Elevators...????

isaac_newton wrote:There was one in the chemistry department of Imperial College up to the 1980's at least [IIRC].

Was pretty efficient.

They were actually seen as being very futuristic for a while. How futuristic, you ask? Well, a small one appeared in the Moonbase of Space 1999.

Michael Everett wrote:They were actually seen as being very futuristic for a while. How futuristic, you ask? Well, a small one appeared in the Moonbase of Space 1999.

Paternosters are a staple of Science Fiction even today, sans the mechanical details, as "Drop Tubes" or "Anti-gravity Shafts, etc."

Michael Everett wrote:

isaac_newton wrote:There was one in the chemistry department of Imperial College up to the 1980's at least [IIRC].

Was pretty efficient.

They were actually seen as being very futuristic for a while. How futuristic, you ask? Well, a small one appeared in the Moonbase of Space 1999.

There's a couple of them in Freder's apartment building in Metropolis.

isaac_newton wrote:There was one in the chemistry department of Imperial College up to the 1980's at least [IIRC].

Was pretty efficient.

Efficient in the ordinary sense of 'didn't cause holdups and kept people moving right along' or efficient in the engineering sense of 'low average power expended per person carried'? Just interested in how the power consumption would compare to 'normal' modern elevators.

Randomiser wrote:Efficient in the ordinary sense of 'didn't cause holdups and kept people moving right along' or efficient in the engineering sense of 'low average power expended per person carried'? Just interested in how the power consumption would compare to 'normal' modern elevators.

The amount of energy you'd need would be enough to overcome the mechanical friction of the chains and cogs (thus stopping the paternoster from... well... stopping) with a bit more to lift a certain number of people, offset by the gravity-assist of people going down. In a highly-irregular-flow scenario, it would actually not be all that efficient on a per-hour basis but should the flow be regular, the paternoster would be more efficient as it's always on all the floors and thus doesn't need to keep backtracking while empty to collect those on different floors.

On the whole, I'd expect the Paternoster to be more efficient in steady-flow conditions while a standard lift would work better in "clumping" situations.

Randomiser wrote:

isaac_newton wrote:There was one in the chemistry department of Imperial College up to the 1980's at least [IIRC].

Was pretty efficient.

Efficient in the ordinary sense of 'didn't cause holdups and kept people moving right along' or efficient in the engineering sense of 'low average power expended per person carried'? Just interested in how the power consumption would compare to 'normal' modern elevators.

no idea about power consumption...

I was more thinking about the feeling that you would not be waiting for ages for a lift to come... [especially if some 'hero' had pressed all the floor buttons in the lift and then left]. It's a bit like those open platforms on the back of the old London double deckers that you could leap on or off of at ones convenience.