×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

"Going Up" At 45 Mph: Hitachi To Deliver World's Fastest Elevator

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

China 109

Zothecula (1870348) writes "Hitachi has announced that it's installing the world's fastest ultra-high-speed elevators in the Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre skyscraper in Guangzhou, China. Making up two out of a total of 95 elevators in the building, Hitachi says the new lifts use a range of technologies to produce record-breaking speeds of 1,200 m/min while still meeting the necessary standards of safety and comfort."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Race you to the top (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830277)

First!

Re:Race you to the top (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830513)

That's not what she said.

Will it go down faster too ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831201)

Okay, so this Hitachi lift does go up faster.

But will it drop faster as well ?

Express elevators (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 8 months ago | (#46830331)

I imagine these will be great for express elevator to the upper floors, but bad for short hops, because it probably takes lots of time to start stop.

Re:Express elevators (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46830343)

I think it would be cool to go 45mph from one floor to the next, provided the elevator is well padded.

Re:Express elevators (3, Interesting)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 8 months ago | (#46830413)

For a 3m floor height, I find about 27.5G, at least.

45mph => 20.12 m.s^-1

a t_m = 20.12 m.s^-1
a t_m^2 = (3m / 2) (max acceleration obtained at half the floor height).

=> a = 20.12^2 / (3 / 2) \approx 270 m.s^-2 / or 27.5 earth G (G = 9.8 m.s^-2)

Where the limit of the human body for such vertical acceleration seems to be between 2,3G and 5G, depending if you are going up or down... but I haven't tested that myself).

Ok, back to work now...

Re:Express elevators (1)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#46830473)

No, no. Total travel distance is 440m, so it's 220m to max speed of 20m/sec. Assuming constant acceleration (which in practice you don't do because the startup jerk is awful) V=a*t, and d=0.5a*t^2.
d=220m, V=20m/sec.
V/a=t, so d=0.5*a*(V/a)^2
d=0.5*V^2/a
a=0.5*V^2/d
a=0.5*(20m/sec)^2/220m
a=200/220=0.91m/sec^2
1 g = 9.8m/sec^2
a=0.092 G

So it's about a tenth of a g. Riders are going to notice that, but it's not overwhelming.

This is a simplistic analysis. You have to keep jerk (the third derivative) small. The acceleration has to be applied gradually, and reversed gradually half way up. So the peak acceleration is a bit higher than that.

Re:Express elevators (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 8 months ago | (#46830633)

Some trouble with the 'Reply To This' function, I see...

Re:Express elevators (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46830735)

No, no. They were talking about going from one floor to the next, which would only be about 3 m. I'm pretty sure they were joking, though.

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830835)

If you don't improve, stuff like Wolfram Alpha will soon replace you.

Detailed precise wrong answers due to poor understanding.

Re:Express elevators (1)

distilate (1037896) | about 8 months ago | (#46830925)

And when someone hits the emergency stop or the power fails at full speed...

Re:Express elevators (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 8 months ago | (#46831059)

I see you are worried that the real engineers developing those things have to work with so called computer scientists and this can cause accelerating pedal problem like in Toyota? I think that is a fair question but I am sure this gets squeezed in next sprint so all will be well...

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831127)

If only there were safety standards for elevators. You know, something like "may not exceed 1G average deceleration during emergency braking". But if that were true discussions like this wouldn't be possible, so I guess we'll all just have to keep worrying.

Re:Express elevators (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 8 months ago | (#46831433)

As if standards or regulations ever stopped a real sw developer ...

Re:Express elevators (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | about 8 months ago | (#46833525)

show off!! :)

Re:Express elevators (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46830887)

Nope, you're off by a factor of two, I'm afraid. It should have been:

1/2 a t^2 = 3/2
t being the acceleration time (half the trip time), a the acceleration while going up, 3/2 the total distance while accelerating (half the trip), and a*t = 20.12

That works out to: a = 135 m/s^2 = 13.75g.

Which would be 14.75g while accelerating up, and 12.75g while decelerating, since you get 1g from just standing still.

If you want the same experienced g-force for acceleration and deceleration, it would be:
1/2 v^2 / (a+g) + 1/2 v^2 / (a-g) = 3
which works out to a very slightly higher: a = 135,6 m/s^2

Of course this all assumes a very jerky immediate acceleration and deceleration, which might lead to complaints from passengers. What we really ought to do, is figure out how to do it with a third derivative that has a constant absolute value. The maximum acceleration will be a bit higher then.

Re:Express elevators (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46831117)

OK, with a bit of mathematica:

Accelerate with a "jerk" (derivative of acceleration) of 3620 m/s^3 for 0.07455 s to a top acceleration of 269.9 m/s^2, speed is 10.06 m/s at that time.
Keep accelerating, but with acceleration decreasing back to zero during the next 0.07455 s. Top speed is 20.12 m/s.
During the next 0.07455 s, deceleration increases from zero to 269.9 m/s^2, speed goes down to 10.06 m/s
During the last 0.07455 s, deceleration decreases to zero which is reached exactly as speed reaches zero.

Total time is 0.298 s, top acceleration is 269 m/s^2 which, if you take the 1 g from gravity into account, gives 28.5 g during the acceleration and 26.5 g during the deceleration.

If you want the maximum experienced g-force to be the same during acceleration and deceleration, you either have to reduce the derivative of the acceleration (so that it's not the same as that of the deceleration) or add a short time of constant acceleration between the first two phases. This would make the calculations slightly more complicated but frankly, I don't think the passengers will really notice so maybe it's not worth the bother.

if i am not weightless on the way down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46833889)

i'm not riding... now for the morning coffee cup holders - that is why the deli is on the top floor.

Re:Express elevators (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 8 months ago | (#46833111)

True!

Still a bad-ass acceleration though...

Re:Express elevators (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 8 months ago | (#46830477)

and you were the only occupant

Re:Express elevators (2)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46831125)

Depends on who the other occupant is and how romantic you are about dying together.

Re:Express elevators (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 8 months ago | (#46833519)

...dying *crushed* together.

FTFY

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831377)

I think it would be cool to go 45mph from one floor to the next, provided the elevator is well padded.

I thought this was just another uninteresting feat of engineering in china but I watched the discussion and made some calculations myself which led me to common sense conclusion that IT folk has lost all the brains quite some sprints ago. Other than that I am not sure why not to use nulear (fluid salt fision of course) powered electromagnetic rail gun US military demonstrated a short while ago. Each passanger would have to be packed in metal armature, alternatively plasma armature can be used but that can leave some burns on the passanger. There may be some problems with structural integrity of load (liquidification) which can be bypassed by shock freezing (Han Solo). As passangers would not be very useful for any ocially acepted purpose anyway and decceleration could be difficult I'd suggest to make the lift hafts open ended.

Re:Express elevators (1)

lucm (889690) | about 8 months ago | (#46831523)

Each passanger would have to be packed in metal armature, alternatively plasma armature can be used but that can leave some burns on the passanger. There may be some problems with structural integrity of load (liquidification) which can be bypassed by shock freezing (Han Solo).

Clearly you have never experienced an elevator ride in China. In some cases I'm sure that if passengers were to synchronize their breathing the ones in front would be crushed to death.

Put as many Gs as you want on that elevator, people won't move unless you put a coat of K-Y on the walls, in which case they will move as a team.

Re:Express elevators (1)

the_rajah (749499) | about 8 months ago | (#46833529)

I've been in the elevator business for 30 years. One floor runs are not done at speeds of over about 250 FPM, depending on floor to floor distances.

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830387)

It probably won't take you to any floor, only from the first to the top n floors. The building has the other elevators for close distance.

Re:Express elevators (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46830435)

Some of these towers have an upper lobby. So you take the express from 1 to 75, then a 'local' from 76 to 100.

Usually the 'important people' are on the top floors so the elevator ratio is better and there's little waiting in the upper lobby. Unless you stop at the bar.

Once in a blue moon there's an express to the penthouse, but to pay for an entire express elevator entirely in the rent of the penthouse apartment isn't feasible for all but the ultra-ultra rich.

Re:Express elevators (4, Funny)

Friar_MJK (814134) | about 8 months ago | (#46830469)

learned this thanks to SimTower.

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830919)

Came here expecting a SimTower ref, went away satisfied.

Liz Lemon dated that guy with an elevator that opened right into his loft, also.

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830497)

The reception lobby for the Ritz-Carlton Hong Kong is on the 103rd floor of a 108 floor building. You take an express elevator straight up. Some quick Googling tells me it travels at 9m/s, only roughly half of this new elevator. (However, I think the math in the article is wrong: "a total of 440 m (1,443 ft), in about 43 seconds. That works out to 1,200 m/min (3,937 ft/min, or 44.7 mph/72 km/h), so there will probably be some stomach dropping on take off." That would make it not much faster than the Ritz-Carlton ICC elevator.)

The quick ascent wasn't very pleasant, IMO, but I guess there's no way around your ears popping unless they pressurize the whole building. But the bar at the top of the building, Ozone, "the highest bar in the world, has an open-air terrace, which is cool.

If you're visiting Hong Kong and looking for something to do, it's worth a visit.

Re:Express elevators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830509)

I see... the maximum speed could be 1,200 m/min, but it has to accelerate and decelerate. In any event, that would still make it not that much faster than the ICC elevator, which completes a similar ascent in 53 seconds.

Re:Express elevators-POP! (1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 8 months ago | (#46830911)

go your ears!

Re:Express elevators-POP! (3, Interesting)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46831177)

I wonder how they avoid the popping. The article says that they use some kind of fancy pressurization system for that, but you still have to change altitude in a short amount of time, so how do you "avoid" that pressure change? You could pressurize the whole building, but then the windows couldn't open, you couldn't have a terrace (except if it had an ear-popping airlock), and there would be a constant strong draft from top to bottom unless you kept the floors sealed airtight (which is kind of hard to do if you have things like elevators)

I imagine the best they can do, is spread out the pressure change over the slightly longer period that includes the slower parts of the journey and the wait for the doors to open, but that won't make such a huge change.

Re:Express elevators-POP! (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 8 months ago | (#46833253)

I visited Taipei 101 a few months back, which has (IIRC) the fastest elevators in the world right now at about 35 MPH.

My ears popped three times. Each way.

So the answer is simple: they don't avoid the popping.

Expensive (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 months ago | (#46830359)

High speed elevators are stupidly expensive.
I was looking at apartments a while back and at one of the buildings there was some ongoing construction.

Somehow I ended up getting shown around by one of the head contractors who told me that the building was supposed to have four medium speed elevators, but they got permission to knock it down to 3 high speed elevators, which would move the equivalent # of people per arbitrary unit of time.

The kicker was that those 3 elevators were about 1/4th the total budget of the entire building.
So based on that, I'm guessing that TFA's 95 elevators are a respectable portion of the price for that new tower in China.

Re:Expensive (3, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | about 8 months ago | (#46830407)

The problem with building really tall buildings is how to transport enough people up and down without using up the floor space on elevators rather than rentable area. Silly fast elevators may well be worth the money if it results in more silly expensive top-floor rent income.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830555)

While that makes sense, wouldn't reducing elevator count be more to free merely-expensive lower and mid floors? After all, all elevators need to go to the bottom (assuming you're not going to make people change elevators) but not all need go to or even near the top.

Re:Expensive (3, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 8 months ago | (#46830701)

A lot of very tall buildings such as the Word Trade Center [wikimedia.org] and Willis (formerly Sears) Tower [majhost.com] actually do have a number of elevators that don't go to the bottom (or top).

Re:Expensive (3, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 8 months ago | (#46830777)

The problem with building really tall buildings is how to transport enough people up and down without using up the floor space on elevators rather than rentable area. Silly fast elevators may well be worth the money if it results in more silly expensive top-floor rent income.

The west may have stopped with the prestige over practicality thing decades ago, but not in China.

Having the fastest elevators in the country, let alone the world is something to brag and bignote yourself about.

Why do you think they keep building stupidly expensive and impractical shit in Dubai (skyscrapers, artificial island and so forth), it's so the Emir's can have a huge wank.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831403)

just what i've always been wanting to do, ride a suicidal 45mph elevator with 'made in china' engraved on it. no thanks, i'll take the stairs.

Re:Expensive (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 8 months ago | (#46831583)

ride a suicidal 45mph elevator with 'made in china' engraved on it, i'll take the stairs.

That would interesting to see: a troll complaining his way up 95 flights of stairs. I'll point out that these high speed elevators are made by Hitachi, a Japanese company.

Re:Expensive (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about 8 months ago | (#46831175)

We need turbolifts, like in Star Trek so they can move out of the way of each other. Alternately, we could have elevators that "prefer" certain routes depending on where they and the other elevators or at. Alternately again, we could have elevators that collapse on themselves if no one in is in it, which could be kind of creepy for first time users.

Personally, I think elevators in tall buildings should move in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, then they don't interfere with each other quite as much. You'd be asked to use different elevators depending on where in the building you were going.

Re:Expensive (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 8 months ago | (#46831491)

For high-traffic cases, perhaps we should look at resurrecting the paternoster [wikipedia.org] . We must have the technology by now to allow the lifts to stop and start individually to avoid the shortcomings of the old design.

Re:Expensive (1)

impossiblefork (978205) | about 8 months ago | (#46832073)

Hitachi does have a prototype of just that and it is linked to from the wikipedia page that you linked to. A video showing what seems like a prototype of it is the last linked thing.

It seems like something which would definitely allow higher passenger capacity for a given amount of shaft space.

Re:Expensive (1)

TFlan91 (2615727) | about 8 months ago | (#46832075)

If you read the article you referred to....

>> In April 2006, Hitachi announced plans for a modern paternoster-style elevator with computer-controlled cars and normal elevator doors to alleviate safety concerns.[7][8] A prototype has been revealed as of February 2013.[9] .... you wouldn't of had to post.

(Here's #9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] )

Re:Expensive (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 8 months ago | (#46831647)

Fast elevators are also good R&D projects, with the technology filtering down to standard models and keeping them competitive. Car manufacturers do that all the time.

Japanese companies do this sort of thing a lot, and it's a very different attitude to the typical western one. I was telling a friend about vending machines that have been deployed in Japan for a few years now where the front is basically a giant 50" TV touch screen. There is a camera that uses facial feature recognition to estimate your age and gender, then make recommendations. Naturally it serves hot and cold drinks, and instead of just hurling the product down into the bin a little robot arm comes up and collects it. My friend remarked that this seemed rather elaborate for an inexpensive can of soda, but Japanese companies are always pushing technology forward and it seems to pay off for them.

Re:Expensive (1)

FishTankX (1539069) | about 8 months ago | (#46833201)

Yeah, it may be kind of elaborate, but if it can serve as an advertising platform in a busy station that function of it may pay for the machine over the life of it.

Re:Expensive (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 8 months ago | (#46830617)

Only 2 of the 95 elevators are going to be the super-high-speed models. The others are going to be the regular cheaper kind it would seem (not that an elevator is ever cheap to build or maintain regardless of speed)

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46832595)

But presumably 3 high-speed elevators were cheaper than 4 normal ones, at least over the long run when you include maintenance costs. Otherwise why would they bother changing it?

How to know you have a really fast elevator (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46830383)

You know you have a really fast elevator when it gets its own theme song [youtube.com] and maybe a TV show or movie. Maybe something like "Smokey in the Elevator," or "The Elevators a Hazard."

I wonder if Rosco P. Coltrane [slashdot.org] is available? He might work as sheriff. [youtube.com]

is that all? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 8 months ago | (#46830423)

45mph doesn't actually sound very fast to me, especially going down.

Re:is that all? (1)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | about 8 months ago | (#46830585)

It's plenty fast, almost 4000ft/minute. In a commercial airliner that descent rate would only be used in an emergency,

Re:is that all? (1)

Calinous (985536) | about 8 months ago | (#46830671)

It's higher than residential speed limit, which is usually something like 30 mph or 50 km/h. My highest speed on a bicycle (downhill) was some 65 km/h (scary fast when cornering), compared to the 72 km/h of the elevators.

Re:is that all? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 8 months ago | (#46830837)

45mph doesn't actually sound very fast to me, especially going down.

It's not "fast", but in an elevator, the problem is not speed, it's air pressure. In an airplane that's pressurized, the cabin air pressure is set to achieve an approximate 500'/minute descent (the actual aircraft will be descending far faster than this) as this keeps passengers comfortable. Go faster and passenger's ears pop and they get mighty uncomfortable. Too fast and you can pop and eardrum.

That's the fundamental limit on the speed of an elevator - the passengers just can't take the air pressure changes without feeling rather queasy or having their ears pop annoyingly often.

Not sure how they solved this problem - pressurized building so the upper floors are closer to ground level, thus minimizing the air pressure differential?

Re:is that all? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#46831107)

The pressure changes come from the lift moving in the shaft, not from the altitude changes like on a aircraft since the difference in air pressure between 0 and 1000 feet for example is pretty negligable. All they need to do to solve the pressure problem is seal the lift car better.

Re:is that all? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46831213)

No, the pressure changes definitely comes from the change in altitude, the motion of the lift in the shaft has little to do with it. There may be a slightly higher pressure on one side of the cage and a slightly lower pressure on the other side, but there will be vents to reduce that effect and it won't translate in a difference in pressure inside the cage.

The difference between sea level and 1000 ft is far from negligible, though. Its about 30 hPa (300 kgf/m^2)

Airliners are usually limited to a pressure change corresponding to 500 sea level feet per minute (the pressure change rate that corresponds to climbing/descending at 500 feet per minute at sea level). 1200 feet per minute going down will definitely hurt your ears.

Re:is that all? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#46832425)

No, I'm afraid it is pretty negligable as far as the human ear is concerned. Just 10m of water is equivalent of 1 atmosphere pressure and plenty of divers - even free divers - can dive that in under a minute with no issues with their ears so long as they're careful. Thats the equivalent of going from space down to sea level.

Re:is that all? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46832861)

Tell that to all the crying babies in airplanes or in mountain cable cars. Or to those adults unfortunate enough to burst their eardrums when flying with a serious cold. The 8000 ft of pressure difference between cabin pressure at cruising altitude and on the ground can sometimes be enough to rupture them if air cannot get into the inner ear through the blocked eustachian tube. Of course that's eight times as much as the difference between 0 and 1000 ft, but even that is very noticeable if the change happens in a short amount of time. Not dangerous, but uncomfortable to a lot of people.

Divers can indeed go down relatively quickly, but they constantly pop their ears to allow the pressure to equalize through the eustachian tube. If they can't, they won't go down more than two meters or so without experiencing serious pain. Have you ever dived to the bottom of a pool without swallowing to pop your ears? Definitely don't go diving if you have a cold.

The pressure change from the lift moving in the shaft is certainly much less (if even measurable at all) than the pressure from the altitude change. Really, the pressure on your ears is solely from the altitude change.

Re:is that all? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#46833137)

Oh come on - this building is 500m high. According to this:

http://www.altitude.org/air_pr... [altitude.org]

the pressure difference between bottom and top is 5 KPA. Thats equivalent to 50m of water - a deep bath. Its nothing. You'd barely even noticed it much less be troubled by it.

Anyway altitude change doesn't explain the rise in pressure of a train travelling in a tunnel an its the same effect for a high speed lift. Its compressing the air in the direction of movement in a confined space.

Re:is that all? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 8 months ago | (#46833315)

When you hold your head under water, even 50 cm (that's a pretty deep bath), you do feel some pressure on your eardrums. Certainly not enough to damage them, but you will clearly feel it and a lot of people find this unconfortable.

A train going into a tunnel at high speed (much faster than an elevator) does indeed cause a bit of a pressure increase because the air only has one way to go, though I doubt it's even as much as your 50 cm of water. And an elevator shaft normally has plenty of vents to let the excess air pressure escape out of the shaft.

Seriously, have you ever even been in a cable car in the mountains? Or flown in an airplane? Or even driven down a steep hill at high speed? In those cases, no shaft is involved but you do clearly feel the pressure on your ears. Which you get rid of by frequently swallowing or yawning, for example.

I'm a pilot, and I've made the mistake of flying with a cold even after the briefings we had had telling us not to. It was extremely painful but fortunately no damage was done. A good friend of mine was less lucky and was off for a month on medical leave with a damaged ear drum. Like I said, the cabin pressure at cruise altitude corresponds to that at 8000 ft, less than 5 times the height of that building. If that's enough to damage an ear drum, you can certainly feel one fifth of it.

Re:is that all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831495)

Well, if 45mph doesn't sound fast to you, you shold probably convert to metric. That way all you have to do is move a decimal point instead of, you know, - THINKING!

So how many g's? (1)

plover (150551) | about 8 months ago | (#46830427)

I RTFA, and all it says is 440 meters in 43 seconds. I'd like to know the acceleration profile for this thing, it sounds like fun!

How does an elevator accelerate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830569)

What does the acceleration vs time graph for an elevator look like, before it's reached 'cruising' speed?

If the elevator accelerated at a constant rate, I found that its acceleration would only be ~1.99m/s^2 or 0.2g's. I used the fact that it travels 440 meters in 43 seconds and its cruising speed will be 20m/s (all taken from TFA). According to those numbers, it would accelerate for the first 21 seconds, cruise for 1 second, and then decelerate for the last 21 seconds.

Re:How does an elevator accelerate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831077)

According to those numbers, it would accelerate for the first 21 seconds, cruise for 1 second, and then decelerate for the last 21 seconds.

Probably very close to the reality - just smooth of the transitions (start/middle/stop) a bit to avoid jerkiness. Why accelerate harder at the ends just to coast in the middle part?

Re:How does an elevator accelerate? (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 8 months ago | (#46833055)

I like the idea of just freefalling for most of the way and then slowly and safely decelerating. That would be a riot.

Re:So how many g's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831689)

Just be sure to jump when you first go down. The extra "hang time" is worth it :)

Got my hopes up there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830471)

Hitachi To Deliver World's Fastest :D

Elevator :(

Barrotrauma (1)

labnet (457441) | about 8 months ago | (#46830567)

There's going to be lots of crying babies!

Re:Barrotrauma (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 8 months ago | (#46830581)

Hell, I had an air bubble underneath a filling in a tooth... going up or down hill too fast was... painful.

Hmm. (4, Interesting)

neiras (723124) | about 8 months ago | (#46830615)

I want my high speed elevator to descend at a rate *just* fast enough to have me hovering six inches off the floor, which should be made of glass.

Re:Hmm. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 8 months ago | (#46830705)

The elevator would have to accelerate at the rate of gravity (9.8 m/s/s, iirc) and have a cruising speed as fast as terminal velocity for you.

Re:Hmm. (5, Insightful)

mhotchin (791085) | about 8 months ago | (#46830779)

Since terminal velocity is a function of air resistance, but the air in the elevator is always moving as fast as the occupant, there's actually no upper limit on the speed of the elevator. It would have to accelerate the entire way.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830783)

If he is protected from the wind (as he is because of the floor), there is no terminal velocity in the normal range.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830939)

Initially the acceleration would have to be slightly higher than that to get the person 6 inches above the floor.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46832657)

You would need to be under constant acceleration. Perhaps using a rocket.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831087)

I want my high speed elevator to descend at a rate *just* fast enough to have me hovering six inches off the floor, which should be made of glass.

If it's to do that for the entire descent, I doubt you'll like the stopping at the destination floor...

Re:Hmm. (3, Funny)

umghhh (965931) | about 8 months ago | (#46831469)

That is why floor from glass - it is easy to clean.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46832317)

:D

Seems a bit pointless (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#46831131)

This building is only 530m high. Even at a 30mph you could do that in about 20 seconds and thats assuming you're going all the way from the bottom to the top. For that distance this lift would save around a whole 5-6 seconds (not counting acceleration time). BFD.

Sounds like an expensive technology showcase rather than something that will be a major extra benefit.

Re:Seems a bit pointless (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 8 months ago | (#46831603)

For that distance this lift would save around a whole 5-6 seconds (not counting acceleration time)

If you were comparing constant 30 mph to 45 mph, sure, but us puny humans need to be gently accelerated to and from such speeds, which account for a significant portion of the time - you can't just wave it away.

Re:Seems a bit pointless (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#46832381)

Not really. Plenty of cars can manage 0-30 in under 3 seconds. I don't think anyones been hospitalised because of the accelerative forces involved yet. And plenty of motorbikes can do 60 in the same time.

Re:Seems a bit pointless (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 8 months ago | (#46832951)

Oh, well, if you meant that the occupants ought to be sitting down and belted into the elevator, then sure.

Re:Seems a bit pointless (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 8 months ago | (#46831739)

This building is only 530m high. Even at a 30mph you could do that in about 20 seconds and thats assuming you're going all the way from the bottom to the top. For that distance this lift would save around a whole 5-6 seconds (not counting acceleration time). BFD.

Sounds like an expensive technology showcase rather than something that will be a major extra benefit.

The point of this elevator isn't to save you or I a couple of seconds on our trip. It's undoubtedly the increase the throughput on the elevator itself so that it can service more users in a day. This will allow them to save space on an extra bank of elevator shafts. At least, that is what I would expect. That is a real concern. Elevators just waste space - they don't make any money for the property owner. But your property is worthless without adequate lifts.

Re:Seems a bit pointless (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 8 months ago | (#46832491)

The point of this elevator isn't to save you or I a couple of seconds on our trip. It's undoubtedly the increase the throughput on the elevator itself so that it can service more users in a day.

Kind of like a whore house in Nevada?

Turbo-Lifts? (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about 8 months ago | (#46831199)

All we need now is to speed up 3D printers, and we can have food synthesizers.

Re:Turbo-Lifts? (1)

thinc (26590) | about 8 months ago | (#46833929)

Like this? [kickstarter.com]

The alternative angle (1)

dhaen (892570) | about 8 months ago | (#46831531)

I'd like a really slow, large elevator containing a restaurant or a bar. Have dinner or get pissed on the way home! Perfect.

Re:The alternative angle (1)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 8 months ago | (#46832137)

I'd like a really slow, large elevator containing a restaurant or a bar. Have dinner or get pissed on the way home! Perfect.

The problem, of course, is that instead of the restaurant taking up space on one floor of the building, it would then occupy a restaurant-sized hole in every floor of the building. (Yes, this could be partially offset by stacking several floors of restaurant in this hypothetical elevator shaft, but you're still wasting many multiples of the restaurant's floor area in the building. And floor area in high-rise towers isn't cheap.) We'll leave aside the challenges of providing working utility connections, and the likely-to-be-appalling costs of construction and maintenance.

Re:The alternative angle (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 8 months ago | (#46832705)

I once managed to briefly convince someone that the bulb bit of the CN Tower actually moved up and down like an elevator.

however, what goes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831589)

... must come down.

Will this elevator provide foot locks such that people will not 'leave' the floor when it's descending at ~72kmph?
And how are they getting around the queasy sensation you'll most probably feel?

Re:however, what goes up... (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 8 months ago | (#46831725)

Deep freeze the load and all acceleration problems go away.

Physics (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 8 months ago | (#46832333)

As long as it doesn't accelerate faster than ~9m/sec, your feet don't leave the ground.

Re:however, what goes up... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 8 months ago | (#46832735)

... must come down.

Tell that to the voyager probes.

Will this elevator provide foot locks such that people will not 'leave' the floor when it's descending at ~72kmph?
And how are they getting around the queasy sensation you'll most probably feel?

Also. I think you underestimate just how fast you need to accelerate to lave the ground. Lets just say it's more than 9 meters per second squared.

Will it be pressurized? (2)

asylumx (881307) | about 8 months ago | (#46831851)

The problem with ascending or descending that fast is that many people will have issues with sinus pressure that can't keep equilibrium. Comfortable ascent/descent in an unpressurized airplane is between 500 fpm and 1000 fpm. 45mph straight up or down is about 4,000 fpm. It hurts my ears just thinking about riding this elevator without it being pressurized!

Re:Will it be pressurized? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 8 months ago | (#46832749)

Won't that simply delay the ear popping issue until the doors open at the top floor, and make it worse since its all at once? You would have to pressurize the entire building for that to work.

Re:Will it be pressurized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46832905)

Not just the building as a whole, but the floors need to be separated from each other as well.

Too Fast (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46832565)

No time for love in an elevator.

Will they include barf bags... (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | about 8 months ago | (#46833509)

Cuz those speeds are going to make lots of people sick.

public infrastructure innovation is not in the US (4, Interesting)

supernova87a (532540) | about 8 months ago | (#46833845)

This may be a anecdotal comment, so take it for what you will, but I have noticed that Asian buildings and infrastructure technology are so far ahead of us in the USA that it is really embarrassing if you go there and come back and compare.

If you've ever gone to Taipei 101 for example, the elevators move so quickly, and without any vibration as they go up/down that you almost cannot tell if they're moving. Go to Singapore or Hong Kong, and watch how smoothly, quietly, and punctually their subway systems run.

Or go to China and be surprised that in even small-sized cities, you didn't realize that *all* their motorcycles are now electric and they leap-frogged the smelly gasoline phase of motorbike technology.

You come back to the US, and wonder how we're still (maybe) #1, with our rickety buildings and public transport systems. It's embarrassing. And people will say, well, "Who needs quieter, smoother subways? What we have is fine." Said while yelling because you have to cover your ears to not go deaf on the F train in New York City. And as you have to hold your nose as you walk through the piss-soaked, dark and dingy subway/bus station concourses.

Sometimes I feel like we're witnessing the slow decline of American technology / investment when it comes to public infrastructure.

No thanks (2)

dark_requiem (806308) | about 8 months ago | (#46833927)

I'll stick with my Sirius Cybernetics Happy Vertical People Mover, thank you very much. It may be a bit unhinged, but damnit, it gets me where I need to go (well, when it's not sulking in the basement, anyway).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?