I have to try 1 Million combinations? Safe Cracking Robot - Part 2

[@ryandury]

Man, there's honestly no better time to be an engineer, or just generally a curious person. Not only do we get interesting content, we get people like you who share their source code. It's incredible.

[@bytesizedengineering]

Thanks Ryan

[@H0mework]

Agreed! Have we all read “the way things work” when we were kids too? That was the gold standard for me. What a long way!

[@ryandury]

@@H0mework I recently picked up a copy from a garage sale so I can read it with my future child :)

[@Handlebrake2]

Lol, can you really call yourself an engineer?

[@zzaacchh]

@@Handlebrake2 yes

[@techoverload]

Pro tip.....screw a nut all the way onto your bolt before you cut it then you can just take the nut off and it will straighten out and mostly debur the threads where you cut them.

[@Gunbudder]

Yup, one of the first things my gramps ever taught me about working in a shop!

[@noalear]

also: use two nuts and tighten them right above where you want to cut and use a grinding wheel to flatten the end perfectly.

[@mujtabaalam5907]

I like your funny words magic man

[@Stuff-i-Like]

Or grab a file and do it properly.

[@thelockpickinglebowski633]

The number of possible combinations can be reduced on some Sargent and Greeleaf safe dials: "Do not set the third number of the combination between 5 and 11 on a lock with a dial splined at 50. The “forbidden zone” can shift slightly due to installation and tolerances, but will always be between 4 and 12. Do not set adjacent numbers of the combination within five numbers of each other."

[@mskiptr]

This doesn't even need a fancy algorithm for every such rule. Simply filtering out combinations that violate something should be plenty fast. It can be really clean code if done using streams | lazy lists. Very roughly it would be: for it in product([[0..100], [0..100], [0..100]]) .filter(rule_a_predicate) .filter(rule_b_predicate): try_combination(it) Or, if you want some combinations to be fused together, then you just translate the stream of combinations into a stream of moves the machine needs to do, after filtering.

[@bytesizedengineering]

Yes, thank you. I was aware of those exclusion zones from the user manual.

[@iWhacko]

Most combination locks can do with a tolerance of 2.5 instead aswell leaving less combinations too

[@thelockpickinglebowski633]

@@iWhacko The S&G 6730 lever determines dialing tolerance. Brass lever allows +or- 1/2 number. Zinc lever allows +or- 1 whole number.

[@Heythereyouguy2012]

I thought the forbidden zone of a standard install was between 0 and 25 for the last number on s and g?

[@honzaled]

I love how you show us the engineering process, for example when you choose to use one massive magnet but then decided to do it differently. It teaches so much more that if you just show the result

[@Mysli0210]

For the magnet, get a magnetic switch, just like those used for attaching dial indicators to machines

[@Iamjafex]

Really awesome work!! Small suggestion, since it can do so many combinations so quickly, why not have it find the exact combination after it finds the 0.5 stepped one too, to give you the satisfaction since its only 8 possible combinations to check?

[@conorstewart2214]

You could set up the safe cracker to go and check those other combinations after it manages to unlock the safe, to find the exact set combination. Using a dial with 100 notches and a stepper with 200 steps per revolution is just about perfect, if you can get the steps to match up properly, that way you wouldn’t need any or much microstepping and would probably mean the motor can spin faster.

[@bytesizedengineering]

Right, it works pretty well. I have microstepping set to 1/16 so there are 3200 pulses per revolution. So that divides each tick mark into 32 pulses.

[@AB-pb8oo]

@@bytesizedengineering that Trinamic board is perfectly capable to do more than 1/16 ;) Great choice, by the way, other type of driver would have caused so much whining sound from the stepper motor that would drive your entire family crazy

[@conorstewart2214]

@@AB-pb8oo you probably don’t even need 1/16 so why increase the microstepping?

[@conorstewart2214]

@@bytesizedengineering would you be able to get the motor to run faster by reducing the microstepping? You may also have to switch off stealthchop to get any speed difference though since it interpolates to 1/256 anyway. That way you could maybe speed up the dialling process.

[@CMCdiy]

Nice. I also opened a combination lock, it took about an hour, the important thing is to listen to the noise of the trigger . Big like

[@smelge]

Could also add some psychology to make finding the combination quicker. If you ask people to choose a number between 0 and 100, it'll nearly always be something between 30 and 70. People tend not to choose near the extremes of the scale. In an old job, people would set combination locks on their lockers and forget the codes, and I'd nearly always have to open it for them. Doing it sequentially on a 4 digit lock, I always started with 4000-6000, then 6001-8000, 2000-3999 then 8001-1999. Prioritising the mid range, then either side of it and finishing off with the extremes. If people do choose an extreme combination, it would usually be the higher extreme. 90% of the time, it would be in the first 4000-6000 range. Works for mandatory customer service surveys as well. If rating 1-10, the only people rating 1 or 10 will either of had a fantastic or awful service, but the bulk will be 4/5/6. It's also why product reviews on places like amazon are usually polarising. Most people only leave a review if they had a really good or really bad experience with the product or seller. Which is all a long-winded way to say to optimise brute-forcing a combination, start just short of the midrange.

[@sethreign8103]

Mad props top you for making this whole thing open source.

[@mfx1]

If he ever uploads the files for this project?

[@louroboros]

Today I learned that the "debounce" function name comes from the world of hardware. I always thought that was a weird name, but now it makes total sense.

[@sgsax]

It's always so satisfying when the project finally runs and works as planned. Good luck on the final run!

[@fabfab241]

Have a look at the paper “Safecracking for the computer scientist” by Matt Blaze there are a bunch of other tricks you can use to reduce the key space.

[@vincentwu2848]

Super cool that you programmed the bot to try 0.5s to dramatically reduce the number of combinations. I had no idea combo locks worked like this. So I guess all the mentions of the number of possible combinations are actually way overstated..

[@JackDraak]

Sorta like the difference between a GB on a RAM chip vs. a storage device? Manufacturer: see? 100 indents, x3 gives one million possible combinations! User: yeah, but I can get in with a maximum brute force of 1/8th of those so isn't it really 125,000 combos? Manufacturer: no, see, there are 100 indents!

[@DerekMurawsky]

So amazing what you can do with mostly off the shelf stuff these days. And what's available semi-custom now... so cool. Awesome project! On the magnets side, Old hard drive magnets are very strong if you can find them.

[@ryandury]

That's very interesting. How old are we talking?

[@DerekMurawsky]

@@ryandury spinning metal disks. You can still get them, but they're not as popular anymore as everyone wants ssds, and modern spinning disks have more efficient designs with smaller magnets. If you can find some old 20gb - 100gb drives on eBay, or in a dumpster, you can get some very powerful magnets for cheap.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Yes indeed. The strongest I have encountered are from SAN disks, 3.5 inch 15k rpm server disks. Hitachi I think. Scary strong. It would probably crush your fingers if caught between two of them.

[@pies765]

I would talk to a safecracker when you are done here. There are some optimizations to get that number down even further actually that you don't really know without knowing safe locks well

[@Vwcti18]

One right here looking !! like you mentioned, there is still i way to get the total numbers smaller but this comment won"t be seen by the creator so i can help him unfortunately.

[@BrainSlugs83]

I think the optimizations he put in are the easy ones that LPL covered on his channel.

[@Vwcti18]

@Blogapult for sure, but the way the lock works has a factor in some more reductions on total count, there are some do's and don'ts when setting a code for example

[@bytesizedengineering]

What makes you think I won't see your comment?

[@Vwcti18]

@@bytesizedengineering 🤣 had to check. thanx for the email. hope it helps. i actually checked, its in the operators manual!

[@austindale3129]

This is soo cool, your project couldn't have come at a more perfect time! I'm working in parallel with you on the same project for a built in safe at my new house and it's incredibly interesting to spot the similarities and deviations in the problem solving processes. I've also posted this problem to all the Mechanical, EE and software engineers I work with and everyone really loves this challenge! Note: the MEs go traight to dismantling the door or destroying the com (First question is can we cut the door?), the EEs go to steper motors almost imediately and the Software guys are coming up with solutions that make my head hurt with crazy sensitive sensors that may or may not exist. Love your videos!

[@ricardomeyer4455]

Super ingenious. May this not fall into the wrong hands though. Excellent work and project! 😊

[@Qwerasd]

Your software debounce is actually a throttle, not a debounce. In the software world, debouncing waits until inputs haven't been received for a certain span before processing the most recent one, whereas throttling is what you did, ignoring all inputs for some time after an input is received and processed.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

More straining at gnats. It is a debounce. That is what it does; that is its purpose. it is also what the capacitor does; charges on the first contact and successive contacts do little.

[@1992jamo]

100% with you on using caps and resistors in parallel with software.

[@conorstewart2214]

The ESP32 has a pulse counter module that includes a glitch filter which is just another way to debounce the encoder and it means the encoder isn’t being handled by interrupts or stuff like that, it is handled by hardware designed for counting pulses.

[@1992jamo]

@@conorstewart2214 Oh nice one. I brought one only half an hour ago, so I'll have a play when it turns up.

[@bytesizedengineering]

Oh that's cool! I didn't know it had a hardware pulse counter. I'll definitely look into that

[@conorstewart2214]

@@1992jamo the ESP32 is a great microcontroller and has a lot more features than anyone will probably use. Which did you buy? Was it just a normal ESP32 or a S2 or S3 or a C3? Most things are common amongst them but they do have some differences in peripherals and processors, the S3 has a more powerful processor and the C3 only has a single core risc-v processor. As for the peripherals, definitely look at the documentation and see exactly what it has and how they can be used, the names of the peripherals aren’t always the most helpful, like the RMT peripheral by its name is meant for IR remote controls but really it can just send or receive any kind of pulsed input at a huge range of frequencies, so is a lot more useful than just for remote controls. There are also multiple peripherals for PWM as well, there is the led one and the MCPWM (motor) one, they both work slightly differently and the motor one includes hardware for encoders and fault detection and sync signals, etc, and is capable of driving lots of different motors (with mosfets), like normal brushed DC ones and BLDC ones. The documentation is worth a good look over before deciding how you will write your program. I would recommend not using the arduino or platformio ESP32 ports, espressif provide an eclipse IDE or a platformio based VScode extension. The arduino port hides a lot of the features of the ESP32.

[@Quickened1]

You have just given the locksmith industry a new set of keys! Locksmiths around the world owe you a debt of gratitude, if not a royalty check!!! Looks like they could build this for a few hundred dollars, vs. 6 digits...

[@TheJefferson]

this isnt anything new, saw someone build one a dew years back kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJzOXmWHerqpq80

[@lazerusmfh]

Safe Autodialers are several thousand bucks.

[@willgilliam9053]

@@lazerusmfh Safe Autodialers were, several thousand bucks.

[@bartowl]

Not only locksmiths, but every really motivated teenager whose parent own a gun safe with this type of lock. Well done.

[@TheJefferson]

@@bartowl many dial locks have a keyed dial lock, sure it could be picked, but its another layer.

[@beanMosheen]

For your front plate you could have it tapped to threaded rod size. Use a jam nut on the back to lock it, and then you can use it on various length dials.

[@rfurto]

Awesome job! It would be cool if once it found the '.5' solution, it then locked the safe and tried all the possible 'non .5' solutions, then gave you the EXACT answer.

[@rfurto]

@@MrHardzio4Fun if a number is .5 off it will work, if it's a full digit off it won't. He used this exact method with a pen and paper and manually testing each possible combination until he got the exact solution. He could just add that last manual part to the program and have it automated.

[@BrainSlugs83]

Super glad you implemented the debouncing in hardware. Though, usually we just use a single cap across the inputs, instead of a whole low pass filter... also never thought of it as an lpf, that's neat. Btw, one improvement you could make is, once you have the half numbers, you could have it try the 8 combinations of whole numbers (e.g. 2x2x2) to find the exact whole number combination.

[@BrainSlugs83]

​@@MrHardzio4Fun they won't all work. He has them in half increments. i.e. if he has "2.5", then to enter that combination he has to place the dial half way between 2 and 3 to work because he is not sure if it is really 2 or 3. e.g. if the combination is 3, and you go to input 2.5, but you're off by a half in the wrong direction, and you enter 2 instead, then it will not open. The whole point is that you have about 1.8 degrees of tolerance on either side of the digit you are trying to enter (thus you can be off by about half a digit). But in this case, you can be off by 0 degrees in one direction and 3.6 degrees in the other! -- And you don't know which is which! Meaning you will fail to enter the combination more often unless you are very precise when entering it. This is why it's better to know the full combination. -- Because you will have more of an even amount of tolerance on both sides of the target digit.

[@VRWarLab]

This is so cool!!! It might even be possible to adjust the "tolerance level" to be specific for each safe, altough I don't know how easy would it be to make the script calculate that tolerance

[@mskiptr]

The biggest problem is: know do you learn the tolerance without opening the safe? An optimization could be to go through in a modified order, so if the tolerance is e.g. 1 your only had to check a third of the numbers, but otherwise you still check other combinations. Something like: 0 3 6 … 1 2 4 5 7 …

[@bytesizedengineering]

Yeah, having profiles for different safe brands would be awesome

[@threeMetreJim]

I've noticed something that may or may not speed things up. Rotating the dial quickly causes the mechanism to bounce around inside. If you were to pick up the vibrations, and map them to position, then maybe things could be quicker for that particular lock. A vibration sensor (microphone?) could possibly be way more sensitive than a human listening. Looks like the best place for one could be on the dial as less damping from the heavy safe door.

[@Deveyus]

Is this the most optimal search path? Could you speed it up by hunting for numbers that take less travel time even if they require resetting to the start? What about bias-weighting towards statistically more likely numbers for people to pick as well?

[@Pystro]

I think this is the optimal path. Doing no movements on the 1st and 2nd wheel while you try all numbers on the 3rd seems pretty much optimal. And then doing no movements on the 1st while you go to a new number on the 2nd - while contributing only 1/50 to the movement distance - still sounds like it can't be beat. While this does restrict the order in which you go through the 2nd and 3rd gear positions, rotating the 1st gear won't keep the other two gears in their positions anyways. So the only thing you gain from going in order on the 1st gear is that you're always doing 1/50 of a rotation. And furthermore you're only moving that gear 50 times total, so you'll loose at most 50 seconds even if you went downwards and did 49/50th of a rotation every time. So you COULD very much go by probability for the 1st gear. Then again, low numbers ARE probably the numbers that are picked most frequently. One independently possible optimization is to hope that the tolerance is 1.5 instead of 0.5 numbers. That would allow you to try only 1/8th of all combinations (25*25*25 in total), cutting the time from 32hrs to 4hrs - but if the assumption is wrong, you'll still have to do the remaining 7/8ths. But it comes at the cost that in that first 1/8th of combinations, you'd spend 1/25th of the time turning the 2nd gear, while going through the numbers consecutively has you spending only 1/50th of the time rotating the 2nd gear (and 1/625th vs 1/2500th for the 1st gear). As a result, that 1/8th would be 2% slower.

[@frontrowal8656]

That is amazing mate, you just bust a reliable 100 year old technology. Well done Sir.

[@davesdigitaldomain]

in today's economic climate it's hard to find secure employment and I've been looking for work in a bank a nice Safe job. Thanks To your cracking video I now have all the technical info to do it.

[@andrewlang3908]

It's funny, as awesome as the project is I also deeply appreciate the totally not Pink Panther themed music. Perfect choice

[@JonathanRansom]

The flute part at 7:53 cracked me up!

[@Zodliness]

@Bite sized engineering - Many rotary mechanical combination locks have a limitation of usable numbers on the dial. For example the last (3rd) disc should never be set between 90~20, as it can inadvertently interfere with the normal cam opening operation. So it's fairly safe to assume this range of numbers can be omitted from mechanical manipulations. Incorporating noise detection into the manipulation process can dramatically shorten the overall process. The older the combination lock, the more audible it's 'tells' become to the trained ear.

[@bytesizedengineering]

I'm aware of that third number limitation.

[@Zodliness]

@@bytesizedengineering That's good to know, I've always been interested in creating an auto-dialler, having only ever manually manipulated combination dials thus far. I'm impressed with your technique and it's testament to why I continue to watch your videos with great interest. 👍🏻‍

[@Gu1tarZer0]

Now you can automate the Stargate dialing computer to check the Ancient database for matches 😁

[@adamdboyd]

Love this :-) a true maker, designs and spends money on having custom plates built and tapped, doesn't spend the penny on buying the correct length screws! 🤣🤣

[@mikeschaefer6194]

Very Cool Zach ! not only the content but the way you inserted cool stuff. Great video all in all

[@lazerusmfh]

Awesome project. For reference, a commercial device (I own one) that does this is very expensive. And Safe technicians will charge an arm and a leg to auto dial your safe.

[@SafetyLucas]

This is a mission impossible level gadget! Love it!

[@KangJangkrik]

"dad, I heard someone's footsteps and robotic sound in your bedroom"

[@ThomasMcMillan1]

Great video and project. Also ESP should have capacitive touch sensor GPIO pins built in. Can just make touch pad buttons if you like.

[@bytesizedengineering]

That would be cool!

[@kikihun9726]

A simple wire and an aluminium foil works too on the gpio.

[@balloney2175]

Wow, this is a cool gift to scoundrels and scalawags!

[@kylewhite8242]

I have this similar safe specifically you can change the code you just have to take the ring pin out and change the discs around

[@JamiesHackShack]

This is great! Love following along on your progress.

[@aruthadc]

Great video. I would recommend MagSwitch magnet as they can switched and come in various strengths.

[@bytesizedengineering]

I thought about that, maybe on a future version?

[@cameronland5934]

For version 3, you should use a microphone and an FFT to isolate the sound of the locking mechanism to determine the code. Some professionals can crack safes by ear, so why not a robot?

[@Jeff-ss6qt]

IIRC, there's a DefCon video with a safe cracker that does this. It might've been on one of their ATM videos, but it was a brief mention.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Doing it by ear (or feel) depends on the previous opening NOT clearing the wheels by rotating the mail dial 3 times (or more).

[@mfx1]

It's done by feel not ear.

[@jdjizzle]

Plan on building one of these for work man cant wait for the github upload

[@bretttoynton1982]

That’s absolutely awesome great work.

[@SimonSays-]

I wonder if you put a sensitive microphone against the safe and spin each wheel separately and find click sounds? And then just try out +-5 numbers for each dial where it clicked.

[@benjurqunov]

The only thing you would hear is the driver pins picking up the next wheel. Which is meaningless since the gates can be at any random place in relation to the pin.

[@velvia7880]

Instant like for open source

[@Ozzy3333333]

Add to your program a final step to figure out the exact number. Well done

[@smickandily]

What if you recorded the sounds of a safe being opened correctly with the right combo, then train an ai to know the sounds as it cracks it?

[@darksunrise957]

So, who's going to be writing the next heist movie, where the charmer has to distract the vault guards for 6-11 hours. I hope they know a lot of knock-knock jokes.

[@TheMaffeu]

You should have it cycle through those last possible combinations when it has found it approximately. Then you you don't need to do that manually

[@420rockNinja]

this is honestly amazing

[@chris-hs1yu]

A safe that has two identical combination locks: Can they be picked in parallel or serial (one blocks the other) only?

[@MrDejast]

A tiny bit of c4 on the hinges works much faster.

[@un_lucio]

Love the development process etc, but are you sure releasing something like this opensource is a good idea?

[@un_lucio]

​@@MrHardzio4Fun well, by that logic an Apache is just a pinning motor. Unfortunately there are people that wouldn't be able to make a spinning motor by them self, but cannot really be trusted with a "spoon-fed" one.

[@INSIDEHARDWARE]

Could you do a video breaking down the code session/elements you used? I’ve been wanting to make an auto dialed with my LEGO NXT

[@weeb3277]

11:19 maybe make a bracket for a bunch of circular magnets side by side, instead of those bar magnets, In other words instead of stacking those circular neodymium magnets on top of each other put them side by side.

[@traviscalvin431]

Dumb question. How does the microcontroller detect that it got the right combination? With my safe it seems like I have to turn the handle to see if I got it right.

[@erikr007]

See the part 1 video where he talks about needing stall detection.

[@notspm9157]

Heres hoping that the lock at your brother-in-law isn't a type that requires the handle to be turned to check the combination

[@YusufMohsinally]

How does the system confirm when the combinations had been found?

[@benjurqunov]

Upon the correct last digit, the lock unlicks and dial wont turn any more.

[@erikr007]

See the part 1 video where he talks about needing stall detection.

[@joeemenaker]

You really don't need to combine two discrete numbers into an averaged one to try exactly 50 places on the dial. The mechanical tolerances in the back know nothing about the number of lines on the dial in the front (and, of course, you know this, because you had to convert X numbers on the front to some number of degrees of rotation from the stepper motor). So, remove the dial numbers entirely from the search process, and just divide the 360 degrees into N search points. For _reporting_ to the user which combination you're checking, you can translate to the dial numbers, but, for the search, just use N for the number of divisions. Then, you can experiment with just how low you can go with N (maybe 40 or even 30) to cut your search time even more.

[@cattythecat9161]

Ive got a question to this sort of lock... How does the maschine detekt, if its the right combination and the work is done?

[@japhalpha]

You should check out how Feynman safe cracking by Numberphile video to half the amount of possibilities.

[@noconz0727]

Use a magswitch to attach to the safe

[@richardlinked8797]

Also, the Blog post-Digi-Key has a link at the bottom for adding all parts to the cart and it says Invalid Part Number on all of them.

[@bytesizedengineering]

I will let Digi-Key know thanks!

[@richardlinked8797]

@@bytesizedengineering Thanks again.

[@PARTner91]

BRILLIANT! Love it.

[@WKerrick]

this series is great, but more importantly- where can i get one of those sick digikey tshirts?

[@kentice5294]

Thats not a dial replacement. Thats a whole new lock.

[@mhoover]

It doesn't matter if you know the combination since you can't influence the robot once it starts.

[@ofcsilencer]

i have used a similar safe to your target, so maybe the lock is different but the one I used, you entered a combination then pulled the handle to open/check the combination, the knob didn't stop when the combination is entered correctly.

[@bytesizedengineering]

That's my observation as well. My brother-in-law's safe needs to have the handle turned every time I check the combination.

[@madrandomize5115]

If you need the handle to be continually pulled you can attach some weight on the handle to continually pull it, except if it needs to be released for the dial to re-rotate after an unsuccessful attempt.

[@Quickened1]

@@madrandomize5115 yeah, It doesn't work like that...

[@famousamoso7]

@@bytesizedengineering So how would it work with your auto dialer? Are you then going to have to implement some mechanism to turn the handle inbetween each attempt?

[@nutbastard]

@@famousamoso7 I would just use a solenoid and an optical position sensor. Every time a combination is entered, whack the handle with the solenoid, if the handle travels it'll interrupt an IR beam between an emitter and collector and halt the program.

[@conorstewart2214]

If you aren’t using the pulse counter module on the ESP32 then you aren’t using it to its full capabilities. It has a built in pulse counter module that can be used with quadrature encoders and have a built in glitch filter (I think for your encoder they do recommend some form of hardware debouncing too) that way the encoder counts are handled by hardware and not code that you wrote and so it works independently of the main program.

[@bytesizedengineering]

I saw your other comment, thanks for the tip! I'm using an interrupt for the encoder count so it's not bogging down my main loop.

[@conorstewart2214]

@@bytesizedengineering for applications like yours where the encoder is just being used for the user interface and manual control using interrupts is fine and you wouldn’t notice any difference using the pulse count module, except maybe the glitch filter, but if it was something like optical or magnetic encoders on motors then it would make a big difference as you probably don’t want an interrupt for every count of the encoder.

[@Bwalsh123]

You should have the robot check the exact combination once the safe is unlocked, it would only take a few extra seconds!

[@FragrantVagrant69]

Great work, amazing project.

[@freedomfighter-1776]

I'd be interested if there is a way to measure vibrations to go even faster. After all there is that guy who can crack safes by feeling the slight marching imperfections even faster than your approach.

[@heeeersjohnny]

I would love to build one but would need options for 3 and 4 number combinations as well as left and right turning combinations. How hard would those be to encode software for? I have a safe I got off of craigslist and the combination is unknown and manipulation is being quite hard. Thought about building an auto dialer but the engineering is above my head.

[@tranquilthecat3417]

I wonder how this auto dialer robot would compare to a actual safe cracking robot that was built for this actual application.

[@goodbye_py]

I think you are going to receive a call from some bank robbers really soon. 😂

[@scottmcelhiney323]

What I want to know is if rather than having a robot just trying combination after combination... can you make one that can feel the points where the slots are for the combination like an actual master locksmith that has the feel and can pick ridiculous safes in a couple of minutes by feel alone? I'd think you could use a sensor for the feel and with modern controls make any dial safe easy to crack.

[@rogueyun9613]

"A ton of people interested in building one of these for themselves!" I'm sure they all have "legitimate" reasons for wanting one of these devices.

[@gillespage5489]

Is there a standard for rotation distance on the 3rd number you can use. Like the 3rd number cant be 20 if the 2nd is 25 because that is too close?

[@bytesizedengineering]

Most safe manufacturers will list exclusion zones for the third number. In my case the third number can't be 90-99 or 0-10

[@brianmcquain3384]

I heard you say "edge case" I'm a big fan of "limit case" where did you pick up the term "edge case"

[@AchimTheEagle]

Imagine having this robot 100 years ago. :)

[@mfx1]

Are you going to upload the files for this project?

[@fluke196c]

is the code and cad files available somewhere?

[@MrBlackFiction]

Please put the code and plans online. a buddy of mine has also a safe he does not know the combination of.

[@bytesizedengineering]

The design is still changing and there are bugs to work out. I will post it with the third and final video in the series.

[@magdcs]

That was very cool 😎

[@theDane70]

Next time try using your drill to thread the tubes, that how we do it in the industrial environment...

[@notyou6674]

have you seen that super fast rubix cube solving robot? if you could use such powerful motors i would imagine this would take a tenth of the time

[@richardlinked8797]

Great video, and I have the same issue. My son forgot the combination. Anyway, can I rent your device. Thanks

[@bytesizedengineering]

The design is still changing and there are a lot of bugs to work out. Unfortunately I can't rent it to you.

[@richardlinked8797]

@@bytesizedengineering Understand.

[@cbhlde]

Could the robot get a speaker to randomly say: "Click at one, two is binding..." in a Steven Hawking voice? Please? :)

[@g.marshallfranklinjr.3831]

I may have missed this, but what action or response do you receive telling you that you’ve found a number successfully? Meaning how do you know you have the combination without pulling the handle?

[@mfx1]

The dial locks up which you can detect with motor torque.

[@stopwelard]

thank you

[@plasmaman9592]

There are a few other videos on KZbin with machines that do this So when you say you have some ideas on how to shorten that time do you mean someone else had the idea thing?

[@Mike__B]

one thing I noticed is when it started the whole thing shifted slightly, time for stronger magnets?

[@bytesizedengineering]

I could adjust the acceleration as well. Or just put a bead of hot snot (hot glue) down the edges!

[@ivanl1154]

Open source. So generous

[@paulmorrey733]

Thanks

[@unorubbertoe]

Ethan would be proud irl Luther

[@VRWarLab]

I don't know if you are already doing this but in some videogames there are code locks (usually to protect your virtual home or a lobby from people entering) and what most attackers try is using the most common combinations first (1111, 1234, etc) and that sometimes lets you crack a code very easily in just a few minutes. This was a common issue with the game Rust where people could just have access to your doors by spamming codes until something went through or pavlov where people could easily join your private game if you didn't choose a safe password. I think there are online databases with these codes prepared in such a way that a script/program would easily read them and try them one after the other.

[@velez910]

Possible numbers are never the amount of attemps unless the code is all 9s