Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\15 15:34, wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:34:26 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 02:01:27 UTC, Ken Ward wrote:
On 14/11/2015 09:03, 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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

I see no reason why it shouldn't freewheel on the down journey, as long
as there were strong enough buffers at the bottom. It is not FAR, is it?

What makes you think it *could* freewheel down? In most cases, the
lift+payload will be lighter than the counter-weight.

That's alright. Then it can freewheel up.

I wonder if the counterweight balances a half-laden cabin, or an
averagely-laden cabin (which would presumably be much lighter).

This was what the original feasibility study proposed:

- Payload: 1000kg
- Cabin weight: 1400kg
- Counterweight: 1900kg

So the counterweight in the actual lift (which has a smaller payload than
the proposed version) most probably balances a half-laden cabin. That way,
you minimise the required motor torque.