Some do. These "traction elevators" are essentially vertical funicular railways.
This building ("One Wall Centre" in Vancouver) has traction elevators.
Posted on 06/18/2013 12:15:36 PM PDT by ShadowAce
I’ve been to the top of the Burj Khalifa.Not really the top...the highest public observation deck (above which are private apartments).It wasn’t nearly as impressive as was the roof deck of the WTC or the observation deck at the ESB.All you see from the Burj is a few other modern buildings and then sand.Lots and lots of sand!
A real answer to your first question:
Why Can’t We Start Building The World’s Deepest Building?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/02/11/why-cant-we-start-building-the-worlds-deepest-building/
More expensive and less desirable.
Ooo Ooo! Algebra time
X = weight of rope
Y = weight of car
X+Y=12800
1.6X+Y=13900 (60% more length)
so
.6X = 1100
X = 1800 or so
which is 3.6 Kg/M
(Which seems more reasonable)
Keep in mind as the rope gets longer, it has to have more strength, so it has more material per meter.
I don’t know; I’d have thought the further you get from the earths core, the less the gravity so the lighter everything gets.
I think elevators usually use a counterweight, so that when the car goes up, the counterweight goes down. That way, only the weight of passengers is being lifted, not the weight of the car. This setup naturally puts the motor on the roof of the building.
More and different problems require more and different solutions.
“Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done.” Robert Heinlein........
I’ve been on the 55th floor of an office building....in the second bank of elevators...(only 825 ft.)
(and Sydney Tower, which I believe is 1000 ft.)
I have no interest in being in an office 3000 feet up!
(or more)
Do you?
Not for about 11.5 years now.
Over that distance, the quality of the graffiti should be better.....
could simply transfer to the next tier elevator every 500 meters. At 4 meters per story that is every 125 stories.
Quality vs Quantity...............
Arguably not *ideal* but the article would have you believe that’s a absolute deal-breaker whereas I think it might be perceived as kind of cool and a definite conversation starter.
Technically feasible doesn’t mean worthwhile or economically competitive. I don’t mean to say we cannot do it. I am saying there isn’t a good reason to do so.
Yeah, I know.......that damn elevator music!
Oh drat. Now I need another data point :)
That’s an excellent reason. Another is simply cost. To move a counterweighted elevator, you need only enough power to overcome inertia and any weight imbalance. Otherwise you’d need the power to overcome inertia PLUS the weight - a significant increase - 4 or 5 times the counterweighted version.
Toshiba has developed a permanent magnet/electromagnet method to keep the elevator from touching the guide rails. It has nothing to do with vertical levitation.
I vote we fall back on "Beam me up, Scotty."
Exactly what I was about to post. That's why I always read all the comments before I post. Someone usually has already beat me to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.