On 14/11/2015 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.

Which, in turn increases the distance that it requires to be propelled.

On 2015\11\14 09:09, Recliner wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?

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. I assume it has
a counterbalance like a normal lift? I'll see if I can tell when I go to
see it on Monday. Of course, the balance weight may be hidden, as it is
with many normal lifts.

It is yellow and clearly visible in the video above at 1:21.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\14 09:09, Recliner wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?

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. I assume it has
a counterbalance like a normal lift? I'll see if I can tell when I go to
see it on Monday. Of course, the balance weight may be hidden, as it is
with many normal lifts.

It is yellow and clearly visible in the video above at 1:21.

Yes, well spotted.

According to the feasibility study, it would weigh 1.9 tonnes, though the
one in the video doesn't look large enough. Maybe they also reduced the
size of the cabin (it was proposed as a 10 person, 1 tonne capacity).

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:59:01 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\11\14 09:09, Recliner wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?

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. I assume it has
a counterbalance like a normal lift? I'll see if I can tell when I go to
see it on Monday. Of course, the balance weight may be hidden, as it is
with many normal lifts.

It is yellow and clearly visible in the video above at 1:21.

Here's a detailed picture of it, taken from the adjacent staircase:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...6915/lightbox/

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?


It is a funicular railway, no?

In e27002 aurora writes:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?

It is a funicular railway, no?

I haven't seen the earlier parts of this thread (grumble usenet)
but just as a side comment:

If you're looking for a wooden escalator come to NYC. Some
of the escalators at the Macy's flagship store at 34th
street and sixth avenue are still using woooden treads.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein wrote:
In e27002 aurora writes:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?

It is a funicular railway, no?

I haven't seen the earlier parts of this thread (grumble usenet)
but just as a side comment:

If you're looking for a wooden escalator come to NYC. Some
of the escalators at the Macy's flagship store at 34th
street and sixth avenue are still using woooden treads.

The ban on wooden panels and treads on LU was for fire protection reasons
in underground stations. As Greenford is above ground, the wood panels
remained long after they were removed from underground escalators.

In message , danny burstein
wrote:
If you're looking for a wooden escalator come to NYC. Some
of the escalators at the Macy's flagship store at 34th
street and sixth avenue are still using woooden treads.

Some of the ones in Sydney are exactly like the ones that were at King's
Cross pre-fire. Otis. Wooden treads with much bigger spacing. Wooden
panelling between the escalators. I *think* the sides of the escalator
trench were metal.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In uk.transport.london message
om, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:33:16 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

In uk.transport.london message
om, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

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?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.

"Funicular" relates to the haulage method (a rope) so once again
Wonkypaedia seems to have bolted a few bits on to a definition unlike
e.g. Wiktionary which simply states "Of, pertaining to, resembling, or
powered by a rope or cable" in agreement with various dictionary
websites. It would seem to be a false assumption that a funicular
railway is inevitably one that uses two vehicles rather than one and a
counterbalance as used on the currently out of use Broadstairs Cliff
Railway :-
http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/cl...roadstairs.htm
(NB 5' 3" gauge).
and the definitely-defunct Margate Cliff Railway
http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/mar.htm

The only other two single-vehicle railways in the World listed in :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cular_railways
were both in the USA. Using two vehicles is probably optimal for
nearly all systems thus providing the seed for Wonky's incorrect
description.