Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

109 comments

  1. Race you to the top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    First!

    1. Re:Race you to the top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what she said.

  2. Express elevators by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Express elevators by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Express elevators by Arkh89 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:Express elevators by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Express elevators by Friar_MJK · · Score: 4, Funny

      learned this thanks to SimTower.

    6. Re:Express elevators by Animats · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Express elevators by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      and you were the only occupant

    8. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    9. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re:Express elevators by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

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

    11. Re:Express elevators by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Detailed precise wrong answers due to poor understanding.

    13. Re:Express elevators by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here expecting a SimTower ref, went away satisfied.

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

    15. Re:Express elevators by distilate · · Score: 1

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

    16. Re:Express elevators by umghhh · · Score: 1

      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...

    17. Re:Express elevators by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:Express elevators by michelcolman · · Score: 2

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

    19. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    20. Re:Express elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    21. Re:Express elevators by umghhh · · Score: 1

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

    22. Re:Express elevators by lucm · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    23. Re:Express elevators by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      True!

      Still a bad-ass acceleration though...

    24. Re:Express elevators by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      ...dying *crushed* together.

      FTFY

    25. Re:Express elevators by the_rajah · · Score: 1

      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.

      --


      "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  3. Expensive by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Expensive by JanneM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Expensive by jonwil · · Score: 1

      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)

    4. Re:Expensive by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    5. Re:Expensive by mjwx · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Expensive by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re:Expensive by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

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

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:Expensive by necro81 · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Expensive by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Expensive by impossiblefork · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Expensive by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      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?...)

    13. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    14. Re:Expensive by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stop calling it that.

      It's the fucking Sears Tower, and always will be. Buying an iconic and historically important building DOES NOT give you the right to rename it. You can call it what you want, but the rest of the world can and should ignore you and laugh at your feeble attempt to rewrite history.

    16. Re:Expensive by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I was just going by the title of the wiki page.

  4. How to know you have a really fast elevator by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    You know you have a really fast elevator when it gets its own theme song 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 is available? He might work as sheriff.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. is that all? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:is that all? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

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

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:is that all? by Calinous · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:is that all? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:is that all? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:is that all? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:is that all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    7. Re:is that all? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:is that all? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:is that all? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

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

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

      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.

    10. Re:is that all? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

  6. So how many g's? by plover · · Score: 1

    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!

    --
    John
    1. Re:So how many g's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  7. Got my hopes up there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitachi To Deliver World's Fastest :D

    Elevator :(

  8. Barrotrauma by labnet · · Score: 1

    There's going to be lots of crying babies!

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Barrotrauma by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

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

  9. How does an elevator accelerate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:How does an elevator accelerate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    2. Re:How does an elevator accelerate? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:How does an elevator accelerate? by plover · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that, too. They could install a second cable, tying the bottom of the elevator to the bottom of the counterweights and looping it through a pulley at the bottom of the shaft. That way they could fully control acceleration unbounded by gravity. They could accelerate the elevator slightly faster than the speed of gravity for the first fraction of a second, leaving the occupants floating about the cabin in mid-air, and then match the acceleration of gravity until it's at the end of the free-fall period. It would truly be the fastest elevator possible.

      Apart from the spilled coffee, dropped laptops, tumbled wheelchairs, shrieking, cursing, rushed prayers, and the several heart attacks induced each day, I can see no downside to this elevator!

      --
      John
  10. Hmm. by neiras · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hmm. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Hmm. by mhotchin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    6. Re:Hmm. by umghhh · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    7. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :D

    8. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    9. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, once the elevator reaches 9.8m/s/s... the floor opens up and you are treated to the best elevator experience ever. It closes before deceleration of course.

    10. Re:Hmm. by neiras · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it would slow down just enough to get my feet on the ground, then decelerate hard. Obviously free fall to a dead stop would suck. ;)

  11. Re:Express elevators-POP! by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 1

    go your ears!

  12. Seems a bit pointless by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Seems a bit pointless by necro81 · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Seems a bit pointless by jittles · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Seems a bit pointless by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Seems a bit pointless by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Seems a bit pointless by necro81 · · Score: 1

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

  13. Re:Express elevators-POP! by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. Turbo-Lifts? by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Turbo-Lifts? by thinc · · Score: 1

      Like this?

  15. Will it go down faster too ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so this Hitachi lift does go up faster.

    But will it drop faster as well ?

  16. The alternative angle by dhaen · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:The alternative angle by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:The alternative angle by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  17. however, what goes up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 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?

    1. Re:however, what goes up... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Deep freeze the load and all acceleration problems go away.

    2. Re:however, what goes up... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      ... 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.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  18. Will it be pressurized? by asylumx · · Score: 2

    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!

    1. Re:Will it be pressurized? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Will it be pressurized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Will it be pressurized? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Yes, or introduce a delay at either the top or the bottom while pressure normalizes, which defeats the purpose of a fast elevator anyway.

  19. Physics by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  20. Too Fast by PPH · · Score: 1

    No time for love in an elevator.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Re:Express elevators-POP! by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  22. public infrastructure innovation is not in the US by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  23. if i am not weightless on the way down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  24. No thanks by dark_requiem · · Score: 2

    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).

  25. And they're calling it... by rhazz · · Score: 1

    "The Baby Popper"

  26. falling vs powered... Re:Hmm. by Fubari · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a falling elevator "box" have its own terminal velocity? Unless the shaft were air-free (e.g. vacuum).
    I suppose the descent could be powered... that would work pretty well, at least once.

  27. five flights is nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've ever had to walk up five flights of stairs

    Even assuming 5 flights of stairs = 5 storeys, I don't find that particularly exhausting. I do it several times a day. And I don't walk up stairs, I trot at about double my walking pace. Not trying to brag -- my general fitness is probably below average. Often I'm not even slower than people who take the elevator because of all the time they spend waiting for it.