On 2015\11\14 10:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:36:51 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message
-sept
ember.org, Recliner wrote:
I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?

That assumes 100% efficiency in the mechanism. Not a safe assumption.

Yes, I agree about the *energy* consumption. But perhaps it gets away with
a less powerful motor, as it's slower than a normal lift.

In addition, the fact it's sliding down rails rather than hanging in
free space may alter the efficiency of the mechanism.

Yes. A simple thought experiment works here. It clearly requires less
energy to push a wheeled object horizontally than it does to lift it
vertically. So there's clearly also a continuum between 0 degrees = least
energy and 90 degrees (from the horizontal) = most energy, and therefore
something like 45 degrees = somewhere in between the two.

Your basic task is to get someone from ground level to platform level.
You have to compare doing it vertically with doing it in a LONGER
diagonal shaft. Comparing 10 metres vertical with 10 metres at an angle
is meaningless. There is a counterbalance, but I imagine that matches
the weight of a half-laden cabin, so there will still be weight to be
moved most of the time. I imagine the friction in an angled lift will
massively exceed the friction in a vertical lift.

The lift is ridiculously over-engineered. A platform with shoulder
height gates would have done the job, instead of this cuboid with
electronic displays all over it and lights in the ceiling. Lifts are
cuboids because if something snaps, you don't want it crashing down on
the heads of the people. There is nothing above an inclinator to snap
and land on people, so no roof necessary, and no lights required either.
Typical public sector largesse... no private company would have done this.