The official Ticklebot thread

[jabjab231]

Following a small and entirely fruitless discussion over at TMF, I think I'm onto part of the reason why so many people take exception at the idea of a real-life tickling machine. At first I had no problem answering simple questions about safety and function, but then I started getting a little irritated when people kept on asking the same questions. Was it that difficult to read over the already considerable documentation on how the Ticklebot would work? Of course I should have realized the answer is yes. What we need is a FAQ section to hopefully give people a clear idea of what the Ticklebot (I'm thinking of maybe calling it The Modular Ticklebot. Opinions appreciated.) is, how it works, how it can be set up to suit the user and how safe it is.

So without further delay...

Ticklebot FAQ​

Q: Just what is this "Ticklebot"?

A: I don't think anyone's actually asked that question so far but I think it's a good place to start anyway. The Ticklebot, or Modular Ticklebot, is a fully automated, customizable tickling machine. It is not a bondage device, however it may employ some mechanical restraints. It will not use robotic hands as seen in most artwork for the concept, but simple implements such as brushes, feathers and... well probably brushes mostly :lol Slaver and I are still working out how to recreate a variety of tickling sensations. The key word here is "modular". Each tickling device is a stand-alone instrument. As many can be added as the user can afford and build.



Q: How much will I be able to buy one for?

A: For the parts, we're hoping the budget will be under $1000 for a full-body model. We're not actually going to be selling these things, just offering the plans and directions on how you can construct one yourself. Price will obviously depend on how many modules you build and the cost of raw materials.



Q: How the Dickens do you intend to make this thing tickle? Pressure sensors? Motion detectors? Laser-guided rocket-propelled feathers?

A: Good question. And truthfully, we aren't 100% sure at this point. We know that a ticklish sensation requires the 'lee to be unaware of exactly where they are about to be tickled, so having a machine just drag a feather up and down your feet isn't going to cut it by a long shot. Enter randomness. The tickling modules will be mechanically designed to move around to a modest degree, and can be controlled electronically. Plug the electronics into a computer and bingo, you have a programmable Ticklebot. Programming random movements is literally child's-play for even a green programmer. Once we know for sure what kind of movements to recreate, we'll be in serious business.



Q: Even if you can make it tickle effectively, it's not going to be able to account for you squirming around.

A: Well of course not. The Ticklebot doesn't even know you're there; it's just carrying out random, calibrated movements. To get the most out of it you're going to have to apply at least minimum measures of self-bondage. The tighter the better. Ideally you don't want to be able to move the tickled areas at all. This won't be awfully difficult for the feet but once you get to the upper body things start getting a tad complicated.



Q: Yeah, about that... If my entire body is immobilized how do I get out? Will there be fail-safes in case something goes wrong? I don't like the idea of trusting my safety to a machine.

A: Funny, it seems we differ there 🙂 Now as I said earlier, the Ticklebot is designed to be as flexible as possible to meet everyone's needs. If you don't want to completely tie yourself down you're more than welcome to leave one arm free. If it's no-holds-barred torture you're after then there are safety measures that will be put into effect. Firstly, there's the mechanical release that will be electronically triggered at the end of the program. Since that relies on the program working, there also needs to be a fail-safe triggered in the event of a run-time error. In the event of catastrophic system failure, there are self-bondage techniques that allow you to be restrained for a given time before you can release yourself. There are a few of these and I don't want to go into detail about them here, but fear not. If you take every possible precaution you can experience complete helplessness and still be 99.99% certain you'll come out just fine. That 0.01% is for natural disasters. If a tornado hits your house while you're in the machine, well...



Q: Wouldn't it be easier, safer and more SENSIBLE to have a panic button or dead man's switch?

A: Well technically yes if you want to be a sissy. Remember, the Ticklebot is designed to be customized. You can set up any kind of release system you like. You can even attach a microphone and have it release you if you scream too loud. Just don't ask me to do the programming for something like that. I will add the panic button and dead man's switch options though.



Q: This seems like an awful amount of trouble. Why not just have a 'ler tickle you?

A: Because some of us aren't in the enviable position of having 'lers. Some of us live in Melbourne where apparently every tickle-fanatic carries a meat and two veg in his trousers. Besides, a tickle machine could have some incredible applications.



Q: Applications like what?

A: Like interactive tickle games, where instead of beating a level and being rewarded with tickle art or "tickling" some computer sprite, you get punished with real tickling in the game. How many stories have been written with the idea of a tickle machine in them? On a very basic level you could have a choose your own adventure game along those lines. Or a quiz game where you get tickled for every wrong answer. Or maybe you could just let some sexy woman's voice (or man, whatever floats your pickle) narrate your torture as if you were undergoing some sadistic science experiment. Maybe one day if someone knows how to program this you could play multiplayer tickle games against a cyber-partner. You may only be in control of the machine that's tickling them it might still be fun watching them on the webcam begging you to press the off button. If nothing else I'm sure we'd at least get plenty more amateur tickling videos.



Q: Why so serious?

A: Tickling is serious business. Don't ever doubt it.



If anyone else has a question they feel needs answering I'll be happy to add it here.

UPDATE​

The more I think about the programming the more complex I realize it will have to be. In order to give users and game designers a respectable degree of control over the Ticklebot, I've added a secondary layer of programming to the design which should enable higher-level control procedures to be carried out. If that doesn't make sense it will eventually when I can demonstrate it or be bothered describing the difference. I'm also finding that every change to one aspect of the overall design means rethinking the interfaces. In the picture provided I've got a basic layout of the programming levels and their appropriate electronic interfaces. I can't put my finger on it but I feel like I've missed something important. If anyone can venture a guess that would be helpful. Looking at you Smade.

EDIT: Nevermind, worked it out. There needs to be a final software interface that can translate the data generated by the primary coding level into actual commands that the control board can interpret. Doesn't affect the overall design anyway.

EDIT: And just imagine there's also a similar interface for the mechanical release. Can't be stuffed drawing up another one.

 

[jabjab231]

Oh yeah the program probably needs a bit of explaining. This isn't the programming itself but the controls I've so far thought of implementing. The module control panel represents the kind of controls you'd have for each individual module. The rectangular boxes that have text such as "Input x_min" are there for calibration, so you can set the areas that the module can move around. The bars next to them represent the current position of each axis on the module and can be manipulated directly. This way you can move it around and find the best settings without just trying random numbers. Nothing actually moves until the send button is pressed (or if the automated program is running obviously). There should be a toggle that lets you lock each setting if you don't want it to move around. The motors would control either something that rotates like a brush-head or anything moving in a repetitive line, like a poking or thrusting motion. "t_min" and "t_max" are the minimum and maximum times between when each part of the module makes a random movement, so that even the timing is random but within appropriate limits.

From the global control panel you can set the time the machine will be activated and you can choose this to be random within certain limits as well. I haven't yet thought of a 100% reliable way to have the machine turn off and let you go so practiced self-bondage techniques should be employed alongside any other fail-safes I can come up with later. You can have a button near your hand that could perform a number of assignable functions. The panic button is to stop the machine and release you (once I devise a system that will do this), the plug-in option will run a separate piece of standardized code that people can write themselves to do various things, and the module activation options will turn certain tickling modules on or off.

The timed pause function can work in a number of ways. You can either pause the machine for a set time or a random time (2-20 seconds for example), you can set the number of pauses allowed (again, this can be random), and you can assign a different use for the button once your pauses run out. This might be especially interesting with a random number of uses, as you won't know if the next time you press it you'll be given a break or the tickling will get worse.

If anyone has suggestions to offer here I'd be more than happy to add extra options.

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

You should just have a button you hold in your hand that is an emergency shut off button but if you drop it you just have to live with the tickling.
I like the idea where you set so many breaks and they come in random order,where it may make it worse or give you a break.
I was also wondering if you were going to add automated restraints because if not you would be squirming all over the place and it wouldn't be as effective.

 

[jabjab231]

You should just have a button you hold in your hand that is an emergency shut off button but if you drop it you just have to live with the tickling.
I like the idea where you set so many breaks and they come in random order,where it may make it worse or give you a break.
I was also wondering if you were going to add automated restraints because if not you would be squirming all over the place and it wouldn't be as effective.

Thank you for having enough interest to read and post! It's the most I could have hoped for.

One of the main things I'm going for in the design of this machine is customizability (spell-check disagrees but I'm sure that's a real word). If you'd like a button you hold onto that works as an emergency shut-off that would be easy to set up. I'm just trying to come up with plenty of options if people want it to work differently.

I hadn't thought of actually programming a sequence of random events that the button may trigger. That's a really helpful idea! I think there'd have to be a timer between uses though so you don't just keep pressing the button over and over.

As far as restraints go, that's entirely up to the user. I've been trying to think of how to design automated restraints that would let you go when the program finishes or if something goes wrong, but I personally wouldn't trust a computer to let me go when I've experienced soooo many problems with technology in the past. What I was thinking people could do was strap their legs, torso and one arm down to something like an exercise rack or even just a bed should work. Your free arm would be tied down with a handcuff right under a timed key-release mechanism. I cannot advise strongly enough that people do not try this without thoroughly researching the method of self-bondage they use as well as testing it many times beforehand to ensure it works perfectly every time.

That said, the release mechanism I like the look of most involves tying the key to a length of string that in turn is tied above the bound hand. The string is wound up (not in a knot!) and frozen in ice so that it can be suspended above the hand just out of reach. When the ice melts it will fall within reach. But like I said, there are plenty of things that can go wrong with this if you don't set it up correctly so don't try it unless you've looked into it yourself and tested it. At some point I'll post the most anal safety guide imaginable because I don't want there to be any chance that someone actually dies trying this.

Naturally there'll be more than one fail-safe in effect in case one... well, fails. Don't worry, I've probably given more thought to the safety aspects of using this machine than the design of the machine itself.

 

[jabjab231]

I have a new idea I can't believe took this long to occur to me. Since the machine is controlled by a very simple and flexible program, it would be trivial to take the system one step further and have a secondary program controlling the first. Imagine the programming that makes all the tickling modules work as a single, closed system. It has simple inputs and outputs, which are just numerical values. It doesn't even really need inputs though if everything's been set up to run. So replace that with "start" and "stop" inputs set from another program. Getting the idea?

I think it was in the artwork section of the forum I came across a game someone had put together called "The Apocalypse" project. A pretty neat idea, and a very notable achievement that someone built a game not only with tickling art but with a plot based on that concept. You get to see some tickling art when you complete each level as a reward. I'll bet the main character wouldn't consider it a reward getting tickled after beating a level, but more of a punishment.

Now what if you had a game that punished you with tickling every time you failed to meet a goal? I'm talking in very broad terms here because without even thinking about it I've designed the Ticklebot's software to be a stand-alone system, it can be used by any other program to the point that a game might even be selective with the area on your body that gets tickled. The game might tell the Ticklebot to just turn on specific modules, at calibrated levels of intensity for set periods of time.

It would then fall to the game designer's discretion as to how to implement this. On a very basic level you could design a quiz game, where incorrect answers result in the player being punished with tickling. It could be a puzzle-solving game like the one mentioned before, only perhaps there could be traps which if you don't avoid or disarm correctly will trap and tickle you. It could be an action\adventure game where you battle monsters while they try to distract you with tickling. If you can't defeat them in time the tickling gets worse! Or if the game designer feels a tad sadistic maybe they could just program "tickle scenes" into the game that are unavoidable. I think for these games could probably only work as well as the tickling machine itself since if you aren't really being tortured there's no incentive to try. Of course none of us would be here if we didn't like tickling but we all have levels of tolerance 🙂

Now I hear you asking "How are you meant to play a game like this while you're tied down?" Good question phantom poster. This all comes down to the electronics side of things. If you can use a program to send data through electronic circuits then you can do it backwards. A home-made (or maybe even stock) controller strapped to the hand not directly under the melting ice release system should do as long as you can press all the buttons. You'd probably only need a joystick for the thumb and a button for each spare finger. Ergonomic design might be a tiny issue but nothing some imaginative MacGuyvering couldn't fix.

Maybe years from now we'll be able to play against each other online and watch our opponents suffer in a much more satisfying way than "Player 1 wins" coming up on screen. So, with all that in mind perhaps any current or aspiring game designers here could remember that they might one day have the option of using this technology in their games.

 

[Smade1]

Hi, I would like to help out if I can.

I have been thinking along the lines of purely mechanical devices but yours sound much more interesting.

You might think about a feedback system from the "operator" maybe along the lines of skin resistance as used in biofeedback devices. That could control the randomness and trigger a change in the device.

I do 3d modelling so could help design a prototype to work out construction details. I also dabble in electronics and computer construction.

For the interface between the software and hardware you might have a look at PIC controllers as these seem to be the main technique used at present.

Finally it might help to have a look to an already existing device that can be adapted to the purpose rather than construction entirely from scratch.

 

[Slaver123]

Hi, I would like to help out if I can.

Finally it might help to have a look to an already existing device that can be adapted to the purpose rather than construction entirely from scratch.

I was looking at "Handwriting Machines" but they're ridiculously expensive. Like automated signature macihnes, only they will hand-write anything you type using a mechanical arm. This would produce variety of movement, and if you could aim it at someone's soles......

There are ways to do unpredictable patterns without a computer- the device's control arm (or whatever you call it) could move along a template, a complex pattern; or perhaps 2 patterns out of sync to create unpredictability.

 

[Raytheon]

Think you guys should go much more simple...

X amount of weighted servos with soft spiky jelly toys (see below) connected to them placed where you want to tickle. Write sets of programs to run the servos randomly at differing speeds for differing amounts of time.
Spend a bit of money on some swish vac-formed plastic housing, bed and secure bondage restraints ... bingo, a simple yet fetishly historic tickle machine 🙂

Ray x

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

Thank you for having enough interest to read and post! It's the most I could have hoped for.

One of the main things I'm going for in the design of this machine is customizability (spell-check disagrees but I'm sure that's a real word). If you'd like a button you hold onto that works as an emergency shut-off that would be easy to set up. I'm just trying to come up with plenty of options if people want it to work differently.

I hadn't thought of actually programming a sequence of random events that the button may trigger. That's a really helpful idea! I think there'd have to be a timer between uses though so you don't just keep pressing the button over and over.

As far as restraints go, that's entirely up to the user. I've been trying to think of how to design automated restraints that would let you go when the program finishes or if something goes wrong, but I personally wouldn't trust a computer to let me go when I've experienced soooo many problems with technology in the past. What I was thinking people could do was strap their legs, torso and one arm down to something like an exercise rack or even just a bed should work. Your free arm would be tied down with a handcuff right under a timed key-release mechanism. I cannot advise strongly enough that people do not try this without thoroughly researching the method of self-bondage they use as well as testing it many times beforehand to ensure it works perfectly every time.

That said, the release mechanism I like the look of most involves tying the key to a length of string that in turn is tied above the bound hand. The string is wound up (not in a knot!) and frozen in ice so that it can be suspended above the hand just out of reach. When the ice melts it will fall within reach. But like I said, there are plenty of things that can go wrong with this if you don't set it up correctly so don't try it unless you've looked into it yourself and tested it. At some point I'll post the most anal safety guide imaginable because I don't want there to be any chance that someone actually dies trying this.

Naturally there'll be more than one fail-safe in effect in case one... well, fails. Don't worry, I've probably given more thought to the safety aspects of using this machine than the design of the machine itself.

lol,I don't think you have to worry about anyone dying from the machine,maybe of embarrassment when they have to be released from the machine by someone else.I like the tickle game idea too.Maybe you should have a key that is wound up and as the clock tics down the key slowly unwinds down into the user's hand.

 

[jabjab231]

Hi, I would like to help out if I can.

I have been thinking along the lines of purely mechanical devices but yours sound much more interesting.

You might think about a feedback system from the "operator" maybe along the lines of skin resistance as used in biofeedback devices. That could control the randomness and trigger a change in the device.

I do 3d modelling so could help design a prototype to work out construction details. I also dabble in electronics and computer construction.

For the interface between the software and hardware you might have a look at PIC controllers as these seem to be the main technique used at present.

Finally it might help to have a look to an already existing device that can be adapted to the purpose rather than construction entirely from scratch.

Now THIS is the kind of reply I was really hoping for. I had thought about feedback systems where the machine would send information back into the computer regarding the position of the user's body, probably with laser sensors, but that would be much more complex to program than what I've so far come up with. There would be no real need for the machine to "control" the randomness as it's quite easy to set up a computer program to trigger events randomly.

The next step I've considered is layering the events. You'll have each servo and motor given speeds and angles to work with, but then on the level above that you could have module clusters that are triggered on and off. So for a while you might just have the machine tickling your feet then suddenly it will move to the upper body, then both at the same time etc. It might sound a little complex describing it but it would be far simpler than using data from the machine itself. If you have a way that you think would be cheap, relatively simple and easily implemented I'd love to hear it and I'll try to leave room in my designs for that level of interaction.

I'm sure Slaver would find your 3d modelling skills very handy. He's the one working on the mechanical side of things. Since the software and hardware-software interfacing is separable from the mechanics of the machine itself I've had the luxury of not having to worry about those details for now, but it's very important that the device is capable of actually tickling the user and not just massaging or scratching them. It'd be great if you two could start talking to each other about those details.

Finally I can't tell you how glad I am to hear that someone here has even a little electronics experience. I was worried I'd have to learn and design everything myself. You should know that I have absolutely no experience in this area at all and I was relying on my ability to learn things quickly. If you think you're up to the task of helping out in that department I'll give you as much info as I can on how the software will be written so we can work out how to integrate that with the hardware.

Welcome to the team! 🙂

 

[jabjab231]

Think you guys should go much more simple...

X amount of weighted servos with soft spiky jelly toys (see below) connected to them placed where you want to tickle. Write sets of programs to run the servos randomly at differing speeds for differing amounts of time.
Spend a bit of money on some swish vac-formed plastic housing, bed and secure bondage restraints ... bingo, a simple yet fetishly historic tickle machine 🙂

Ray x

Believe me, no one appreciates the virtues of simplicity as much as I do but I fear the spiky jelly toys you've provided would only be effective on the very ticklish. I personally don't see myself reacting to these things and as my last girlfriend found out to her delight, I'm quite ticklish indeed.

I'm not throwing your idea out though. The spirit of this machine (to me at least) is in its ability to change to the needs of the user. You needn't construct the modules exactly as any one person decides, so the one you've described could certainly be used perhaps in conjunction with others. Maybe they'd even make for great test modules if the software and electronics are completed before the mechanical components. And at the very least it would be an easy way for someone to get their machine up and running as soon as possible.

 

[jabjab231]

lol,I don't think you have to worry about anyone dying from the machine,maybe of embarrassment when they have to be released from the machine by someone else.I like the tickle game idea too.Maybe you should have a key that is wound up and as the clock tics down the key slowly unwinds down into the user's hand.

People have died from self-bondage where they couldn't free themselves. That's why I'm so serious about safety precautions. Of course there was this one guy on TMF who said I should include a Wii heart monitor in case the user suffers a heart attack while getting tickled :lol

The clock suggestion is another commonly used method of key-retrieval in self-bondage. I like it for the consistent timing and the lack of mess (the melting ice can be a problem that way) but it does rely on mechanical parts that however unlikely, may fail. If you had five clocks set up then the chances of every one failing at any given time would be negligibly small, but I still like a little block of ice that I know is going to melt.

 

[jabjab231]

Bump for update on first post

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

People have died from self-bondage where they couldn't free themselves. That's why I'm so serious about safety precautions. Of course there was this one guy on TMF who said I should include a Wii heart monitor in case the user suffers a heart attack while getting tickled :lol

The clock suggestion is another commonly used method of key-retrieval in self-bondage. I like it for the consistent timing and the lack of mess (the melting ice can be a problem that way) but it does rely on mechanical parts that however unlikely, may fail. If you had five clocks set up then the chances of every one failing at any given time would be negligibly small, but I still like a little block of ice that I know is going to melt.

are you serious!? I didn't think you could die from such a thing

 

[Smade1]

It's not self bondage but the opening chapter(s) of Stephen King's book Gerald's Game make for a grim reminder on this. Or the main idea in the first Saw film.

 

[Smade1]

Just to break away from the grim aspect of this (I think having to be released from such a device by friends, family emergency services - "no honestly - it's an automatic massage device", is more worrying to me) has anyone ever conceived of or built some kind of tickling device?

For myself the only thing I've built was suggested in a CB cartoon - a toothbrush strapped to a vibrator. A friend of mine who is a bit more outgoing saw it and nicked it and said it worked well on a gf of his. Because of the way vibrators work (well I never knew) they are a bit different from the normal electric toothbrush (no disguising that sound though).

On the concept side and this is still a variation on the CB soap/brush idea but combined with the Princess Leia/Medibot theme - pediboots. Originally designed as a beauty aid but after some horrible accidents they were banned. Just a SF idea I had.

 

[jabjab231]

I think having to be released from such a device by friends, family emergency services - "no honestly - it's an automatic massage device", is more worrying to me

This made me laugh. Yes, in serious self-bondage, like the kind one might use with a tickle machine, it is very possible that you could be trapped and die from dehydration. For some people, cuffing your hands behind your back and leaving the key in another room is enough. For others, the feeling of complete helplessness is desirable. For that, you need to be restricted from access to the key for a set period of time. You'll have some kind of mechanism that releases the key once the time is up and you can free yourself. However, if the mechanism fails or the key isn't dropped where you can reach it, it's all over red rover. Plus if you're gagged (like I intend to be while using this machine) you can't call out for help.

From what I've seen there are two kinds of electric toothbrushes. The ones that have a small, circular rotating head and the ones that look like normal toothbrushes only they vibrate. These sorts of devices are on the top of my list for tickling implements most likely to work, but you need to have movement in conjunction with the vibration for it to be effective.

I'll have to try both types against each other to see which works best.

 

[jabjab231]

As I was plonking away on my piano just now, the electronic release mechanism suddenly dawned on me. I can't believe it took this long for me to work it out. It's beautifully simple and elegant. The one potential problem is strength.

Rather than designing an entire clasp for the limbs that releases itself when commanded, this is just a simple mechanical lock. A rod moves between two docking points in an open and closed configuration. You slip a handcuff in while it's open, press the button and the rod closes the gap. I'll write a separate program for this device so it doesn't get screwed up by anything else. It can either be set on a timer or controlled by a secondary program to unlock when appropriate, but regardless I'll write in an auto-release function that unlocks it after a set period of time. This will be up to the user, but it should be at least longer than they plan to be using the machine for.

The issue of strength arises from the fact that up until this point it was assumed all restraints would be designed to withstand the force of someone trying to get out of them. A device like this could probably be scavenged from some other electronic device but the rod and casing need to be strong enough to hold everything together under relatively high pressure. Plastic won't do, you'd need at least some kind of metal and preferably an inch or two thick. It also needs to be clamped onto the bed\rack or whatever the user is bound to. Leather straps would probably be adequate for that job if the device were shaped in such a way that allowed it.

The following diagram includes the rod, symbolic casing, a gear which represents one possible way to drive the rod connected to an electric motor. Doesn't get much simpler than that ladies and gentlemen.

 

[jabjab231]

Bump for update. First ever total software design layout.

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

Looking good so far.If all else fails you could still have an emergency release button.Kind of like the emergency brake on a car.Odds are that brake won't fail but if it does it was just a day of bad luck for you.

 

[Frost King]

What kinda tools would the machine use?

 

[jabjab231]

I've been focused mainly on the use of brushes, Slaver's trying to find out what actions could be best replicated by the machine like fingernails running down skin and Smade just sent me some very interesting links to some budget robotic hands:

http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3085154

http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Animatronics-robotic-hand/

One is an actual kit, and while it looks like it could easily tear the flesh from your bones its just the action that's important. If we use something like that we'll cover up all the sharp edges so it can't hurt the user.

The second can be constructed from common household items so it's even cheaper.

Of course parts can be added and replaced at the user's whim. People might even want to use the arm design but come up with their own tickling tools.

 

[jabjab231]

Looking good so far.If all else fails you could still have an emergency release button.Kind of like the emergency brake on a car.Odds are that brake won't fail but if it does it was just a day of bad luck for you.

All else won't fail, or if it does it'll be a million to one occurrence. I'll make sure there are several fail-safe systems, each independent from the others to ensure that as long as one works (in nearly every case they should all work) the user can get free.

Like I've said countless times, people can choose to have an emergency release or "panic" button if they like. But some people might want to go without that option. Rest assured there will be a setting to satisfy everyone.

 

[jabjab231]

Sorry to go off topic but this is just way too awesome not to share

http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/12/21/paxshikais-100th-i-sobot-video/

 

[Smade1]

What about a master lock that is an electromagnet. That way when the meter runs out or when the plug is pulled out of the socket the lock releases?