Help Identifying Combination Lock on Chubb-Mosler-TaylorSafe

[Cheesehead]

These are plots I took trying to find low spots in the wheel packs, saw this idea on this forum, find a low that isn't a gate and try and work down through low points to find a gate. I did it in 5 number increments except for wheel 4 where I inspected in more detail around 10.
The effort seems to have quit producing gains and I'm stumped. I will say that the contact points are much more pronounced when W4 is at 10. First image is the raw data plotted all on one chart. Second is the Area (12-6 roughly)

Is there a reason why we are checking only in increments of 5? In my experience, this lock will probably indicate if you are slightly over an increment away, but not two. I’d recommend graphing in increments of 2 or 2.5. I use 2 because 2.5 requires a bit extra care.
Second question: if you are really graphing a gate that’s indicating inside the contact area, you might feel an extra resistance in the contact area while turning through it. If so, you can double check which wheel that gate is on by dragging consecutively larger numbers of wheels through that area.

Attaching one of the few graphs I ever made haha, I just don’t enjoy graphing. This is the same model lock as yours (probably), although it had been recently cleaned so likely easier than yours. Not sure if it’s helpful, other than to show this lock is not necessarily so precise, probably just dirty. That can make it more difficult.

image.png

[Cheesehead]

Sorry, forgot to add: my lock was mounted opposite hand from yours (unless they did some strange work inside on the bolt work). The left contact point on your lock will probably give you better information.

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

I was only doing 5's because I was getting frustrated and was taking a new approach in looking for general low spots in wheels and wheel packs, not necessarily looking for gates. My idea was maybe oval wheels were hiding other wheel gates so i decided to just see how oval the wheel packs were. It didn't really produce anything to be honest so I'm back to increments of 2 and have some new ideas from you all. Thanks!

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

Hi all,
I've learned a few things about this lock based on your advice and recalling things I've read.
1. Started wearing magnifying glasses and a stethoscope so I can pinpoint the contact points much better.
2. The scale was replaced with one that has 1/16ths and I can estimate the middle as 32nds.
3. Sharpened the pointer and made sure it doesn't drag on the paper.
4. When reading contact points if i jiggle the dial back and forth the contact point creeps along the scale until it stops moving. I then get a consistent and solid feeling reading. This happens to a degree in both directions but is quite substantial. It can move about 0.3 to 0.4 of a number.

With those changes I scanned the wheel pack (essentially threw out the 15 charts I've already made) with AWL and am fairly certain I've found a gate and will do the high low test later. It is kind of tiring because it took me 1 hr 45 min to do AWL.
The indication is really strong and well shaped though.

[MartinHewitt]

Sounds like you are making good progress.

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

Does it make sense that when I test the contact points the one at 12 is fairly consistent and steady at about 12.5 but then when I go to test the 6 it is like 6.25 or even more but if i oscillate the dial back and forth through the CP it progressively moves down to 6+- and then is steady at this value. The number it stops at isn't always the same and the charts seem to look ok if I work the CP's to their final value. Otherwise if I don't the CP's can be all over the map.

[Cheesehead]

Does it make sense that when I test the contact points the one at 12 is fairly consistent and steady at about 12.5 but then when I go to test the 6 it is like 6.25 or even more but if i oscillate the dial back and forth through the CP it progressively moves down to 6+- and then is steady at this value. The number it stops at isn't always the same and the charts seem to look ok if I work the CP's to their final value. Otherwise if I don't the CP's can be all over the map.

I think there are many possibilities. Indirect drive meaning the spindle turning the actual cam has play, one of the spline keys being loose, the lock just being dirty, just to name a few.

If you're able to jiggle the contact point down consistently so tat you feel confident you're getting information on the height of the fence, then keep doing what you're doing. There's only so much capability I have from an armchair

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

After the hope of finding a gate at on W4 I parked it and scanned wheel pack 1, 2, 3 but this time nothing was revealed. So, doubting myself I rescanned the 4 pack at that spot and no indication where I thought I had one. Then I parked AWR at 0 and scanned W4L in full and this time no indication whatsoever either.
The scan of all set to zero and W4L scan is below. Back to square 1 but I have a good feel for the wheel now at least.

Not sure what is next. The 3 wheel scan showed a decent low point at 0. Maybe park W1 and W2 at 0, park wheel 4 at 24 and scan W3 to see if anything exciting happens?

edit: I suppose it isn't necessarily wheel 4 that will indicate first? Maybe I need to park and scan every wheel individually? This is so much scanning, I can only do about 1 per day.

[Cheesehead]

After the hope of finding a gate at on W4 I parked it and scanned wheel pack 1, 2, 3 but this time nothing was revealed. So, doubting myself I rescanned the 4 pack at that spot and no indication where I thought I had one. Then I parked AWR at 0 and scanned W4L in full and this time no indication whatsoever either.
The scan of all set to zero and W4L scan is below. Back to square 1 but I have a good feel for the wheel now at least.

Not sure what is next. The 3 wheel scan showed a decent low point at 0. Maybe park W1 and W2 at 0, park wheel 4 at 24 and scan W3 to see if anything exciting happens?

edit: I suppose it isn't necessarily wheel 4 that will indicate first? Maybe I need to park and scan every wheel individually? This is so much scanning, I can only do about 1 per day.

I don't see anything particularly promising in that graph.
I would like to know though how you decided the gate was on wheel 4, and where you found that gate? It is my opinion that correctly checking which wheel a gate is on is far more technical than graphing a pattern.
That, and deciding the most effective dialling patterns to get what you want.

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

When I thought I had a gate I ran the Hi-Lo tests and the difference was very small but in favour of W4 in both cases. Although I'd say the amount the contact area was larger was within the error/resolution of my readings. Thats why I did a quick re-scan of the numbers in that area and found no gate indication on the second pass.

[webpirate]

1) I think it's a bit dangerous to skip any numbers on this lock.

2) You have to keep a very delicate touch on the dial, so light that your fingers slide when you reach the contact points. This is my biggest secret. I dial fast, but when I get to the contact points my touch is so light that my fingers slide on the dial with the friction of the contact points. If you watch my videos you'll see me sometimes aproach the contact points several times. This is because I am adjusting my touch to the point where my finger slides with the friction of the contact point.

3) sometimes you have to just pick 1 contact point if it's producing better results. I've found that the ramp side(usually the right) is more reliable that the hook side. The hook side take a bit of beating and can produce erratic results. BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE EACH LOCK ON IT'S OWN ARRIBUTES.. Sometimes it's takes a full spin AWL and AWR to see what the lock tells you.

4) Don't worry about speed. Speed is just for a personal competition. We always compare ourselves to the manipulation contests. The contests are setup in comfortable environments with mounted locks where you can lean back and be comfortable. In the field we are at the mercy of the safe.

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

Everybody's help is making me a better manipulator, at least I think it is. I tried the light fingers and see the benefit so I plotted AWR at every number with this technique and the results are repeatable. This is all great news however the plot isn't telling me anything. This took me just under 2 hours so that's it for today. Maybe tomorrow night I can find time to run the AWL and post that. One last thing I'll mention is that this is the first time I've felt like I'm getting quality readings. I went around again and checked a few readings and they were the same as what I got on the main pass. Up until tonight my readings varied when I tried to re-read them later.

[Cheesehead]

Everybody's help is making me a better manipulator, at least I think it is. I tried the light fingers and see the benefit so I plotted AWR at every number with this technique and the results are repeatable. This is all great news however the plot isn't telling me anything. This took me just under 2 hours so that's it for today. Maybe tomorrow night I can find time to run the AWL and post that. One last thing I'll mention is that this is the first time I've felt like I'm getting quality readings. I went around again and checked a few readings and they were the same as what I got on the main pass. Up until tonight my readings varied when I tried to re-read them later.

This looks very promising! You could park AWR at 52 and then scan W4 left (I’d do increments of 2, but if you want 1 go for it) and see if you can find an improvement on W4.
If you get nothing, try, W3 etc.

This measurement is reading the contact points trying to reach precision of a 32nd of an increment? I think that’s too much work and slowing you down, if you really need I’d aim for 16th. But only with a vernier. And I don’t think you do, because your graph has a decent range from lowest to highest reading.

Hope this helps! Your graphs look extremely consistent, you have refined your touch considerably.

[3KidsSafeCrackers]

Hi again, I decided to go for the AWR52 and W4L scan. There is a discontinuity at starting at 68 but it is very wide. I checked it twice from 60-80 and the results were consistent. What do I do with that?

My next normal step would be a High Low test to see what wheel it is on but I'm on wheel 4 and the rest aren't moving at 52.
Do I pick AWL52, Scan W3, W4L69 or 70 ????

[Cheesehead]

Hi again, I decided to go for the AWR52 and W4L scan. There is a discontinuity at starting at 68 but it is very wide. I checked it twice from 60-80 and the results were consistent. What do I do with that?

My next normal step would be a High Low test to see what wheel it is on but I'm on wheel 4 and the rest aren't moving at 52.
Do I pick AWL52, Scan W3, W4L69 or 70 ????

Excellent, the only wheel you were moving was wheel 4, so you found the optimal place to park it, 69L.

I’d be inclined to either try wheels 1 through 3 right, with W4 going back to 69 every time to test, or do as you suggest, try W3. The problem with that approach is that you’re more likely to find nothing. The problem with moving all 3 of the first wheels is that you will have to test which wheels to park where. Whichever seems most natural to you is what you should do.