Leo Lichtman said:"Collin O'Neill" wrote: Please excuse the childish illustration.
Hopefully the picture will make it clearer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The
illustration is clear enough to serve the purpose, so there is
nothing to apologize for. However, I think you are misenterpreting
what you see when you look at the key (unless Krypronite has come up
withan entirely new system.) You are correct that the key has a
number of positions, equally spaced, where the notches are located.
Most locks have five positions. Some cheap locks have four. The
coding is done by filing V shaped notches along the key blank to
various DEPTHS--not angles. Since the notches are closely spaced,
they usually overlap at the top, so you end up seeing a wavy key
edge.
I see what you mean, but I really think Kryptonite's got a slight twist
on your description above. It wouldn't be difficult to
machine either way. In your description, the grinder is pressed
vertically into the blank. In the keys I'm looking at right now the same
grinder would simply be rotated into the blank.
Quoted message said:This may look to you like various angles. The point is, each
notch is matched to a pin tumbler whose length matches the depth of
the notch. When the correct key is inserted, each tumbler falls to a
depth which lines it up with the surface of the cylinder, and the key
will turn.
It is difficult to look at an individual key, and, by eye, determine
how many discrete depths are used in the coding system. It doesn't
take much to block the rotation of a key, so it is possible that the
lock is more secure than it looks to the naked eye.
Yes, it certainly looks like you could fit more. By comparison of the
two keys in my hand I would have a minimum of 3125 combinations, but of
course I could have more.
Quoted message said:
Well, I don't mean to be pedantic on what is aleady an esoteric (but
interesting topic). At least we've determined they keys have a lot of
combinations.