wrong but still can't know for sure.
I see ways to "spin the dial" to preform them, don't know which one is correct.

I have to aproach the gate from the right (in this case) on the supected wheel. So dialing 75-85-85 must be L-R-R. How do I do that?
I mean, on all the the books I read it's kinda confusing. I figured out a way to dial combinations R-R-R or L-L-L or even L-L-R, etc

Hey mastersmith. Actually iy is possible to dial a combination all left or all right. Or R-R-L/L-R-R.
Suppose you want to dial my combo of L75-R85-R85:
3 turns left to 75
2 turns right to 85
1 turn left PAST 85 (87 for example)
1 turn right to 85

This way you guarantee you approached 85 from the right!

But I've never seen this explained anywhere. So I guess it's not how I should do the hi-lo tests. How exactly should I spin the dial in a way I can aproach both 85's from the right? As mastersmith said, if I keep spinning to the same side, the previous wheel will also move and not be at 85.

I believe this is my big wall right now. Although I already consider this to be a failed attempt, I want to take it untill the end so I can learn even more from it.

I myself have found SO much excitement & enjoyment from manipulation!
It seems we've had a small explosion with interest to it around here as of late.

Mike, I really know what you mean! When my friends ask me if it's not boring being 1h in front of a dial looking like mentally retarded spining back and forth and scratching my head I say: "FUCK NO! it's awesome "

[fgarci03]

Ok.. Time to wrap things up.

Did a few more experiences with it. Didn't pay out:


I made a dumb attempt to place w3 on R85 (I knew it wasn't right, but tried to continue as if I didn't know on which wheel the gate was, and see how it goes). Nothing. Had a suspect on 30, but when amplified showed nothing...

So I looked at the back of the lock. The combo was L50-R85-L51. Femurat pointed out that the area around 50 was too bumpy to just be a low area. After all he was right!


I've been looking at Oldfast's posts about oval wheels.. That's something I'll have to study further, especially with this lock!
Oh well...

1º Attempt - HUGE FAIL!

[fgarci03]

2º Manipulation

Same lock... New, unknown combo.
So...

Since I couldn't sleep thinking of my failings, I tried another approach. It's close actually, but Mark Bates said in here (http://www.safeventures.com/news.php?id=16) that an AWR approach may prove to be different than an AWL... Why shouldn't I give it a shot?

So I started graphing (I deleted some parts, so I can explain bit by bit my line of thought):


So after graphing it.. I thought I had found JACK!
But then I returned to my first graph on manipulation 1. Looked at the gate I had confirmed at 85, and see how much variation the graph had.
Only 1/10th to one side and 2/10th to the other.
Then I read that link on Mark Bates about gate signatures.

35; 42,5 and 52,5 had those signatures. Very faint, yes. But, as I said, on my first manipulation I also had a very faint point of interest.

But 3? Nahh, can't be.
To HELL with it I'll amplify ALL THAT. This time I'm going after even the faintest signal I get.

Looks like I found 2 gates. One at 32 and other at 52,5. I market them that way so I can explain how I deducted they where gates.
the |-----| are the measurements so I can find the gate center. The |______| are the shapes I believed to ressemble like a gate.
The one with an X is what I found to be nothing.

So now I have 2 suspected gates (suspected because I still couldn't be sure if they where gates, or I just WANTED them to be gates). Need to place them on the wheels now.

After being so confused with he hi-low tests, I used another way of doing them. Instead of using 32-32-42 (in this case), I used 32-42-42. Then 42-32-42, and so on. I believe it to be the same thing in the end. And it saves me from a lot of spinning. I just spin it L-R-L and R-L-R as it's the same thing to use a L42 or R42 (isn't it?)

Here they are:

Testing 32

(Although both Hi tests clearly showed the wheels where the gates belong to, I decided to test both Hi AND Low so I could be sure.

Testing 52,5, after placing 32 on W1

It turned out to be on W3. So I started dialing with increments of 2 untill....


OPEN with L32-R74-L52,5
Actual combo: L32-R74-L53

Here are the full graphs:




RUN TIME: 1h30 (I writted down 1h20, but was corrected after taking the pictures).

What I've learned:
1) At least on some locks (I only have this one to test), gates can have VERY FAINT variations. I just have to have patience and test them all.
2) AWR =\ AWL. If one doesn't pay out, try the other
3) Many, many other stuff I can't put into words!

Questions:
1) Would anyone have considered to amplify that area? I know I've justified it, and I believe it makes sense. But now looking at the graph makes me feel this was just dumb luck, and there was no reliable indication.
2) My hi-lo tests are reliable? They seem to be logical, but I still don't know anything about this...
3) What other ways would you have approached this lock? Or this graph?

I'm going to leave this combo for a while, so I can start testing Oldfast's stuff on oval wheels, now that I know the combo.




I know this is just the beggining. I know I know shit about manipulation. I know that if I change the combo, I may not be able to open it. And I'm not confusing confidence with cockiness (quoting Mike). But damn. I'm SO happy!

[Oldfast]

VERY exciting Filipe!!!

1º Attempt - HUGE FAIL!

Oh contrare! I'd say you've learned a GREAT deal! You're asking all the right questions.
You're already being mindful of direction & also thinking of ways to minimize your rotations.



On your second manipulation:

Questions:
1) Would anyone have considered to amplify that area? I know I've justified it, and I believe it makes sense. But now looking at the graph makes me feel this was just dumb luck, and there was no reliable indication.
2) My hi-lo tests are reliable? They seem to be logical, but I still don't know anything about this...
3) What other ways would you have approached this lock? Or this graph?

1)Certainly! With an all wheels rotation, I'll often notice a faint indication in addition to a fairly definitive one.
I focus first on the definitive indication and which wheel it belongs too. Once known, I'll then place this gate
under the fence while exploring the other faint, but possible gate. A good deal of the time.... the result is
finding two gates after running just one graph. Just like you did there =)

2)

After being so confused with he hi-low tests, I used another way of doing them. Instead of using 32-32-42 (in this case), I used 32-42-42. Then 42-32-42, and so on. I believe it to be the same thing in the end. And it saves me from a lot of spinning. I just spin it L-R-L and R-L-R as it's the same thing to use a L42 or R42 (isn't it?)

In your first manipulation... I know your hi/low testing was frustrating and the results were misleading...
but stick with it - you had it right. What you've done here is not the same. The idea is to throw only ONE
wheel at a time to your test# while leaving the other TWO on your good indication. That way you'll know
that is the wheel if your contact reading goes bad. You're looking for the worst reading. That make sense?
But then again it's late, maybe I'm missing something here *shrugs*. I'll take a closer look tomorrow

3) Depends on which lock I'm approaching and what kind of mood I'm in, lol. Every approach has its' advantages
& disadvantages. More & more lately though, I find myself liking the benefits of starting with an all wheels rotation.

But damn. I'm SO happy!

Me too I know the feeling, so I'm sharing your excitement!

[fgarci03]

The idea is to throw only ONE wheel at a time to your test# while leaving the other TWO on your good indication. That way you'll know that is the wheel if your contact reading goes bad. You're looking for the worst reading. That make sense?

Yes it does. But what are the downsides of this? What I do is basically the inverse. Place the known gate at a wheel at a time and look for the best indication. Where these tests just lucky? Or it can also work?


Also, I've been doing some experiments with os oscillation. First time happened when I inserted the combo again (it's so cool to open this lock now!) and it didn't open. But contact points where SO close. Oscillated a bit and the fence dropped.

On a real manipulation. Should you do it on every increment number you insert? Or only on ths situation?

[Oldfast]

The way you're testing... I couldn't stop thinkin' about after going to bed, lol. Maybe someone else will chime in,
but in my mind, in terms of results - I really don't see any downsides to it. As you said, you're simply looking for
the best reading instead of the worst. And just as with the traditional way, you'll sometimes have mixed results.

Oscillation: I rarely use it when taking readings. I always use it when running the final wheel every 2 incs.

[femurat]

Congrats mate, you're determined and patient, that's why you succeed!

Cheers

[fgarci03]

Manipulation 2 - Further analysis

Been playing a bit further with this same combo, trying different approaches and will compare them, in the future, with other manipulations with this same lock.


So, first I tried an AWR. As you can see in all the graphs, I marked several spots with an ":arrow: *". That is the place where the gates are, but don't show up in the graph.
So in AWL nothing pops up. Decided to check which wheel is shadowing, and found it's W3.

After that, I parked W3 at 70 (a low area) and graphed W1+2 AR and AL. Also nothing... Which is odd, the graph still had a high area around 10-50...
Continuing, W1+2 park 10 / W3 AL. Still nothing. Same with W3 AR. And with W1+2 park 27,5 / W3 AR.

Starting to get anoyed...


On the next sheet:

So I graphed a bit more untill I found this. And completed another manipulation. Of course on this one I already knew what I was looking for (you can see the very last graph was only graphed in 5 increments, except for the gate.


Now, questions, before I change the combo:

1) What other ways would you consider to map the wheels, so I can get a better knowledge of the lock?
2) What about the shadowing wheel? On these tests (1st graph) it shows that it is on W3. But the graphs aren't consistent with that information. I believe W2 is also shadowing, as I tried W1@27,5 / W2+3@70 and the RCP was 14,9. My interpretation is that both wheels are shadowing W1, but W3 shadows more than W2. So I made a bunch of graphs based on just parking W3 at a low area for nothing. Is this correct?
3) On the very last graph, I question myself if the gate isn't too big to be a proper indication. Now I know what I was looking for and pointed it out, but is it just a coincidence, or it can happen?

P.S. - Although I don't believe my readings are incorrect, I must say it's a possibility. I still make many mistakes, but I'm always confirming things (hence the shit load of corrections on the graphs )

[GWiens2001]

The Diebold lock I have (Thanks again, Oldfast!) seems to have wheels that are not fully oval shaped, but more like it has three high and low areas. Sort of an uneven, mostly rounded triangle. The gate is just before the highest point on the wheel (at least for wheel 3). It would be very easy for multiple wheels to be shadowing, as you describe. I should start posting my graphs (not too many of them yet, but they are increasing). Have not been posting these graphs because they may not show gates, and are not intended to open. Don't want to confuse others. Me being confused is enough as it is!

I am doing a few things with the Diebold lock in order to learn more about the graphs it makes. Manipulating with the intent of learning to deal with shadowing and non-round wheels, rather than just trying to open the lock. Hoping that by understanding what I am seeing, I will be able to recognize patterns that will make opening go faster.

One thing I have learned (hoping it is correct) is to move the shadowing wheel about 15 numbers past the high area, and run that area again. Have found that it is somewhat common to have two wheels shadowing an area, especially when your graph has a high area of about 40 numbers! Then find out which other wheel is shadowing. Park both of those wheels in their low areas, and spin the remaining wheel.

This can take a while, and again I am hoping that by playing around like this I can speed up my manipulations. But it has helped me to locate gates when, like your first graph fgarci03, there seem to be no indications.

Keep at it, and keep us informed,

Gordon

[fgarci03]

Darn it Gordon! You put another question on my head!

Why do you say 15 numbers? Is there a special reason for it?
What i did is park on a known low area like 70 (it was actually badly choosen, as I have a gate at 74 and might confuse things a bit. But I always assume I don't know the outcome, as a way to be imparcial!).

You should post your graphs. Like you, I make a lot of graphs just to understand patters, not necessarily to open the lock, as my last two sheets!

And how to you find the shadowing wheel? I like to know different techiques?

[GWiens2001]

Ahh, young padawan. We should ask Master Oldfast-wan Kenobi.

But until he answers, I choose 15 numbers higher (or lower) to see if both high points (the rise and fall) move 15 numbers, too. If one edge or the other does not move, while the other does, you can be sure you have two (or more) wheels shadowing. And the side that does not move must be on another wheel.

By parking the initial wheel with the high point back where it was, I can try doing the same thing with another wheel (high/low tests), and see the same thing - does one side or the other move.

Gordon

[Oldfast]

Ahh, young padawan. We should ask Master Oldfast-wan Kenobi.

LOL! While I DO like the ring that has... when it comes to ovular or odd-shaped wheels & the shadowing:
I've a great deal of experimenting to do yet with my LaGard and Diebold. I'm learning just like you guys.
Unfortunately, I've not had alot of time to devote to it lately.... but maybe if I wait long enough...
YOU guys will have done all the work, and you can tell ME the best way to approach it!! LOL

I will say this though - I do think, EVENTUALLY, after spending enough time with odd shaped wheels...
I see no reason why they couldn't be defeated JUST as quickly as a lock with standard wheels (while free-spinnin').

The Diebold lock I have (Thanks again, Oldfast!)........

You got it mounted then! Excellent. If it's as beautiful as your first lock project I hope to see some pics someday

[fgarci03]

but maybe if I wait long enough...
YOU guys will have done all the work, and you can tell ME the best way to approach it!! LOL

It would be good for me to teach something for a change

I will say this though - I do think, EVENTUALLY, after spending enough time with odd shaped wheels...
I see no reason why they couldn't be defeated JUST as quickly as a lock with standard wheels (while free-spinnin').

I find it hard to be JUST as fast, because you can never know where the low areas are before spinning the dial, what will cost you an extra graph (or at least extra turns in free-spinning) to position the wheels the right way (unless you're lucky of course!).

However, I do believe one of you will have a breakthough on this and prove me wrong. Just how I like it