I designed something like this before. Multiple shear lines with a two stage isolation-then-check is intuitive. The details matter, though, and this looks clean. I could see it manufactured.
My design tried to avoid it being possible to interact with any of the components storing the code before the pins are isolated. I did this by having two styles of pins (normal vs. T-shaped), and an insertable bar in a specially-cut slot, which checked the right combination of pins were along for the ride.
Enclave seems like a much more sensible design in terms of implementation elegance and reliability. This is even more stark compared to other even more complicated designs I have seen. Versus my concept, it also makes it possible to have more than 1 bit per slot. To be completely cautious, however, and fully obsolete those other designs, it would make sense for the top pins to be very slightly spooled along their full length, such that the cut is guaranteed never to touch the sidewall.
Multiple shear lines with a two stage isolation-then-check is intuitive. The details matter, though, and this looks clean. I could see it manufactured.
Yes. If you're willing to have a really big lock, it's much easier to make room for a two-stage mechanism where the keying info is stored before use. I'd thought about a lever lock like that, but the thing would need a huge box in or behind the door.
There's a possible vulnerability here. This thing may be susceptible to comb picking. The spring channels look to be too long. If you can push the pins up beyond their normal travel, to where the disk stack reaches the top bar, then push the rear actuating pin to operate the top bar, the lock should open.
Master Lock is known for making this basic error in lock design, as Lock Picking Lawyer has pointed out. This is a fixable design mistake. You just have to have something that prevents the pins from being pushed too far.
My design just used grooves cut into the cylinder, which the two pin types would ride at different heights, so it didn't need to be any bigger.
An insert, aka. a rectangular metal bar with cuts in it, is inserted into a slot cut down the side to define the check key.
The pins are either a standard pin, ⣿⣿, or a T-pin, ⢹⡏. The core is cut all around with a groove like ⣿⣆⣰⣿, which they ride at different heights.
If the insert is shaped like ⣿⣶⣶⣿, it blocks the T-pin, but the standard pin can ride over the top. If the insert is shaped like ⣿⣇⣸⣿, the T-pin rides through the gap, but the standard pins catch.
Again, details like depth and offsets matter, because you don't want it to be bumpable with fast or angry rotations, or for the two pin types to lock at distinguishable offsets, and you don't want it to be jammable. Boring standard fixes can deal with comb attacks.
Enclave, OTOH, does need a bigger body, but it's merely a bit taller, nothing radical, and it's very easy to manufacture. It already has inserts to prevent comb attacks.
My design tried to avoid it being possible to interact with any of the components storing the code before the pins are isolated. I did this by having two styles of pins (normal vs. T-shaped), and an insertable bar in a specially-cut slot, which checked the right combination of pins were along for the ride.
Enclave seems like a much more sensible design in terms of implementation elegance and reliability. This is even more stark compared to other even more complicated designs I have seen. Versus my concept, it also makes it possible to have more than 1 bit per slot. To be completely cautious, however, and fully obsolete those other designs, it would make sense for the top pins to be very slightly spooled along their full length, such that the cut is guaranteed never to touch the sidewall.