On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts is usually
>>significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>
>You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?

I have.

In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts is usually
>>>significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>
>>You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>
>I have.

Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts is usually
>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>
>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>
>> I have.
>
> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.

For rather obvious engineering reasons.

In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts is usually
>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>
>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>
>>> I have.
>>
>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>
>For rather obvious engineering reasons.

Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
yours about sloping lifts.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts is usually
>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>
>>>> I have.
>>>
>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>
>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>
> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
> yours about sloping lifts.

Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts? I won't be
unkind enough to list yours.

In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>is usually
>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have.
>>>>
>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>
>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>
>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>> yours about sloping lifts.
>
>Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?

Mainly the conflation of power with energy.

>I won't be unkind enough to list yours.

There weren't any.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>
>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>
>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>
>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>
> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.

Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.

>
>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>
> There weren't any.

Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.

In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>
>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>
>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>
>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.

What you said was:

They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
half the power is needed).

But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.

>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>
>> There weren't any.
>
>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.

Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
it isn't).
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>
>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>
>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>
>What you said was:
>
> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
> half the power is needed).
>
>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.

I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only needed half the power, and hence a smaller
motor/gearbox, lower current, thinner cables, etc.

>
>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>
>>> There weren't any.
>>
>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>
>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>it isn't).

Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>
>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>
>>> Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>
>> What you said was:
>>
>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>> half the power is needed).
>>
>> But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>> means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>
> I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only needed
> half the power, and hence a smaller
> motor/gearbox, lower current, thinner cables, etc.
>
>

How does that make it "cheaper to operate"? Cheaper to purchase, perhaps,
though I suspect that their rarity makes that not so either.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <9rclch1fm145jeb26mdul4lklv027j7tr3@4ax.com>, at 12:11:26 on
Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door
>>>>>>>>opening/
>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>
>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>
>>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>
>>What you said was:
>>
>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>> half the power is needed).
>>
>>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>
>I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>current, thinner cables, etc.

Negligible in the grand scheme of things. (In any event that would be
cheaper to *install*, not cheaper to *operate*)

>>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>>
>>>> There weren't any.
>>>
>>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>>
>>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>>it isn't).
>
>Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.

Yawn.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:06:41 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door opening/
>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>
>>> What you said was:
>>>
>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>> half the power is needed).
>>>
>>> But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>> means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>
>> I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only needed
>> half the power, and hence a smaller
>> motor/gearbox, lower current, thinner cables, etc.
>>
>>
>
>How does that make it "cheaper to operate"? Cheaper to purchase, perhaps,
>though I suspect that their rarity makes that not so either.

Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance, and a lower current might cut operating costs (even if it
runs for longer).

Incidentally, I was quoting an external source when I said that, so I didn't make it up.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:16:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <9rclch1fm145jeb26mdul4lklv027j7tr3@4ax.com>, at 12:11:26 on
>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at 10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door
>>>>>>>>>opening/
>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent postings of
>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>
>>>What you said was:
>>>
>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>> half the power is needed).
>>>
>>>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>
>>I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>>current, thinner cables, etc.
>
>Negligible in the grand scheme of things. (In any event that would be
>cheaper to *install*, not cheaper to *operate*)
>
>>>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> There weren't any.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>>>
>>>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>>>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>>>it isn't).
>>
>>Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.
>
>Yawn.

OK, you asked for it. Your ideas for how to size the motor would lead to requiring a much larger, more expensive motor.
That's simple bad engineering.

In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:06:41 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
><anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow
>>>>>>>>>>door opening/
>>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent
>>>>>>>>postings of
>>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>>
>>>> What you said was:
>>>>
>>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>>> half the power is needed).
>>>>
>>>> But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>>> means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>>>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>>>current, thinner cables, etc.
>>
>>How does that make it "cheaper to operate"? Cheaper to purchase, perhaps,
>>though I suspect that their rarity makes that not so either.
>
>Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,

That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
last longer, because they are less stressed.

>and a lower current might cut operating costs (even if it runs for
>longer).

Half the current for twice as long, won't.

>Incidentally, I was quoting an external source when I said that, so I
>didn't make it up.

'External sources' are just as fallible as any other.

Top tip: to avoid being tarred by other's brushes, sometimes it's worth
adding "it's reported that"...
--
Roland Perry

In message <3lhlchluvvc93sbfth2m235s6301jmkk6q@4ax.com>, at 13:32:26 on
Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:16:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <9rclch1fm145jeb26mdul4lklv027j7tr3@4ax.com>, at 12:11:26 on
>>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door
>>>>>>>>>>opening/
>>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent
>>>>>>>>postings of
>>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>>
>>>>What you said was:
>>>>
>>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>>> half the power is needed).
>>>>
>>>>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>>>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>>
>>>I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>>>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>>>current, thinner cables, etc.
>>
>>Negligible in the grand scheme of things. (In any event that would be
>>cheaper to *install*, not cheaper to *operate*)
>>
>>>>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There weren't any.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>>>>
>>>>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>>>>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>>>>it isn't).
>>>
>>>Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.
>>
>>Yawn.
>
>OK, you asked for it. Your ideas for how to size the motor would lead
>to requiring a much larger, more expensive motor. That's simple bad
>engineering.

On the contrary, it's often good engineering, building in a margin of
resilience. You don't want everything performing at the limit of it's
design capability, see Azuma cracks for example.

Replacing worn-out lift (and escalator) motors is likely to be very
disruptive and expensive, when you could avoid having to do it by
spending relatively little on a less edgy design in the first place.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>
> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
> last longer, because they are less stressed.

A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>
>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>
>A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.

So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)

No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
spent.

To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
every 20yrs (large one).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>
>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>
>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>
> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>
> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
> spent.
>
> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
> every 20yrs (large one).

And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
(vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
not.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 11/07/2022 11:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>>
>>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>>
>>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>>
>> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>>
>> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
>> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
>> spent.
>>
>> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
>> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
>> every 20yrs (large one).
>
> And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
> good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
> smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
> (vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
> same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
> knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
> not.

We seem to be comparing slow lifts with fast lifts, rather than inclined
with vertical. Is it safe to assume that an inclined lift takes twice
as long to rise as a vertical lift of the same height? (I realise that
the horizontal travel will reduce the difference in speed.)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:41:16 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>>
>>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>>
>>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>>
>> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>>
>> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
>> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
>> spent.
>>
>> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
>> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
>> every 20yrs (large one).
>
>And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
>good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
>smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
>(vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
>same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
>knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
>not.

The pointlesslessly oversized motor/gearbox would also be larger and heavier. Any competent engineer first works out the
actual maximum load, then applies a sensible safety factor based on the applicable building codes. They don't use a
Roland-style wild guess, based on incompetent engineering, and then apply a further safety factor.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:42:14 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <3lhlchluvvc93sbfth2m235s6301jmkk6q@4ax.com>, at 13:32:26 on
>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:16:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9rclch1fm145jeb26mdul4lklv027j7tr3@4ax.com>, at 12:11:26 on
>>>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door
>>>>>>>>>>>opening/
>>>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent
>>>>>>>>>postings of
>>>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you said was:
>>>>>
>>>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>>>> half the power is needed).
>>>>>
>>>>>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>>>>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>>>>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>>>>current, thinner cables, etc.
>>>
>>>Negligible in the grand scheme of things. (In any event that would be
>>>cheaper to *install*, not cheaper to *operate*)
>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There weren't any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>>>>>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>>>>>it isn't).
>>>>
>>>>Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.
>>>
>>>Yawn.
>>
>>OK, you asked for it. Your ideas for how to size the motor would lead
>>to requiring a much larger, more expensive motor. That's simple bad
>>engineering.
>
>On the contrary, it's often good engineering, building in a margin of
>resilience. You don't want everything performing at the limit of it's
>design capability, see Azuma cracks for example.

Any proper engineer knows that you do that separately: first work out the actual maximum load, then add the appropriate
safety factor to allow for overloading, tolerances, etc. The point is that both calculations are based on engineering,
not poor quality guesswork like you exhibited.

>
>Replacing worn-out lift (and escalator) motors is likely to be very
>disruptive and expensive, when you could avoid having to do it by
>spending relatively little on a less edgy design in the first place.

Nobody suggested an edgy design, just competent engineering. Your inability to do that might just as likely end up with
an under-engineered design as a pointlessly over-sized one.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:51:01 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 11/07/2022 11:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>>>
>>>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>>>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>>>
>>> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>>>
>>> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
>>> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
>>> spent.
>>>
>>> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
>>> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
>>> every 20yrs (large one).
>>
>> And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
>> good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
>> smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
>> (vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
>> same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
>> knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
>> not.
>
>We seem to be comparing slow lifts with fast lifts, rather than inclined
>with vertical. Is it safe to assume that an inclined lift takes twice
>as long to rise as a vertical lift of the same height? (I realise that
>the horizontal travel will reduce the difference in speed.)

It seems to be that way. They roughly keep pace with the adjacent escalator (starting from zero, then accelerating to a
slightly higher running speed, then slowing down at the end). So, if a group of people split, with one or two taking the
inclined lift and the others the escalator, they all get there at about the same time. A conventional vertical lift
would be quicker.

In message <a30ochd0h9ie6jhbgb8a0dolmrk5aqamrp@4ax.com>, at 11:53:07 on
Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:41:16 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>>>
>>>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>>>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>>>
>>> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>>>
>>> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
>>> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
>>> spent.
>>>
>>> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
>>> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
>>> every 20yrs (large one).
>>
>>And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
>>good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
>>smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
>>(vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
>>same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
>>knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
>>not.
>
>The pointlesslessly oversized motor/gearbox would also be larger and
>heavier. Any competent engineer first works out the actual maximum
>load, then applies a sensible safety factor based on the applicable
>building codes.

Designing things to "building code" is a recipe for disaster as it's
a minimum for safety purposes, not a sensible compromise between
installation and maintenance costs.

>They don't use a Roland-style wild guess, based on incompetent
>engineering, and then apply a further safety factor.

At no stage have I made any wild-guesses. Other than one you've probably
made too, that a higher powered motor costs more to buy. Sometimes
miniaturisation, and special-ordering, has its own costs.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:39:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <a30ochd0h9ie6jhbgb8a0dolmrk5aqamrp@4ax.com>, at 11:53:07 on
>Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:41:16 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tagpbe$1lo6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:02 on Mon, 11 Jul
>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <vhhlch5762iodensk9cbu8llb0jj91bmud@4ax.com>, at 13:31:21 on
>>>>>> Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Smaller motors and reduction gears will need less maintenance,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not even true. Often components which are over-spec for the job
>>>>>> last longer, because they are less stressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> A consideration which applies just as much to the larger motor
>>>>> installation, so it doesn’t make any difference.
>>>>
>>>> So you'd install an *even larger* motor (to gain the extra longevity)
>>>>
>>>> No, the thing to do is install a motor that's $foo larger than the
>>>> absolute minimum you can get away with, and it would be money well
>>>> spent.
>>>>
>>>> To calcualte $foo, you'd need price lists for different size motors, and
>>>> the true cost of replacing than say every 10yrs (small one) rather than
>>>> every 20yrs (large one).
>>>
>>>And, assuming such things scale linearly, which I admit is not a hugely
>>>good assumption, you’d end up paying an extra $foo to future proof the
>>>smaller (inclined) installation and 2x$foo to future proof the larger
>>>(vertical) installation. In either case you’re paying approximately the
>>>same percentage uplift for future proofing the maintenance. Without
>>>knowing the rest of the design one can’t tell whether that’s worth it or
>>>not.
>>
>>The pointlesslessly oversized motor/gearbox would also be larger and
>>heavier. Any competent engineer first works out the actual maximum
>>load, then applies a sensible safety factor based on the applicable
>>building codes.
>
>Designing things to "building code" is a recipe for disaster as it's
>a minimum for safety purposes, not a sensible compromise between
>installation and maintenance costs.

Guess what? Kone probably knows all about that, specially as it'll be doing the maintenance.

>
>>They don't use a Roland-style wild guess, based on incompetent
>>engineering, and then apply a further safety factor.
>
>At no stage have I made any wild-guesses.

You still don't understand your engineering boo-boo. That's a double-fail.

When sizing the motor, you need to base it on the maximum net load, not what you guess the average payload to be. Your
suggestion that the lift be based on an average load of two people means that you would specify a counter-weight equal
to the lift plus two people. But if the maximum capacity is actually 17 people, then it will have to be able to lift a
net load equal to the weight of 15 people, rather than eight or nine. So you'd start with a basic power almost double
that needed, before then adding all the safety factors. That's simple incompetence.

> Other than one you've probably
>made too, that a higher powered motor costs more to buy. Sometimes
>miniaturisation, and special-ordering, has its own costs.

Miniaturisation? Special ordering? Huh? Absolutely no-one has suggested any such thing. This is standard
Roland-speak for, "I have lost yet another argument and need to immediately move the goalposts"

These will be standard motors, as routinely used by Kone, and it will be able to select a smaller, cheaper, lighter
standard motor from its inventory for this inclined lift than for an equivalent sized vertical lift.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:42:14 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <3lhlchluvvc93sbfth2m235s6301jmkk6q@4ax.com>, at 13:32:26 on
>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:16:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9rclch1fm145jeb26mdul4lklv027j7tr3@4ax.com>, at 12:11:26 on
>>>Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:41:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <ta8s16$m8ni$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:42 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ta8qlk$m4aj$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:28 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ta8no5$lr73$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:52:37 on Fri, 8 Jul
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ns9dch9sbuca47dnaogo50g2nq2ipr6937@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>10:30:11 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:22:38 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ta60vi$ak2u$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:11:46 on Thu, 7 Jul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that the vertical speed of inclined lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than vertical lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've not been on many of the snails pace short vertical lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scattered around Kings Cross St Pancras, I take it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you'll have noticed that (even ignoring the very slow door
>>>>>>>>>>>opening/
>>>>>>>>>>> closing sequences) they are slower than an escalator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For rather obvious engineering reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obvious engineering reasons being somewhat lacking in recent
>>>>>>>>>postings of
>>>>>>>>> yours about sloping lifts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could point out any engineering errors in my posts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainly the conflation of power with energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, I said inclined lifts need less power, not less energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you said was:
>>>>>
>>>>> They're also said to be cheaper to operate than a vertical lift (only
>>>>> half the power is needed).
>>>>>
>>>>>But because there's the same amount of potential energy to impart, that
>>>>>means half the power for twice as long. So the same [energy] cost.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say that less energy would be needed, just that they only
>>>>needed half the power, and hence a smaller motor/gearbox, lower
>>>>current, thinner cables, etc.
>>>
>>>Negligible in the grand scheme of things. (In any event that would be
>>>cheaper to *install*, not cheaper to *operate*)
>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't be unkind enough to list yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There weren't any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course there were! There nearly always are in your posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given that only a some my posts are about engineering, I can't see how
>>>>>that could possibly be the case (even if my engineering was dodgy, which
>>>>>it isn't).
>>>>
>>>>Your engineering is decidedly dodgy.
>>>
>>>Yawn.
>>
>>OK, you asked for it. Your ideas for how to size the motor would lead
>>to requiring a much larger, more expensive motor. That's simple bad
>>engineering.
>
>On the contrary, it's often good engineering, building in a margin of
>resilience. You don't want everything performing at the limit of it's
>design capability, see Azuma cracks for example.

The cracking problems were with the choice of the wrong alloy (which other train builders knew to avoid), poor stress
analysis and dodgy welding. Simply using a bigger lump of metal wouldn't have fixed the problem. What they needled was a
more sound engineering design, more UK experience and better build quality, not your style of wild guessing.