Vacuum-Controlled Elevator Developed

Aenox writes "Vacuum Elevators of Florida have released a one-man elevator system that easily slots into buildings. It has gone on sale in the U.S. for around $20,000 and uses only electricity to power vaccum-inducing suction turbines that can lift 204Kg several floors up. They claim it provides a smooth ride but from the video it looks like it could use some oil."

Comments

Editor desperately needed at NewScientist.com

[TripMaster Monkey]

Does NewScientist.com have editors?

Call me picky, but if you're doing a professional publication, there are some standards you ought to uphold.

But O'Connor adds that a series of mechanical breaks will activate should there be a sudden loss of pressure, to prevent the capsule falling.

Well. this certainly doesn't sound promising. I would think that in the event of a sudden loss of pressure, the elevator would 'break' quite satisfactorily on its own, without the need for additional mechanical help.

The elevator costs between $20,000 and £22,000.

That's actually quite a large price range, once you figure out the exchange rate.

Clearly someone over at NewScientist.com is asleep at the switch. The sad fact is that this is nothing new....even sadder is the fact that this sort of thing is now acceptable, even in professional publications.

Re:Editor desperately needed at NewScientist.com

[TripMaster Monkey]

Does it?


Well, yes...we've established that.


Tell me that there are people of reasonable IQ who would read that sentence and not know what I was saying.


Spelling and grammar rules exist so that people don't have to guess the meaning of a particular sentence. We have standards for a reason.


Personally, I rather an article has factuality over some anal compliance with grammar.


Personally, I wonder why you feel the two must be mutually exclusive.


You personally may prefer grammatically correct lies over truths that contain a couple of spelling mistaeks [sic].


My my, that's a mighty fine straw man you're building over there...just don't try to hang my name on him.
Just for the record, you were the one who introduced the (non)issue of factual accuracy into this conversation. Nowhere have I ever said that grammatical correctness is preferable to factual accuracy, and for you to attempt to insinuate that I did is disingenuous.

.. why are typografikal issues a major concern?


OK...now you're just being childish.

I don't get it.

Yes...you're making that painfully clear.


Aren't there other things in the world for someone like you to be concerned about?

Yes, but unlike you, I apparently have this preternatural ability to be concerned about multiple issues at once.


Let me ask you this, what is it that you do?


I'm a network administrator...not that my current employment is pertinent to this discussion...

I mean, give some credibility as to why people should follow your advice.

Because it's not *my* advice...it's the elementary rules of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It's not like I'm somehow privy to the mysterious dark secrets of the English language...these rules are available to anyone who cares to pick up a textbook. Any highschool English teacher who read that article would have found the same errors I did.

Who exactly are you "Trip Master Monkey"?

Actually, if you would bother to read my previous posts, you would see that it's 'TripMaster Monkey', but perhaps I'm being *too* picky now... ^_^

And why should we listen to you..

Starting a sentence with a conjunction, question without a question mark, and two periods. I think you just answered your own question.

Re:Editor desperately needed at NewScientist.com

[mdfst13]

"Personally, I rather an article has factuality"

However, the article does not. Mixing British Pounds and US Dollars as it does is a *factual* mistake. It presumably meant to say twenty to twenty-two of one currency or the other. What they actually said was something like $15,000 off at one end or the other.

Yes, factual issues are more important than typographical issues. However, typos are easier to catch than errors. There is no reason not to make the minimal effort to catch the typos. You will catch some number of errors along the way (e.g. the incorrect currency symbol). Further, the minimal effort needed to find typos is still needed if you want to find errors, as you need to find where statements regarding facts are being made.

Another way of saying this is "If your realtor adds a 0 to the end of your house price, that is a typo. Would you then pay it as typos are unimportant?"

These people are missing the main market.

[BrianH]

The primary market for residential elevators is for the elderly and wheelchair bound. From what I can see, this elevator isn't stable or safe enough for a frail elderly person, and it isn't large enough to fit a wheelchair or scooter.

So the only market for this thing is going to be for rich people who'd rather blow money on a toy than take the stairs. While I'm sure there's a market for that, it's not going to be a big one.

Only electricity?

[conteXXt]

news flash:

elevators don't run on guinea pig droppings. All modern elevators (excepting perhaps the Space Elevator) run on ONLY electricty.

Did I miss something here?

You cant dig down in florida!

[apg88]

This company is from florida. As someone else stated before, a piston elevator would need a hole as deep as the elevator is high. When you are in florida, if you dig down, water comes out. This elevator is good for homes that cant dig for a pneumatic piston and cant have a huge pulley system to pull the elevator. They'll probably use it for two floor hotel suites and things like that.