Yes I do know how a counterweights work. In principle if the elevator can be shift sideways then the counterweights can be too. Of course when the elevator goes up and down it will need to be linked to a counterweight, but as long as this linkage can be made transient then should work.
The elevator conserves energy by having a counterweight, and the work needed for moving the elevator (disregarding the loss of the system) is 0 if the elevator is empty and the counterweight is the same weight of the elevator.
This is true for the length of the rope.
Now if you have a 99 storey building, with side moving elevators, you cannot have counterweights, as the ropes would be in each others' way when moving sideways. Either having a rope in way for 99 storeys in worst case, or with shorter ropes you increase complexity even further and negate the energy saving. if travelling further than the length of the rope.
The only advantage of this design is the lack of ropes. The downside is increased energy use.
Regarding transient linkings: even more complexity, and possibly the cabins need to wait for the counterweight to arrive, and hand over the counterweights? Even scheduling complexity is increased. Totally useless, as to have it a bit feasable you need to sill keed the functionality of counterweightless motion.
You can understand this by drawing if still not clear.
You don’t need ropes to have a counterweight. The same effect can be accomplished with track and gears.
I do agree with you that having independent counterweights would increase the complexity and the likelihood of a breakdown. Ultimately any solution would depend on the value being provided by the solution verse the increased cost or either maintenance or energy costs.
More importantly the purpose of me suggesting this solution was not to solve the elevator problem (I am sure lots of engineers have thought more deeply about this than me), but to discuss the problem.
Oh, OK. I think that an energy recuperation system and simply a "vertical railway" is simpler and more robust overall. No ropes needed just electric wiring, and elevators moving down are the counter weights. But this is basically what is demonstrated.
What I thought parent meant was using counterweights in the more traditional sense.
And yes, moving down also returns the energy, after all gravitational field is conservative. The real use of the counterweight is that the power needed to lift is less (you only need to work to lift the cargo), which means cost savings in motors, wiring, electricity, etc. Those saving by a mechanical counterweight system cannot be had with this setup without insane complexity. With today's solid state power electronics it is simpler and more reliable to use an electronic solution.
Discarding system losses, an elevator without counterweight will also use 0 energy for the up/down cycle (assuming load goes up and some time later down): the energy invested while pulling up the system can be recovered when descending.
Yes, at the cost of even more complexity. The problem with this idea is insane complexity.
One of 3 elevators in the office building is out of operation every two weeks. ThyssenKrupp comes and repairs it every now and then. They are simple elevators. The reliability I can imagine from my experience with TK elevators I think the floors will be a better option.
Once I was working for a TK company, and the TK elevator broke down. It was not repaired by the sibling company for a whole month because of some component shortage... That was a simple elevator in a 5 storey building.
