5 ms·
It probably would have been faster to apply tension to the lock, and then rotate the rows of digits until you find the "binder" (the one that the lock is restin
by slau 9y ago
It probably would have been faster to apply tension to the lock, and then rotate the rows of digits until you find the "binder" (the one that the lock is resting on under tension).
Once you have found the binder, rotate it until you feel the lock open slightly and the digit ring falls into the gate. The digit ring will move freely for about 1.5 digits until it starts to seize again.
Repeat until you've found all the digits. I've done this one a number of occasions to help friends unlock their bikes, or to troll them by changing the combination on their bike.
tl;dr: combination locks suck. Don't use them, ever.
Case in point: https://youtu.be/uMvx0GtfEOk https://youtu.be/uMvx0GtfEOk
- agumonkey 9y agoThat's exactly what I did.
- tiziano88 9y agoThen it should not have taken you 800 attempts?
- grogenaut 9y agoWithout hyperbole stories are not as fun.
- agumonkey 9y agoIn reality there are other issues: - mechanism is rusty - has backlash/play you're never sure you isolated the empty slot, so you assume so, go deeper, then backtrack when you reached the leaf of that exploration tree. Also, the double scan thing made it quick enough to avoid trying to probe too long for the right slot, hence the hybrid solution.
- saagarjha 9y ago800/999 is worse than brute force at that point…
- agumonkey 9y agoHow so ?
- palunon 9y agoBy bruteforcing randomly, you'll find the combination in 500 attempts on average. To have to make 800 guesses, you need to have pretty bad luck, or a strategy worse than bruteforce.
- vanderZwan 9y agoAverage says nothing about how often you'd expect to take more than 800 attempts or more unlock, which I guess is 199/999 or one in five times
- agumonkey 9y agobruh... you think I can remember all the random attempts in my head ?
- saagarjha 9y agoOn average it would take around 500 guesses. One would have expected that with your "method" you could have reduced this by an order of magnitude (i.e. not 800) at least. Otherwise you're really just wasting time with additional steps for each trial.