ThyssenKrupp Multi – world’s first rope-free elevator [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
ThyssenKrupp Multi – world’s first rope-free elevator [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QlAsxJP-g
207 comments
> Worse, they're on vertical surfaces in the shafts, where maintenance will be difficult.
Maybe - but movement on two axes lets you get creative with your tools. You could for instance store a "maintenance car" with special fittings that expose the shaft mechanisms. The car could be introduced into the system as needed and removed when it would just be in the way.
Maybe - but movement on two axes lets you get creative with your tools. You could for instance store a "maintenance car" with special fittings that expose the shaft mechanisms. The car could be introduced into the system as needed and removed when it would just be in the way.
A forgotten concept is the Paternoster elevator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster
A paternoster lift is a passenger elevator which consists of a chain of open compartments (each usually designed for two persons) that move slowly in a loop up and down inside a building without stopping. Passengers can step on or off at any floor they like. The same technique is also used for filing cabinets to store large amounts of (paper) documents or for small spare parts. The much smaller belt manlift which consists of an endless belt with steps and rungs but no compartments is also sometimes called a paternoster.
Nowadays certain safety concerns from the 1970s could be solved by incorporating modern safety features like auto-stop, automatic doors, etc in newly built ones. Express elevators could be built too, if they skip certain floors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster
A paternoster lift is a passenger elevator which consists of a chain of open compartments (each usually designed for two persons) that move slowly in a loop up and down inside a building without stopping. Passengers can step on or off at any floor they like. The same technique is also used for filing cabinets to store large amounts of (paper) documents or for small spare parts. The much smaller belt manlift which consists of an endless belt with steps and rungs but no compartments is also sometimes called a paternoster.
Nowadays certain safety concerns from the 1970s could be solved by incorporating modern safety features like auto-stop, automatic doors, etc in newly built ones. Express elevators could be built too, if they skip certain floors.
My first read is that this system would be useful for inventory or parts management / movement. Rather than pepole movement, cargo.
This would also be 1) more forgiving of "whooses", and of what I suspect are going to be some pervasive acceleration and directional issues.
Crates of goods don't get motion-sick.
This would also be 1) more forgiving of "whooses", and of what I suspect are going to be some pervasive acceleration and directional issues.
Crates of goods don't get motion-sick.
Wow. Kinda off topic, but looking at the complexity of the automatic parking garage makes me wonder whether, in the future, growth of jobs will look like, e.g. automatic parking garage repairer...
I am wondering if the solution is to use modular counterweights that can also be moved sideways and swapped around too.
I wonder how you wonder to use that.
Do you know the principle of a traditional elevator, and the role of a counterweight?
Do you know the principle of a traditional elevator, and the role of a counterweight?
Yes I do know how a counterweights work. In principle if the elevator can be shift sideways then the counterweights can be too. Of course when the elevator goes up and down it will need to be linked to a counterweight, but as long as this linkage can be made transient then should work.
I am not convinced by your understanding.
The elevator conserves energy by having a counterweight, and the work needed for moving the elevator (disregarding the loss of the system) is 0 if the elevator is empty and the counterweight is the same weight of the elevator.
This is true for the length of the rope.
Now if you have a 99 storey building, with side moving elevators, you cannot have counterweights, as the ropes would be in each others' way when moving sideways. Either having a rope in way for 99 storeys in worst case, or with shorter ropes you increase complexity even further and negate the energy saving. if travelling further than the length of the rope.
The only advantage of this design is the lack of ropes. The downside is increased energy use.
Regarding transient linkings: even more complexity, and possibly the cabins need to wait for the counterweight to arrive, and hand over the counterweights? Even scheduling complexity is increased. Totally useless, as to have it a bit feasable you need to sill keed the functionality of counterweightless motion.
You can understand this by drawing if still not clear.
The elevator conserves energy by having a counterweight, and the work needed for moving the elevator (disregarding the loss of the system) is 0 if the elevator is empty and the counterweight is the same weight of the elevator.
This is true for the length of the rope.
Now if you have a 99 storey building, with side moving elevators, you cannot have counterweights, as the ropes would be in each others' way when moving sideways. Either having a rope in way for 99 storeys in worst case, or with shorter ropes you increase complexity even further and negate the energy saving. if travelling further than the length of the rope.
The only advantage of this design is the lack of ropes. The downside is increased energy use.
Regarding transient linkings: even more complexity, and possibly the cabins need to wait for the counterweight to arrive, and hand over the counterweights? Even scheduling complexity is increased. Totally useless, as to have it a bit feasable you need to sill keed the functionality of counterweightless motion.
You can understand this by drawing if still not clear.
You don’t need ropes to have a counterweight. The same effect can be accomplished with track and gears.
I do agree with you that having independent counterweights would increase the complexity and the likelihood of a breakdown. Ultimately any solution would depend on the value being provided by the solution verse the increased cost or either maintenance or energy costs.
More importantly the purpose of me suggesting this solution was not to solve the elevator problem (I am sure lots of engineers have thought more deeply about this than me), but to discuss the problem.
I do agree with you that having independent counterweights would increase the complexity and the likelihood of a breakdown. Ultimately any solution would depend on the value being provided by the solution verse the increased cost or either maintenance or energy costs.
More importantly the purpose of me suggesting this solution was not to solve the elevator problem (I am sure lots of engineers have thought more deeply about this than me), but to discuss the problem.
Oh, OK. I think that an energy recuperation system and simply a "vertical railway" is simpler and more robust overall. No ropes needed just electric wiring, and elevators moving down are the counter weights. But this is basically what is demonstrated.
What I thought parent meant was using counterweights in the more traditional sense.
And yes, moving down also returns the energy, after all gravitational field is conservative. The real use of the counterweight is that the power needed to lift is less (you only need to work to lift the cargo), which means cost savings in motors, wiring, electricity, etc. Those saving by a mechanical counterweight system cannot be had with this setup without insane complexity. With today's solid state power electronics it is simpler and more reliable to use an electronic solution.
What I thought parent meant was using counterweights in the more traditional sense.
And yes, moving down also returns the energy, after all gravitational field is conservative. The real use of the counterweight is that the power needed to lift is less (you only need to work to lift the cargo), which means cost savings in motors, wiring, electricity, etc. Those saving by a mechanical counterweight system cannot be had with this setup without insane complexity. With today's solid state power electronics it is simpler and more reliable to use an electronic solution.
Discarding system losses, an elevator without counterweight will also use 0 energy for the up/down cycle (assuming load goes up and some time later down): the energy invested while pulling up the system can be recovered when descending.
Yes, at the cost of even more complexity. The problem with this idea is insane complexity.
One of 3 elevators in the office building is out of operation every two weeks. ThyssenKrupp comes and repairs it every now and then. They are simple elevators. The reliability I can imagine from my experience with TK elevators I think the floors will be a better option.
Once I was working for a TK company, and the TK elevator broke down. It was not repaired by the sibling company for a whole month because of some component shortage... That was a simple elevator in a 5 storey building.
One of 3 elevators in the office building is out of operation every two weeks. ThyssenKrupp comes and repairs it every now and then. They are simple elevators. The reliability I can imagine from my experience with TK elevators I think the floors will be a better option.
Once I was working for a TK company, and the TK elevator broke down. It was not repaired by the sibling company for a whole month because of some component shortage... That was a simple elevator in a 5 storey building.
> floors
i mean stairs.
The big benefit is that you get more than one elevator per shaft. For skyscrapers the amount of floor space wasted by elevators grows exponentially by the number of floors.
Say you have a 5 story building that needs a one shaft elevator. 5 floors tiles 100 sqft per floor is 500 sqft of wasted shaft space. Then say you have a 10 story building that needs two shafts. Now you are wasting 10 floors times two shafts or 2,000 sqft. And so on.
An old and terrifing solution to this was to use two shafts and run a continuous loop of open door elevators.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3Fc_yG3p0
Say you have a 5 story building that needs a one shaft elevator. 5 floors tiles 100 sqft per floor is 500 sqft of wasted shaft space. Then say you have a 10 story building that needs two shafts. Now you are wasting 10 floors times two shafts or 2,000 sqft. And so on.
An old and terrifing solution to this was to use two shafts and run a continuous loop of open door elevators.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3Fc_yG3p0
That's polynomial growth
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+*+f+*+ceil(f%2F10)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+*+f+*+ceil(f%2F10)
I deserved that.
My examples understate the real life problem though.
This missing factor is that it also costs more shaft time to serve a higher floor with a longer travel distance than it does a lower floor with a shorter travel distance. So in the simple elevator case, people from floor one hundred are going to be spending more time in the shaft than people from floor ten.
Still not exponential, but cubic-ish growth puts a hard limit on things.
My examples understate the real life problem though.
This missing factor is that it also costs more shaft time to serve a higher floor with a longer travel distance than it does a lower floor with a shorter travel distance. So in the simple elevator case, people from floor one hundred are going to be spending more time in the shaft than people from floor ten.
Still not exponential, but cubic-ish growth puts a hard limit on things.
Right, that also explains the concepts of 'express' elevators and lobby floors.
Due to the passengers the rate of travel for an elevator is not constant:
* There's a maximum rate of acceleration and deceleration that people are comfortable with.
* A longer travel distance means more time to speed up / slow down.
* Thus an elevator or two which are dedicated to operate at the longer distance travel that distance at a more effective speed and provide more rapid service.
* Even more importantly, it also cuts down on the number of slow elevator shafts necessary to service floors by allowing them to be stacked.
Due to the passengers the rate of travel for an elevator is not constant:
* There's a maximum rate of acceleration and deceleration that people are comfortable with.
* A longer travel distance means more time to speed up / slow down.
* Thus an elevator or two which are dedicated to operate at the longer distance travel that distance at a more effective speed and provide more rapid service.
* Even more importantly, it also cuts down on the number of slow elevator shafts necessary to service floors by allowing them to be stacked.
Paternosters. You say terrifying, I say fun.
There's one in Leicester University (not the only one in the UK, I'm sure).
Really not that dangerous, with a cable near the top of each aperture that triggers a stop if it's touched.
There's one in Leicester University (not the only one in the UK, I'm sure).
Really not that dangerous, with a cable near the top of each aperture that triggers a stop if it's touched.
The SF garage my fiancee parks in has this thing made from an industrial belt, with steps bolted onto it. I think there are quite a few of those in Stuttgart as well, though they are being fazed out. It's very efficient, but not for ze stupits!
I saw one like this as a child, in Chicago. As I remember, it was explicitly only for the employees to use to get to the cars, as it was a valet facility.
That's what the one I saw was!
Out of curiosity, where in SF? I'd be interested to see one.
The parking garage near the corner of Bush and Mason.
[deleted]
There's one in the library at Essex University as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvn06yQIb9o
I'm glad they still have it, I was nervous when I searched that I would find out it had been ripped out since I was last there.
I'm glad they still have it, I was nervous when I searched that I would find out it had been ripped out since I was last there.
I rode one of those "terrifying" elevators in the '90s in Frankfurt DE and it wasn't actually scary. I could in fact be dangerous but people are pretty smart about not being stupid near them. I will admit that we taped a piece of paper to the floor to make sure the cabin (which was completely carpeted) didn't flip over at the top before we rode it the whole way around.
Could you expand on your "safety paper"? Was it taped to the top floor, as a signal to get out?
Took me a while to parse but I think he means they taped paper to the floor, then observed that the paper was still on the floor (as opposed to the ceiling) after the elevator looped around. The entire elevator was carpeted so it wasn't obvious if this would be the case or if indeed the elevator flipped over before beginning its descent.
Not OP, but here's how I think it worked:
There are effectively two vertical shafts, and the elevator car goes up one and down the other. If the car flipped over as it goes over the top to the other shaft, then what was the floor would become the ceiling. So, tape something to the floor to identify it as it's going up, then wait for that car to come down the other shaft and look at where your identifying paper is.
It does seem pretty obvious that it wouldn't flip over - that seems like an insanely dangerous design.
There are effectively two vertical shafts, and the elevator car goes up one and down the other. If the car flipped over as it goes over the top to the other shaft, then what was the floor would become the ceiling. So, tape something to the floor to identify it as it's going up, then wait for that car to come down the other shaft and look at where your identifying paper is.
It does seem pretty obvious that it wouldn't flip over - that seems like an insanely dangerous design.
Ah, yeah I guess that makes sense :-)
No ... since the elevator compartments were completely carpet covered, we wanted to make sure they didn't flip over when then went around the top and bottom (and yes it was taped to the floor).
Did you try and snap any broom handles between the floor of the elevator and the top of the doors? Seems like the greater danger, tbh.. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJBD1wf-YQ Here is Tom Scott's video about the continuous loop elevator's.
Better video :-)
Why not invent and install spiral escalators? That would give you the high throughput of the paternoster more safely. You could still have a few elevators for travel between the higher up 'elevator lobbies' people mentioned.
Wow, cool... they have!
http://gizmodo.com/feast-your-eyes-on-the-worlds-largest-spi...
There must be more spiral escalators now. I know there's one in Nordstrom's too.
There must be more spiral escalators now. I know there's one in Nordstrom's too.
Nice. I was picturing one more like a spiral staircase though, where the inner edge of each step touches an inner pole.
Sorry to sound stupid, but how is that exponential? Isn't it O(mn) where m = number of floors and n = number of shafts?
EDIT: Unless there's some dependence between m and n, like if taller buildings always need more shafts or something.
EDIT: Unless there's some dependence between m and n, like if taller buildings always need more shafts or something.
> like if taller buildings always need more shafts or something
The dependence is on keeping wait times reasonable. Taller buildings mean each shaft's elevator spends more time travelling, i.e. less time being available.
The dependence is on keeping wait times reasonable. Taller buildings mean each shaft's elevator spends more time travelling, i.e. less time being available.
At this point you start doing locals (multiple elevators per shaft traversing only a subset of the entire building) and express (elevators skipping floors, usually between ground floors and various "sky lobbies" at 30~40 floors interval).
Which still involves adding shafts.
There's also a weight issue. The longer the shaft, the longer and heavier the cable must be, and the more tension and stretch. In some buildings, there may also be structural issues militating against an open shaft running the entire heightof the buldng.
Taller buildings need more shafts because they'll spend more time in transit so unless the occupants have the patience of saints you need lots shafts to keep wait times down. Eventually most tall buildings setup sky lobbies and express lifts that only service a certain range of floors to keep wait times down during peak hours.
It's really rough in convention center hotels when a huge convention comes to town a lot of the time it's practically impossible to get an elevator down from the middle floors because it's already full from the floors above you.
It's really rough in convention center hotels when a huge convention comes to town a lot of the time it's practically impossible to get an elevator down from the middle floors because it's already full from the floors above you.
Perhaps you could just hang two elevators on one set of cables in the same shaft? They will have to move in sync and the range will be cut in half, but the throughput will nearly double during the rush hour. In a tall building could be an acceptable tradeoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-deck_elevator is like that, but right on top of each other so the range isn't reduced.
Most people are going between the ground floor and whatever floor their destination is on, so a shaft with two cars that go 0-50 and 51-100 wouldn't be very useful.
Most people are going between the ground floor and whatever floor their destination is on, so a shaft with two cars that go 0-50 and 51-100 wouldn't be very useful.
Actually it's quite common to have cars in the same 'shaft' serving a subset of floors. The original world trade centre towers pioneered this system. Express elevators take you to transfer lobbies and then you transfer to local elevators for intermediate floors. The locals for different sets of levels occupy the same footprint within the building.
Indeed. Same article also covers shared-shaft elevators, exactly as I described.
Ah, sky lobbies are a neat solution to get more efficient use out of the two elevators, I've never encountered one of those!
That makes it a lot harder to have a dramatic lobby, which is an important component of most skyscrapers.
This is right if you assume constant floor area for increasingly taller buildings. I think taller buildings require more floor space and that offsets the increase (at least somewhat).
The space isn't wasted if it's used to transport people, though.
In an n floor building, nobody is being transported in n-1 floors.
No one is using 100% of the space in the rest of the building either. Restrooms aren't a waste of space even if they're not constantly filled. Not everything has to be at 100% utilization to be worth the investment.
But as you make a building larger the number of restrooms increases linearly. A building twice the size uses twice the space for restrooms.
Say you design a 50 story building and it has one bank of elevators that all run from 1 to 50. What if you wanted to make it twice as high, and have the same elevator capacity for the top half?
You can add another identically sized bank that starts at the ground floor, skips up to 51 and then covers from there to 100.
In the top half of the building you used the same fraction of space for your elevator shafts as you'd used originally. Great! Except the elevator shafts to get there had to go through floors 2-50, and they ate up as much space there as the original elevator bank did. The building has 2x the original volume, but you're spending 3x the space on elevator shafts so you didnt double the useful floor area.
As you try to design taller and taller buildings, the increasing cost of vertical circulation gets worse and worse.
Say you design a 50 story building and it has one bank of elevators that all run from 1 to 50. What if you wanted to make it twice as high, and have the same elevator capacity for the top half?
You can add another identically sized bank that starts at the ground floor, skips up to 51 and then covers from there to 100.
In the top half of the building you used the same fraction of space for your elevator shafts as you'd used originally. Great! Except the elevator shafts to get there had to go through floors 2-50, and they ate up as much space there as the original elevator bank did. The building has 2x the original volume, but you're spending 3x the space on elevator shafts so you didnt double the useful floor area.
As you try to design taller and taller buildings, the increasing cost of vertical circulation gets worse and worse.
That's not a counter. No matter what your goal utilization is, your ability to deliver that per square foot drops tremendously. If restrooms were like elevators then adding a bunch more floors would suddenly require all two-stall restrooms in the building to be five times as big.
You can't put more tenants in it and charge them rent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The follow up video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OBHUZetYIU was a bit more interesting. It shows the mockup system running through a variety of transitions.
I'd be interested in why they decided to make the 'track' as complex as they did. The transition nodes are an amazing mechanism but it seems also a likely failure point.
I'd be interested in why they decided to make the 'track' as complex as they did. The transition nodes are an amazing mechanism but it seems also a likely failure point.
It's explained in another video. Those "tracks" are linear motors, with periodic electro magnetic coils.
Looks like it will be crazily expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
Looks like it will be crazily expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
"World's first 3D people mover" might be a more appropriate --- and enticing --- title, because "rope-free" can also refer to hydraulic elevators (which have been around for over a century.)
As far as I can see, the design only allows 2D movement. If you wanted the lift to move toward or away from the camera, you would need either some kind of 2nd attachment point on a different side.
why couldn't a horizontal segment have a curve to change the Z axis by whatever angle you wanted to get to.
Also, they could have a completely circular horizontal segment to move people through an upper level of a round building - like a stadium...
Also, they could have a completely circular horizontal segment to move people through an upper level of a round building - like a stadium...
Or a vertical segment could have a curve too. Imagine rotating by 45 degrees as you go up ten floors -- suddenly now you're in a completely different plane.
They could use the bottom of the car.
The rendering of the cabin traversing a skyway looked it followed some kind of bend.
We could also check whether "The Willy Wonka elevator" arouses more curiosity: It's a feature of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book (and in the movie from Tim Burton).
3D Railway Pod? Seems like it follow tracks and switch lines like a train only it can also go up and down. It's a step close to the Great Glass Elevator.
Schedulers for Multi must be fun - I'm sure they must have employed a whole research group for solving this problem. Scheduling simple elavator systems is still a problem nowadays, this one? It's so much harder.
I'm rather sure they haven't.
Source: Myself, working in a high-rise building served by ~20 ThyssenKrupp elevators, 10 of which actually share 5 shafts (they're not the ropeless version though, AFAIK), and the scheduling sucks big time. We got them to informally acknowledge that they're being wiped every night to get around some nasty bugs, so they never learn traffic patterns, but even then it's infuriating to see how crap they are even on a Sunday with the building empty.
Source: Myself, working in a high-rise building served by ~20 ThyssenKrupp elevators, 10 of which actually share 5 shafts (they're not the ropeless version though, AFAIK), and the scheduling sucks big time. We got them to informally acknowledge that they're being wiped every night to get around some nasty bugs, so they never learn traffic patterns, but even then it's infuriating to see how crap they are even on a Sunday with the building empty.
I've seen them work ok in an office building with ~15 floors and 6 elevators until lunch time, when the extra traffic made them take far longer than it seemed they should have.
I'm guessing those didn't detect if no one got in the car and they still went to all their scheduled floors.
I'm guessing those didn't detect if no one got in the car and they still went to all their scheduled floors.
I'm sure it's more than that:
The express lifts remain for too long at the "key" floors to pick up more people. This is probably some energy vs practicality balance that can be adjusted, and that we're very likely guilty of.
The normal lifts will happily depart with nobody inside if you don't sprint to them because the consoles are 25ft away.
You book 2 adjacent floors, you get 2 lifts scheduled for only those floors. So much for saving energy, and also, now 2 lifts are busy instead of 1.
The fancy giant touchscreens are a nightmare: small touch targets, 80% of the screen devoted to static diagrams, the resistive touch film already failed in the hot spots, esp. because you are forced to touch some areas even though you have no choice!! (Choose north or south tower. Oh you chose the south tower but you're in the north one. Sorry you can't do that).
I could go on... but, in a nutshell: these people can do hardware. They fail big time at software, both the scheduling engine and the UI.
The express lifts remain for too long at the "key" floors to pick up more people. This is probably some energy vs practicality balance that can be adjusted, and that we're very likely guilty of.
The normal lifts will happily depart with nobody inside if you don't sprint to them because the consoles are 25ft away.
You book 2 adjacent floors, you get 2 lifts scheduled for only those floors. So much for saving energy, and also, now 2 lifts are busy instead of 1.
The fancy giant touchscreens are a nightmare: small touch targets, 80% of the screen devoted to static diagrams, the resistive touch film already failed in the hot spots, esp. because you are forced to touch some areas even though you have no choice!! (Choose north or south tower. Oh you chose the south tower but you're in the north one. Sorry you can't do that).
I could go on... but, in a nutshell: these people can do hardware. They fail big time at software, both the scheduling engine and the UI.
[deleted]
Sounds like it'd be a fun game
http://play.elevatorsaga.com/
There you go. Lost so many hours playing this game though.
There you go. Lost so many hours playing this game though.
Thank you for sharing this. I've also now lost quite a few hours to it. Also got two of my coworkers into it.
SimTower started life as an elevator simulator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimTower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimTower
Nothing a little deep learning can't solve. Right? Right guys?
My dad was is an elevator repair man, has been for the last 33 years. When I asked him what he thought about his job, he said "just like any other, it has its ups and downs"
But after seeing this, now we are going back and forth on the future of the industry!
But after seeing this, now we are going back and forth on the future of the industry!
Accelerating and decelerating in line with gravity is a lot more forgiving on the occupants than lateral accelerations. Seems like this would put a big limit on horizontal movement.
Depends on whether or not the car can 'tilt' while it is moving sideways (I know they don't show it doing so). If it can then any amount of acceleration can be presented as 'up' and 'down' force to the occupants much like a plane.
Well, tilting itself involves acceleration, which will be perceived differently in different parts of the cabin... So there are still and issues.
When combined with the acceleration they are indistinguishable. I got a chance to ride in the full motion simulator at NASA Ames and it used this 'trick' to recenter itself after it had made a left or right motion. Inside you felt nothing, like the system was unmoving but outside it was moving the flight pod back to the center of motion so that it had maximum reach for the next maneuver.
I'm sure the TK folks could manage it. The trick is that the 'tilt' of the car on the linear motor would add an additional degree of freedom to deal with. And yet it would be expensive but they seem to have already crossed that bridge :-)
I'm sure the TK folks could manage it. The trick is that the 'tilt' of the car on the linear motor would add an additional degree of freedom to deal with. And yet it would be expensive but they seem to have already crossed that bridge :-)
[deleted]
Like buses and trams put a limit on horizontal movement? ;) Honestly though, as long as the change of direction is somehow indicated in advance, and the acceleration isn't too abrupt, there shouldn't be anything limiting the horizontal travel distance.
True, but I guess that enough value will lie in just being able to put a whole fleet of cabins into a small number of one way shafts. Horizontal travel with people inside is a gimmick, but a very illustrative one. I expect early adopters to overuse it for showing off and later regret it quite a bit, for the reasons you stated.
Beautifully made and well-structured video. In just 120 seconds, they effectively:
I. Set the stage by showing a trend.
II. Describe two premises and derive a logical conclusion from them.
III. Show a product that not only is the objective answer to the conclusion above but also fits perfectly into the initial narrative.
I. Set the stage by showing a trend.
II. Describe two premises and derive a logical conclusion from them.
III. Show a product that not only is the objective answer to the conclusion above but also fits perfectly into the initial narrative.
Kind of reminds me of IP packets, but of people not bits. They could even travel underground from building to building and then we would have an internet of elevators transmitting packets of people (hopefully with reliable delivery and no dropped packets).
So many negative comments for a Saturday. This is a marvel of engineering and deserves a celebration. Humbled by our ability to re-invent more and more. Well done to all involved.
This might be a little bit premature. I'd want to see broad commercial success before celebrating it as a marvel of engineering.
Systems like this have been invented repeatedly throughout the decades, but they never succeeded for one reason or another. The problem isn't in coming up with the concept (or, now, making animated 3D renderings), it's in making it actually work well.
This, incidentally, is why so many of us are so ecstatic about SpaceX -- because they've made something amazing that actually works.
Systems like this have been invented repeatedly throughout the decades, but they never succeeded for one reason or another. The problem isn't in coming up with the concept (or, now, making animated 3D renderings), it's in making it actually work well.
This, incidentally, is why so many of us are so ecstatic about SpaceX -- because they've made something amazing that actually works.
I feel like they didn't really do much to motivate this.
Some of the comments here about increasing throughput provide clearer motivation - they do show this super briefly in the video with elevators operating in a cycle, but the benefits didn't really click.
Some of the comments here about increasing throughput provide clearer motivation - they do show this super briefly in the video with elevators operating in a cycle, but the benefits didn't really click.
I hope HN could avoid mindless cheering and positivity related to technology matters. Negative or positive comments that only express private feeling should be discouraged. They reduce the value of the discussion.
Interesting technological discussion means criticizing.
Interesting technological discussion means criticizing.
Simplicity in design should be what we celebrate, and things that actually make it into production. All this is for now is a slick video.
Eh... Rube Goldberg Machines are often celebrated as being of interesting design, and they are created with the expressed purpose of being overly complicated. There is room in the world for very clever engineering, very complicated engineering, very elegant engineering, and everything in between.
It is actually in production, here's the working test version in a tower they built just for it, by Tom Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
And it has it's first production project in the OVG East Side Tower Berlin (though not yet finished building)
And it has it's first production project in the OVG East Side Tower Berlin (though not yet finished building)
Indeed! It reminds me of the root foundations of a TurboLift from Star Trek.
I always thought that they used the vacuum of space to accelerate and decelerate those
The real problem I see with this, is the complexity of the components required to make anything seen in this video is orders of magnitudes more that vertical shaft versions -- thus the cost of an elevator will me massive.
What are the seismic implications - the tolerances on the XY intersections are surely tight.
How the hell would you inspect some of the complex systems.
You would need a sensor car that just roams the tracks measuring tolerance levels - make it a service car that repairmen can be in which has no walls. You'd be more cost effective putting all your large sensor objects in a car as opposed to thousands of them throughout the system
What happens when a rotating intersection piece fails and its the only route a car can take/the piece fails with a car on that portion of track - there is no door/escape/access to the passengers in that scenario.
Also - the building would require extra height to accommodate horizontal passages if the intersection between XY cant happen at ingress/egress points. If they DO happen at such points - what happens when E1 wants to go right and E2 wants to go left. one car need to give way, then get back on track to go... routing conflicts could occur frequently - like the skyway connectors between towers where that Sim takes the car from tower1 to tower2 but he gets out of the middle of a row of doors....
And as mentioned, elevators are already not that cheap - I don think all but the Nakatomi Plaza and Ono Sendai HQ buildings could afford these yet...
Actually - There are buildings with primary structural elements on there external (HSBC Building in Hong Kong, for example) -- So I could see this as an external bolt-on layer to the side of a building - as opposed to a network of tunnels and shafts throughout - but then that eliminates a majority of the horizontal movement, unless it wraps onto two sides of a building...
What are the seismic implications - the tolerances on the XY intersections are surely tight.
How the hell would you inspect some of the complex systems.
You would need a sensor car that just roams the tracks measuring tolerance levels - make it a service car that repairmen can be in which has no walls. You'd be more cost effective putting all your large sensor objects in a car as opposed to thousands of them throughout the system
What happens when a rotating intersection piece fails and its the only route a car can take/the piece fails with a car on that portion of track - there is no door/escape/access to the passengers in that scenario.
Also - the building would require extra height to accommodate horizontal passages if the intersection between XY cant happen at ingress/egress points. If they DO happen at such points - what happens when E1 wants to go right and E2 wants to go left. one car need to give way, then get back on track to go... routing conflicts could occur frequently - like the skyway connectors between towers where that Sim takes the car from tower1 to tower2 but he gets out of the middle of a row of doors....
And as mentioned, elevators are already not that cheap - I don think all but the Nakatomi Plaza and Ono Sendai HQ buildings could afford these yet...
Actually - There are buildings with primary structural elements on there external (HSBC Building in Hong Kong, for example) -- So I could see this as an external bolt-on layer to the side of a building - as opposed to a network of tunnels and shafts throughout - but then that eliminates a majority of the horizontal movement, unless it wraps onto two sides of a building...
Excellent, looks like we’re finally on the path to the turbolifts from Star Trek!
I was thinking more along the line of Willy Wonka's glass elevators :p
The resulting internal transportation network enabled by this system resembles a public transit tramway system more than it resembles a traditional elevator system - and I'm willing to bet that isn't accidental. As skyscrapers become bigger and more ubiquitous, it seems natural that their internal transit systems would get correspondingly more complex, and borrowing from public transit seems like a perfectly natural way to solve the problem.
Plus, in this system all the elevators are centrally scheduled and therefore there won't be any concern about human drivers fouling up the system :)
Plus, in this system all the elevators are centrally scheduled and therefore there won't be any concern about human drivers fouling up the system :)
Interesting point. Buildings that are very large on the horizontal plane (like the Pentagon) have adopted systems of personal transport like bicycles and Segways. But I guess there's no reason why the elevator model shouldn't work horizontally.
Still, elevators in general are more like ridesharing than public transit: they move according to the requests they receive in real time (with some central planning influence), rather than on a schedule set by committee months or years prior.
Still, elevators in general are more like ridesharing than public transit: they move according to the requests they receive in real time (with some central planning influence), rather than on a schedule set by committee months or years prior.
I had a chance recently to ask the famous architect David Adjaye what new upcoming technology he thought would change architecture in the coming years, like how steel beams and reinforced concrete allowed the skyscraper innovation from the last century, and his answer was immediate: 3D elevator systems.
Apparently traditional linear elevator systems are really limiting as far as what can be accomplished with skyscrapers, to the point that a famous architect sees fully flexible 3D people mover systems inside a building as being the next big innovation to radically change what cities look like.
Apparently traditional linear elevator systems are really limiting as far as what can be accomplished with skyscrapers, to the point that a famous architect sees fully flexible 3D people mover systems inside a building as being the next big innovation to radically change what cities look like.
Getting closer to Turbolifts. Canonically they form a network throughout the ship, use induction motors, can also go sideways, have multiple cabins in the shafts, switch routes etc.
No inertial dampeners of course.
Interesting, they are basically Trains running vertically switching tracks.
Impressive video. The implementation looks complicated and might have reliability issues.
Wonder what tech they use for traction while moving vertically.
Wonder what tech they use for traction while moving vertically.
Anytime I see something about elevators I am reminded of this amazingly detailed, and highly engrossing article on the life and history of elevators.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/04/21/up-and-then-dow...
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/04/21/up-and-then-dow...
Here's a tour of the system in their test tower by Tom Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
And it has it's first production project in the OVG East Side Tower Berlin (though not yet finished building)
And it has it's first production project in the OVG East Side Tower Berlin (though not yet finished building)
There already are rope-free elevators, for instance:
- the hydraulic elevator (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lFWNDQDN2hE/T3nbR7woCAI/AAAAAAAAB...)
-the Paternoster (http://www.audioguideportal.de/assets/Foto/thumbnail520x397/...)
The post title is just clickbait for a ThyssenKrupp commercial, plus it only shows animations of these new elevators. Yawn.
-the Paternoster (http://www.audioguideportal.de/assets/Foto/thumbnail520x397/...)
The post title is just clickbait for a ThyssenKrupp commercial, plus it only shows animations of these new elevators. Yawn.
I'd rather not ride a paternoster --- seems quite likely to function as an execution machine :(
There are several Paternosters in operation where I work (HBC Europe HQ in Cologne), and they are very cleverly designed in subtle ways to work around the likelihood of an execution.
Nope. The first 25cm in front of the cabin opening are a flap, which means it will not shear your head off.
> plus it only shows animations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QlAsxJP-g#t=58s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QlAsxJP-g#t=58s
Poor choice of title. It may be the first direct-drive or non-linear elevator, but rope and cable-free hydraulic elevators have been in service for decades.
Aside, for those interested in the music behind the video, it's an original composition, and you can learn more and download it here: http://www.urban-hub.com/de/people/der-videoproduzent-der-mu...
looks expensive to build, purchase and maintain.
not sure there's anything "revolutionary" here.
not sure there's anything "revolutionary" here.
The cable/belt mechanism of elevators has remained largely unchanged for most of it's history because of its simplicity in design, manufacturing, and maintenance. This new system is absolutely beautiful, but I agree, it looks expensive. Elevators have to work 24/7 with little maintenance, it will be very interesting to see this in the real world.
If the rails are solid state using for example magnetic levitation, I can see this being much cheaper to maintain.
Ever been in an elevator during a power outage?
Probably no one at ThyssenKrupp thought of that. You should write them a letter outlining your concerns.
No problem either - do it like on freefall towers or on other park attractions, where eddy current brakes, fully passive, are employed as safety mechanism.
All elevators have multiple safety brakes working on their guide rails (this is the famous invention of Otis); so do these. Besides batteries lasting longer (two hours, they say) than the median European power outage.
Plus hopefully battery banks (which you'll likely want on the elevators anyway to be able to store energy from regenerative braking) to power the car long enough to come to a rest where the passengers can get out in the event of a power outage.
There's going to be several layers of safeguards, like there are with current elevators.
There's going to be several layers of safeguards, like there are with current elevators.
Wow, just more over-engineered mechanical shit that will break down in spectacular ways.
Looks to be about.... 10? times the cost of a normal elevator if I had to guess. I bet the maintenance costs are fun as well. As such, doubt you will see these except in niche buildings (things like the porsche tower, etc..)
The tallest skyscrapers have issues with elevators because the cables can only be so long before they snap under their own weight, so you need elevator changing floors, which take up space and lower throughput. Either you find flexible materials with a higher tensile-strength to weight ratio than steel or you forego cables entirely.
Classic elevators also need a lot of floor space to achieve good throughput. This system is basically like a paternoster on steroids; it can rise much higher, move much faster, use arbitrary circuits and has none of the safety issues. Even if this system only saves, say, 40 % floor space, it'd still be a win for many projects.
Kone UltraRope carbon fiber core hoisting rope allows 1 kilometer.
I posted this more than 2 weeks ago and nobody seemed interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807079
Am I the only one who noticed that the first elevator shown in the video, while the narrator discussed the birth of the elevator in 1854, is gear-based and hence rope-free?!
That's Otis's original safety elevator, and it was a rope system. The innovation was that it had a mechanism to stop it if the rope broke.
Good to know. I saw the animation as a snipe at roped elevators, freezeframing just as the elevator fails and goes into freefall. It makes more sense knowing the history.
Ah, thanks for the clarification...the animation made it look like it was the gear system that was controlling the movement.
The animation is a redraw of this picture.[1] It's one of the most famous demos in history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elisha_OTIS_1854.jpg
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elisha_OTIS_1854.jpg
The first elevator is a Elisha Otis demonstration of the elevator brake. You can see the rope snap, and the teeth on the side stop the elevator. The gears were presumable to pull the rope up for the demo.
My ideal elevator would accelerate at a pleasant 4 m/s^2 and have a jerk not exceeding 4 m/s^3. It would have doors that close instantly when the doorway is clear, and start right away.
That would be able to take me up a 100 yard high building in 11 seconds.
Why can't real elevators be like that? Why must the doors move slowly, and wait for 5 seconds before even starting moving? Why does the elevator reach a sluggish top speed, even with very little load? Why when arriving at the destination floor does it take a further 2 or 3 seconds for the door to open?
That would be able to take me up a 100 yard high building in 11 seconds.
Why can't real elevators be like that? Why must the doors move slowly, and wait for 5 seconds before even starting moving? Why does the elevator reach a sluggish top speed, even with very little load? Why when arriving at the destination floor does it take a further 2 or 3 seconds for the door to open?
If the elevator ascends too fast, riders' ears will pop, and some people, especially those with colds, will experience ear pain. Some high speed elevators (Tapei 101, at least) pressurize the elevator cab so they can control the rate of air pressure change. But that runs the cost way up.
Doors have to close slowly for safety. There's a limit on how much kinetic energy (7 foot-pounds, from memory) can be in a closing door. Opening can be much faster, and on high-speed elevators, it usually is.
At the destination floor, there's often a delay for precise leveling. Position feedback for leveling is just limit switches until you get to the really fancy high-speed elevators, so it works by shifting to slow speed and inching until the switch trips. Fancier elevators used analog optical systems and inductive systems that gave an analog signal of leveling error. Here's a modern elevator position sensor, with a bar code strip running the height of the shaft.[1]
Precision position and speed control of large motors was really hard in the 20th century.
[1] https://www.cedes.com/documents/produkte/Broschueren/108783e...
Doors have to close slowly for safety. There's a limit on how much kinetic energy (7 foot-pounds, from memory) can be in a closing door. Opening can be much faster, and on high-speed elevators, it usually is.
At the destination floor, there's often a delay for precise leveling. Position feedback for leveling is just limit switches until you get to the really fancy high-speed elevators, so it works by shifting to slow speed and inching until the switch trips. Fancier elevators used analog optical systems and inductive systems that gave an analog signal of leveling error. Here's a modern elevator position sensor, with a bar code strip running the height of the shaft.[1]
Precision position and speed control of large motors was really hard in the 20th century.
[1] https://www.cedes.com/documents/produkte/Broschueren/108783e...
I love that position sensor. It doesn't say how the code on the strip is determined, but I'd like to imagine it's some kind of gold code so the sensor can find the position even if 99% or more of the code is occluded with dust or dirt.
Yes, that's very nice. Digital cameras and processors are so cheap now that's probably cheaper than the older systems.
People with reduced mobility or reduced vision will love instant closing guilliotines.
The door closing mechanism is designed with limited power and there's an optical sensor to prevent it from even trying to close on someone. Why wouldn't that still be the case on a fast closing door?
More tellingly: fast closing doors are absolutely a thing, so clearly the safety issues are not insurmountable, but I only see them in more modern/expensive locations. I suspect it's a price grading move and if you wait another century fast-closing doors will be everywhere.
More tellingly: fast closing doors are absolutely a thing, so clearly the safety issues are not insurmountable, but I only see them in more modern/expensive locations. I suspect it's a price grading move and if you wait another century fast-closing doors will be everywhere.
Yeah but the faster they go the more inertia the whole thing has to handle for those safety mechanism, right? And the added machinery weight impacts on the elevator loading as well.
Yes, but there are ways of dealing with inertia. Like making the door lighter and putting padding on the contact surfaces. It's not rocket science.
Also, most of the improvement would come from replacing the worst offenders (5-10 second closing times) rather than from shaving 1 second times to 1/2 a second, and there's tons of precedent for the former from the faster-closing 10% or so of existing installations.
Also, most of the improvement would come from replacing the worst offenders (5-10 second closing times) rather than from shaving 1 second times to 1/2 a second, and there's tons of precedent for the former from the faster-closing 10% or so of existing installations.
A sensor to detect a clear doorway is straightforward.
Doors that have sensitive rubber edges that can detect hitting something and engage a lock within milliseconds are also trivial.
The two methods combined mean that you have safety for soft human fleshy bits incase either malfunctions, yet the door can still be moving at 15 mph or more and close in 100 milliseconds.
Doors that have sensitive rubber edges that can detect hitting something and engage a lock within milliseconds are also trivial.
The two methods combined mean that you have safety for soft human fleshy bits incase either malfunctions, yet the door can still be moving at 15 mph or more and close in 100 milliseconds.
You're not thinking in defensive mode. What happens when the sensor fails?
I can think of three possible reasons why not, all equally likely:
1- no one has bothered.
2- it's been tried, something terrible happened and now they don't try it anymore.
3- it's been tried, but the extra cost doesn't cover the extra benefit. No one wants to pay for it.
All that said, I was at a hotel once that had, to my mind, perfect acceleration like you describe. No one else cared, but I was blown away by it.
1- no one has bothered.
2- it's been tried, something terrible happened and now they don't try it anymore.
3- it's been tried, but the extra cost doesn't cover the extra benefit. No one wants to pay for it.
All that said, I was at a hotel once that had, to my mind, perfect acceleration like you describe. No one else cared, but I was blown away by it.
Don't forget the part where they disable the door close button and add a 10 second wait time!
My favorite bit, though, is where they lock the escape hatch from the outside and provide no "alarm will sound" override mechanism. That way if the elevator dies you'll be stuck there for hours until they can get the fire department on the scene.
My favorite bit, though, is where they lock the escape hatch from the outside and provide no "alarm will sound" override mechanism. That way if the elevator dies you'll be stuck there for hours until they can get the fire department on the scene.
Forcing people to be stuck waiting for hours is usually preferable to having untrained and untethered people climbing around active elevator shafts N floors up.
Many, many years ago, I read news headline about a man being decapitated by an elevator.
So my guess is that the slowness has to do with safety.
So my guess is that the slowness has to do with safety.
This will be how we build towers twice as tall as existing megatowers.
As beautifully explained by xkcd[0], "If your building has lots of floors, you need lots of different elevators, since there would be so many people trying to come and go the same time. If you make a building too tall, the whole thing gets taken up by elevators and there's no space for regular rooms."
But if one elevator shaft can have multiple independent cars, suddenly you've got a huge capacity multiplier without the space costs.
The horizontal motion part is cute, but I don't think it will matter nearly as much.
[0]https://what-if.xkcd.com/94/
As beautifully explained by xkcd[0], "If your building has lots of floors, you need lots of different elevators, since there would be so many people trying to come and go the same time. If you make a building too tall, the whole thing gets taken up by elevators and there's no space for regular rooms."
But if one elevator shaft can have multiple independent cars, suddenly you've got a huge capacity multiplier without the space costs.
The horizontal motion part is cute, but I don't think it will matter nearly as much.
[0]https://what-if.xkcd.com/94/
The car motion is not independent and it's hard to use the capacity well. Consider the morning rush in a big office tower when everyone starts on the ground floor. You can only use the bottom car to move these people.
You need a sideways dimension of movement to avoid this problem.
You need a sideways dimension of movement to avoid this problem.
Oh, definitely, I agree. You need at least 2 (probably 3 or 4 for extra redundancy) shafts. But you need them to be usually one-way shafts. So everyone going up gets in at the same door, and the empty cars can fly down the other side to be ready to take more people up.
>You need a sideways dimension of movement to avoid this problem.
you mean like the elevator system being discussed here?
you mean like the elevator system being discussed here?
Yes. I was replying to this comment:
> But if one elevator shaft can have multiple independent cars, suddenly you've got a huge capacity multiplier without the space costs.
> The horizontal motion part is cute, but I don't think it will matter nearly as much.
My point is: 1. Stacked cars are not independent. 2. Horizontal motion matters a lot.
> But if one elevator shaft can have multiple independent cars, suddenly you've got a huge capacity multiplier without the space costs.
> The horizontal motion part is cute, but I don't think it will matter nearly as much.
My point is: 1. Stacked cars are not independent. 2. Horizontal motion matters a lot.
I think the routing algorithms could be interesting. It's funny to think about the possibility of gridlocked elevators.
One issue I haven't seen addressed is that the horizontal shafts will block foot traffic through the building.
Solutions: Have an elevator plane on the building -- shafts and corridors which are all located at one extreme side of the building, rather than the core.
And/or have horizontal transit floors. You don't need horizontal transit at every floor, just sufficiently frequently to accomplish lateral transfers.
And/or have horizontal transit floors. You don't need horizontal transit at every floor, just sufficiently frequently to accomplish lateral transfers.
One step closer to the Wonkavader. Which always freaked me out that it could move anywhere and even fly.
Soo many machined pieces... wonder if that is the production design.
Absolutely incredible video, and great product!
Looking forward to playing SimTower Multi!
[deleted]
[deleted]
what problem does this solve to justify the crazy expense, complexity and maintenance?
the reason elevators exist is because people cannot easily climb 100+ vertical ft, especially while carrying stuff.
on the other hand, humans are well adapted for horizontal travel - 15mi per day without breaking a sweat. and when they're not, there are movable walkways like in airports.
this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem, IMO. we don't yet live in Matrix-style human incubators with miles of horizontal travel in buildings that are also miles high - it's usually either/or, and not because we've been lacking these revolutionary elevators.
the reason elevators exist is because people cannot easily climb 100+ vertical ft, especially while carrying stuff.
on the other hand, humans are well adapted for horizontal travel - 15mi per day without breaking a sweat. and when they're not, there are movable walkways like in airports.
this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem, IMO. we don't yet live in Matrix-style human incubators with miles of horizontal travel in buildings that are also miles high - it's usually either/or, and not because we've been lacking these revolutionary elevators.
If those elevators worked they would actually solve a big engineering problem: Very High Buildings can only have a limited number of elevator shafts. But it takes a significant time to use them which makes it problematic if there are a lot of people who want to go. But if elevators were able to travel horizontally that is a first step towards having multiple elevators in one shaft. There are still other problems that need to be solved in order to do this but if it works you can easily transport a lot of people in skyscrapers by having one "upwards" shaft and one "down" shaft which the elevator capsule can change between by moving horizontally.
you can have dedicated up and down shafts where the cars move horizontally only at the top and bottom, like a ferris wheel. without having them move horizontally at any floor. you just need a way to disconnect the rope (like ski lifts). or you can have towing cars that have only 50 ft of rope and operate on rails (like ships that get towed through Panama locks)
That means that all cars must traverse the entire distance and that all cars must wait each time a car reaches a floor.
> That means that all cars must traverse the entire distance
with a lot of cars in uni-directional shafts, is this really an issue?
> all cars must wait each time a car reaches a floor
maybe solved by a 2-lane shaft with a passing lane. very doable with rails or towing cars.
with a lot of cars in uni-directional shafts, is this really an issue?
> all cars must wait each time a car reaches a floor
maybe solved by a 2-lane shaft with a passing lane. very doable with rails or towing cars.
How can you have multiple cars in a single shaft, using the rope system? To what would the second car from the ceiling be hanging on?
> very doable with rails or towing cars.
Ah, right. But then, isn't that what they've done here?
> what problem does this solve to justify the crazy expense, complexity and maintenance?
Elevators have a natural height limit, due to the weight of the rope, which is why taller buildings need sky lobbies. You also can't (really) increase the capacity of a single elevator shaft with a traditional rope-based system.
Elevators have a natural height limit, due to the weight of the rope, which is why taller buildings need sky lobbies. You also can't (really) increase the capacity of a single elevator shaft with a traditional rope-based system.
I think this solves a number of problems. Foremost the horizontal movement between buildings. China has a lot of these towers and typically there's skyways to walk across. An elevator that moves horizontally could make it easier to move from 1st of one building to 30th of another. Another point made in the video is that the elevators can move around one another. Solving the issue we have now of a single shaft moving one car to multiple, busy destinations (i.e. the morning rush) allowing multiple cars to use the same shaft to work around one another. All in all I think this is aiming to solve the two greatest problems: time, and cost.
It solves the problem that you can only have on cabin (or two) in an elevator shaft. That's very inefficient in super-tall buildings. With horizontal travel elevator cabins can go out of their way and enable much better usage of elevator shafts. Further you become independent of the total length of the elevator shaft. So you drop another limiting factor to super-tall buildings.
Elevators share a similar problem to rockets. Only instead of the rocket tyranny, it's the elevator shaft tyranny. At a certain point, making a building taller can subtract from the square footage because of the extra shafts required.
With a linear motor system, more elevators can be added without adding shafts. Part of making that possible is allowing elevators to change shafts.
With a linear motor system, more elevators can be added without adding shafts. Part of making that possible is allowing elevators to change shafts.
the limiting factor is that shafts havr to accommodate bidirectional movement and using a rope only allows 1 per shaft.
you can solve this by having the cars on rails and having unidirectional shafts where the cars only travel horizontally at top and bottom. this would allow muliple elevators per shaft.
you can solve this by having the cars on rails and having unidirectional shafts where the cars only travel horizontally at top and bottom. this would allow muliple elevators per shaft.
I hate to be so cynical, but for how often the TK elevator in our building is out of service (these things have been around for 100 years and still break down more than a Fiat), I don't have the confidence necessary to step foot in this thing.
Note that a TK elevator doesn't mean it's actually still maintained by TK. For example in my previous building there was an Otis elevator but at some point the maintenance stickers on it became TK's, probably because they offered a cheaper maintenance contract.
TLDR: the manufacturer can't do much about the owner not maintaining their product properly.
TLDR: the manufacturer can't do much about the owner not maintaining their product properly.
Came to post a similar comment. Of course it's anecdotal, but in our old building we had a +20 years old Schindler's lift (yes that sounds very close to Schindler's List, the joke is never far away) and in the 5 years I was there I never saw them failing. In a new building no single month passes by without one of the TK elevators needing servicing, at worst multiple times a week. And if they're in service there are still always chances they forget the floor entered or one of the special programs for limited access areas stops working. Definitely software problems but might also be hardware related sometimes. Like the doors sliding open a couple of mm then closing again, until the technician shows up once again. I know that doesn't mean all their products are like that and maybe human error is at fault here, but it ceryainly does not leave the same good impression as the Schindler's ones.
My previous workplace had a couple of Schindlers, which failed multiple times per year.
Weird you say that. Fiat engines are so reliable most other constructors use a FIRE or a common rail derivative in their compact segment. Here there are uncountable 90s and 00s punto panda and the likes, still marching after few couple hundred thousand kilometers. Drove one myself to 250000, with minimal issues and regular maintenance. Now driving a "famously unreliable" Alfa and just passed 100kkm with zero issues yet. Never have been left on the road by them, and the alfa drove me all the way from milano to dublin and back, after multiple track days.
Sometimes you get cheap landlords who try to avoid paying for routine maintenance, so you get emergency shutdowns instead.
Time out of service has much more to do with who services them.
Off-topic, who is the narrator? I think I've heard him on another German "corporate presentation" video, and I can hear a slight German accent...
And back on-topic, googling to find the details instead of just a flashy video, here's Tom Scott on MULTI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
And back on-topic, googling to find the details instead of just a flashy video, here's Tom Scott on MULTI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdTsbFS4xmI
He sounds somewhat similar to the kurzgesagt voice-over artist.
I have heard him before as well narrating stuff I'm German. Sadly I have no idea who he is.
This might read a bit odd and tangential but I cringe every time I get into a ThyssenKrupp elevator. Thyssen and Krupp were huge fans of Hitler and the Nazis. The two families donated large sums of money to their cause. They both benefited from Hitler's support and promoted the use of forced labor. ThyssenKrupp is largely seen as a Hitler firm in many circles.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp
[2] http://spartacus-educational.com/GERthyssen.htm
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp
[2] http://spartacus-educational.com/GERthyssen.htm
Many of the progenitors of modern Japanese companies were heavily involved in assisting the Imperial Japanese government during WW2 as well. Although US did dismantle a lot of the zaibatsu's after the war.
The case of Thyssen is actually quite interesting, because he was an avid Hitler supporter in the early 1930s, but later heavily opposed Nazi policies and fled the country.
I think you can give it a rest. It has been 70 years.
You know what, nobody cares about that anymore. Only those who desperately want to be seen as victims.
Otis considered ropeless elevators, but in 1997 it looked like it would increase the energy consumption by 7X. Without counterweights, the motors have to do a lot more work. But maybe Multi can recover some of the energy via regeneration.
There are automated parking garages that can move cars sideways.[2] Those go back to the 1960s, and tend to be high-maintenance.
The Multi system looks really complicated mechanically. All those moving parts. Worse, they're on vertical surfaces in the shafts, where maintenance will be difficult. With regular elevators, the high-maintenance items are in the machine room. This will probably go into some prestige tower, but not be replicated much.
[1] http://www.barkermohandas.com/images/Integrated%20Vertical%2...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3vtpGtyw1k