Interesting, If it could be made inherently safe somehow this would be so much more efficient, but I just can't help the persistent image of Resident Evil "the lift scene" from entering my head.
I'm not sure how inherently unsafe they are compared with regular elevators that have shaft doors but not cabin doors.
They can theoretically squish you between the floor of a rising cabin and the ceiling, and between the ceiling of a cabin going down and the floor. To prevent this, you could place a movable board coupled to a sensor at ceiling of the cabin and the ceilings of the entry "doors". If the cabin starts squishing someone while going down, the board gets pushed upwards, and triggers an e-stop. If it starts squishing someone going upwards, again, the outer board at that floor gets pushed, and again, triggers the e-stop. (The board would have to be able to move more than the elevator needs to stop, obviously).
At that point, the remaining risk seems to be similar to regular elevators that don't have inner doors.
(Existing installations seem to have solved this passively with breakaway panels and gaps, which is probably good enough, but would make it possible to jump from the cabin into the shaft while it is between floors.)
There are 3 places left in Germany where they're allowed to operate. One of those places is Leica in Wetzlar. It's absolutely fun to ride it, much faster than conventional lifts, but it's understandable that they're being shut down for safety reasons.
I guess it's similar to the Czech Republic - old ones are allowed to remain in operation, but you can't build new ones except for the places GP listed.
Yeah, it's a factoid that you usually hear from people surrounding places that have one installed, but given that I've seen more than 3 in person, it's certainly not true.
That's quite a few! A lot of those show up on the list as "nur für Mitarbeiter" and "nicht öffentlich"; is there a nice list anywhere of those few that are open to the public? I'd like to try one sometime while they're still operating.
Due to the no-doors nature of a Paternoster the "employee only" is usually weakly "enforced" by a sign inside the Paternoster that says so, in order to waive liability. So if you are willing to go slight grey-hat, a lot of the ones listed as "employee only" are still accessible for you.
Stuttgart's Rathaus has two. Uni Stuttgart had one that I know of, but last I heard it had been stopped.
I always make a point to go to the Rathaus and ride them when I visit.
The floors fold up where the lift's floor meets the building's floor to prevent crushing your foot. It also has a switch which immediately stops the paternoster and sounds an alarm. I had not realized that and stopped the system while showing it to my son.
I know how they work, it's just that they don't seem more dangerous than other things in my daily commute (walking on a subway platform next to many people, walking on a street filled with cars, etc). It seems almost impossible to get accidentally hurt by a paternoster, unless you try to.
I guess it's that people are walking since their first months after being born, so they are pretty good at it and even when you are older, unwell, intoxicated, etc., unless you are dancing on the edge of subway platform or right on the curb, you are generally pretty safe even in traffic. Compare that to jumping on and off platforms moving vertically, that's pretty new.
I had a go on this a long time ago, the building was empty on Saturday and they turned the elevator on just for us who were having a programming competition there. We rode in circles, went over the top and jokingly returned in handstands, jumped on and off on each floor...
And while they are generally pretty safe - each platform in upward shaft and in the cabin was on hinges, each top of the "door"frame and top of the cabin had a hanging piece of wood and if any of these things were moved, the elevator would stop, so your feet or other body parts won't be crushed if stuck between the cabin and the frame. But still, you can hurt yourself pretty badly (think broken bones or head injury) just from slipping or falling forward/backward if you try to step on or off too soon or too late.
Being twenty-somethings, we had a great fun on them, but if you think of people you see daily moving on escalators, in the mall, on the pavement, you can pretty easily see that an older person or a less coordinated person may have a problem with them.
Btw. For the brave out there, there is also an industrial "version" called belt manlift. Dying on them is pretty easy.
I did a work experience placement at a UK hospital about twenty five years ago, and they had an operational paternoster lift.
It took about two days of regularly riding the thing before I plucked up the courage to ride it all the way over the top.
Oh my I hadn't even thought about what happens at the top or bottom. Was it completely enclosed? Do you end up going behind the lifts that are facing the opening or is there a divider?
What if the power shuts off at the peak? Or worse, at the bottom in the less trafficked basement level? So many questions.
It's like a conveyor belt - one side goes up, the other side goes down. Going over the ends means you reverse direction and continue on the other side.
You get to see a sign that this is not dangerous, then the wheels driving the machine, and the cabin may shake a little bit. However, it does not flip over, and a few seconds later, you'll be on the way down and able to get off at whatever floor you like.
> What if the power shuts off at the peak? Or worse, at the bottom in the less trafficked basement level?
Then you're stuck in there just like you'd be stuck in most other elevators (or slightly less, since you might be able to get into the engine room if you don't mind the fact that it could restart at any time).
For questions of this type, YouTube can be good. Here is a random video I found by typing "paternoster over the top" (it's one of the suggestions once you type "paternoster") into the search box: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoCQ6tq5wJE
The article mentions that it's a problem to ride the elevator past the top or bottom floor, but it is unclear why. I don't see why this should be an issue.
The cabin becomes upside down as it loops around at the top or bottom, i.e, if some one fails to get out at the top floor, they will be tossed around as the the lift loops around to the bottom floor, so I guess.
Even in the care-free days of the early 20th century I don't think a device that would casually throw you around like that would be open to the public!
When working in Deutsche Bank in the '90s I frequently used one of these in the building and had the same question (but no Wikipedia). We put a piece of tape on the floor of a car that was going up and saw it on the floor when that car was going down. (Note this was necessary because the cabins were completely carpeted and there was no discernable wear).
There were also no signs stating that you shouldn't ride over the top ... so we did and probably would have even if they flipped.
I remember reading that as a practical joke, people would ride over the top, then stand on their heads before the cabin came back down to the top floor, so bystanders would think it had turned over.
The one I know has several signs on the exposed inside walls above the topmost floor all assuring you that you will not be turned upside down, or folded, or run through a meat grinder.
Based on the adage that every (non-)warning sign is there for a reason, I can only assume that there have been incidents of people panicking after they realized they had gone to far.
Just to be clear: it’s absolutely safe to go around. Any other stories you may hear are the inside joke of those five beaurocrats on the top floor enjoying their tiny fiefdom of chaos.
Edit: could people downvoting this please give a reason? I’m really not complaining, just terribly curious what could possibly stroke people the wrong way in this benign post. Or is this the Paternoster conspiracy coordinating to keep their secret?
Just to be clear: it’s absolutely safe to go around.
There is a variation which isn't - the "man lift".[1] Those are dangerous, and sometimes seen in parking garages for staff only.
Those really do turn upside down at the top. They're usually equipped with a switch to shut them down if someone rides past the top landing.
Apparently troublemakers like to wait until their friends are in the space past the last floor and trip the safety switch, leaving them trapped in darkness. Also, some of the more temperamental installations may not like the extra weight shifting around.
I once accidentally took a tour over the top floor. I read warning signs on the wall that told me to keep all limbs and especially hands in the cabin. Then it became rather dark since there was no light bulb in the cabin. After a short while, when my eyes got adjusted to the darkness and a bit further up I could see why the warnings were there: I could see the whole mechanism that drags the chain of cabins around. Big cogwheels only centimeters away from the door. I kept my distance from the door opening and I arrived at the top floor again where I got off.
Thanks to the warning signs I wasn't really afraid. They made me realize that this sort of thing likely happens quite regularly.
Riding over the top allows a form of queue jumping. If you are near the top and there is a queue to go down, take the ride up and over the top. You'll already be in the car when it gets back to the same level to service the down-queue.
I used to do this in the Paternoster in the Roger Stevens building at the Uni Of Leeds in the 1980s.
Imagine you’re in a building with 22 floors, and your event with a few hundred people just ended on the 18th floor. The elevator has three bays with cars that only carry about 20 people at a time.
While you’re in the crowd waiting to go down, you hear elevator cars race to the top of the building, then when they come back down, the doors open and you’re met by a car that is already packed with people. A lot of the passengers are avoiding making eye contact, and wait a second, some of them look like people you just saw leaving by the stairs in the fire escape!
Apparently, the elevator algorithm is trying to be efficient by starting at the highest floor with a request. Do you wait where you are, take the fire escape up one floor, two floors, or just walk down 18 floors moderately disgusted with the situation?
You probably don't even need to take the stairs. Just press the up button and get on the next up elevator while everyone else waits for down. Then wait for it to reverse direction and ride it down.
You are right, but in practice you have to deal with the repercussions of inspiring leaders among the waiting crowd to police your actions. Going down to the 17th or 16th floor and catching the “up” elevator might not get as many glares.
Where I’ve seen this happen is after speaking events in the university clubs near Grand Central Station in New York. The complete dynamics of the situation probably involve a minor risk to social reputation, and some people playfully trying out game theory to amuse their friends.
I rode one the other weekend in Prague with my girlfriend, and we agreed to ride it over the top together. Despite doing the same thing 20 years ago when last there, it’s pretty scary - on the last floor there is a big sign saying ‘get out now!!!’ in big red letters, and it is much noiser and shaky as you are close to all the machinery. We held on, proper dose of adrenaline, as the cabin is plunched into rattling darnkess, and the clanking gets even louder. You then get a bit of light and see the big exposed cog wheel and other machinery, move sideways and eventually down. It’s a major relief when you arrive at the top floor again. Great fun!
Since it's non-stop, wouldn't this take more power than modern elevators? Why to keep running large number of them despite other concerns including safety? One or two kept in a heritage museum is understandable, but this large number is a bit hard to digest.
Do modern elevators use regenerative braking? If not, then I'd expect the paternoster to use less power, because it's not stopping and starting all the time.
> Why to keep running large number of them despite other concerns including safety?
Because people apparently like them and because replacing an elevator is an expensive affair.
It’s not clear that paternoster lifts are really more dangerous than standard elevators. The failures of safeties described can happen with standard elevators as well.
Yes but there are also accessibility concerns. These are public spaces, and at least in the US there are laws about public accessibility. How would someone on crutches, or in a wheelchair, or with a service dog, use such a thing? I assume that they aren’t the only option available in the building.
Accessibility isn’t always as guaranteed as people like to imagine. Lots of buildings have no accessibility today even in the US. Buildings with this sort of elevator are probably grandfathered out of accessibility requirements just like buildings without elevators.
They would use a separate elevator hidden a bit off to the side, and they wouldn't have to wait for it because most other people would be using the paternoster.
A paternoster can transport at least 12 people per minute (depending on the speed of course) per direction from any floor to any floor, more if their travel paths don't overlap or people ignore the "max two people per cab" sign.
If the safeties fail, sure. If the safeties on a traditional elevator fail, it can close the doors on you and then rip you in half. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
First of all, if you had a rare and awesome machine in your office that cannot be built anymore, wouldn't you be interested in preserving it just for the sake of it?
Second, throughput and latency. Every ~10 seconds, a cab for ~2 people arrives at each floor. That's a bit slower than if you press the button, the doors of a waiting elevator cab open, you get in, and it takes you to your direct destination. It's a lot faster than if you barely missed both elevators, and they stop at every second floor on the way up and down to let people in/out.
I work in a building with one. It takes 15.5 seconds between floors, wich is a bit slower than our elevators, but because there is no door, buttons and usually no queue it really is very quick.
In the course of the day it makes moving between adjacent floors for meetings completely effortless.
Unless you are disabled, moving between adjacent floors is pretty easy with stairs. And lots of types of disabilities that would prevent the use of stairs would seem to make these risky or impossible to ride. All in all, I'm pretty happy these never caught on.
The Danish parliament building, Christiansborg in Copenhagen, built just around one hundred years ago, has such a contraption for MPs and their entourage flitting between floors. The article's main photo could almost be it, and possibly is, though something about wood and marble looks slightly off.
I had the “pleasure” of using one in Germany. I had the worst sense of dread when I was getting into and out of them. But I think I just needed to get used to them I guess.
I think you mean "cars are periodically requested to stop", at least, I haven't seen any crosswalks around here with physical barriers that make the cars stop.
But unfortunately, that's not the only hazard pedestrians face from cars, not too long ago I saw a car jump the curb and run into a (fortunately) empty bus shelter. If anyone was waiting at that shelter, they'd have ended up under the car.
So yeah, I'd feel safer taking a paternoster every day than walking to work... at least then, my safety is in my own hands.
We had a pair of Paternoster in my place of work (in addition to two pairs of elevators) until a year ago. They've since been replaced by a small pair of elevators, which work fine, but the paternoster just had more character. Power usage was given as the reason for replacing them.
Sounds similar in operation to a Shabbat Elevator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator) which visit every floor automatically, but still have traditional doors and don't run on a looped circuit.
The debate over whether such devices violate religious rules is pretty interesting. I have to imagine if there's an omnipotent deity looking upon on his followers from on high, he'd be thinking something like: Very clever, humans, but you know exactly why I made the rule, and it wasn't so you could win on a slight technicality by not pushing any buttons.
Talmud scholarship in general is an important part of some Jewish people's culture. They have a rich history of debating rules/their interpretations and applying them to hypothetical or actual life situations. It's a great way to practice critical thinking skills.
A Shabbat oven could square with the spirit of the law if you do all your prep the day before and put it in a timed oven to enjoy later. Pretty similar in principle to people in an agrarian society harvesting before their day of rest so they can enjoy a meal together without laboring.
Islamic finance is a similar work-around, since charging interest (riba/usury) is against some interpretations of Sharia law. Banks structure special products that don't make guaranteed interest payments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance#Su...
I actually quite like the idea of setting aside some time for family and community without work, modern machinery or electronics.
This all makes sense, but having to create a special oven to work around your strict interpretation of this rule just seems silly. Just work within the spirit of the rule, and turn the oven on for when you want to cook your pre prepared meal.
Not to mention Shabbat lamps, which have an opaque shade you can put over them so you won't notice the light while it technically stays on. I also think any reasonable deity would be pretty miffed at this avoidance of the rules, but then again I suppose the Jews would know their god better than me.
(In a somewhat more reasonable/funny bending of the rules; Jews are apparently also forbidden to "tear cloth" on the Shabbat, since that counted as work back in the day for tailors etc. However, after some discussions in the rabbinate there is now "Shabbat toilet paper", which does not come on a roll but as loose leaves of paper so you don't have to do any tearing on the day itself.)
My understanding (as a secular Jew, so I could be wrong) is that the attitude is that if God hadn't meant for there to be loopholes like this, He wouldn't have written the rules this way in the first place. In a way, trying to obey the spirit rather than the letter of the law is implying imperfection on the part of the author of the laws.
That actually makes a lot of sense, (provided you believe He exists and is infallible in the first place)
After more reading, there is apparently a sect that (while otherwise quite orthodox) considers electricity from photovoltaic power not to violate the commandment of "not making fire" and so provided they have PV panels or batteries they can use electricity freely on Shabbat. Still not for working of course, but a light would be OK.
the name says it all, but the actual way they devised to workaround the issue is IMHO extremely clever:
"Our technology revolves around several layers of Halachic uncertainty, randomness, and delays, such that Halachically, a user’s action is not considered to have caused a given reaction."
It's important to note that not every member of a religious group interprets rules or follows them in the same manner. There are strict Orthodox Jewish sects that hew closely to these laws, and I've known many people from a Reform Jewish background who don't even keep Kosher. You see the same thing in Christianity with branches having varying degrees of liberal/strict rules. Individuals within those groups are even more varied still--for example many Catholics visit the Church only for Christmas/Easter and use birth control.
At least one rabbi ruled that taking an elevator _down_ is operating a machine (since your body mass is contributing to the downward motion), and hence forbidden on the Sabbath.
How easily these can be used by people with disabilities? Someone in a wheelchair or on crutches who can't move fast enough would be frustrated or, at worst, seriously injured by one of these.
I believe this is the reason why, at least in Germany, no new paternosters are allowed to be constructed, and existing paternosters are usually converted to conventional elevators during renovations.
Why is that relevant? Of course they cannot safely be used by such people - they'll just have to use something else - like stairs or regular elevators.
"Like stairs." Did you take the time to put any thought into that?
Also, jamming multiple elevator shafts into a building is usually non-trivial. If you have to choose between a paternoster and a regular elevator you will always pick a regular elevator because it helps people with movement disabilities (among other reasons).
Typically buildings with paternosters will also have elevators too, the paternoster just decreases the total amount of floor area that has to be used ferrying people up and down. In the one I saw, the elevator was literally on the wall opposite the paternoster. Disabled people aren't the only ones who can't use paternosters; they're also unsuitable for moving bulky or heavy items between floors.
It's not a paternoster, but I actually wonder how common is this in the world - almost every lift in every apartment block in Poland I've ever visited only had outside doors but no door inside(so you could see the floors moving past and yes, had to be very careful not to lean on that side). Have other, non ex-soviet countries ever used such design?
These are actually common for apartments in Europe (well, Switzerland at least). Even UW (in Seattle) has one of these old elevators in the library when I was an undergraduate (staff used them, at least).
For what it is worth these are pretty common in Finnish apartment buildings too. The building I live in, and the second flat I own for renting out are both like this.
Some years ago I stayed at a hotel in Copenhagen that had an elevator like that. Though there was a interior sliding screen door that had to be closed manually before it would move.
Apparently they're outlawed in the EU since 1999 for new installations, but there are of course many elevators from before then. This article https://press.agoria.be/liften-zonder-kooideuren-krijgen-waa... with another nice warning sticker mentions 25,000 in Belgium alone.
There is one in the building where I used to work in Norway. But it has been fitted with a light curtain so that it won't move if there is anything close to the door. It's perfectly safe now.
Most countries count from zero, in my experience. The exceptions are countries that have British heritage.
Living in such a country now, it still somewhat annoys me when people talk about the "second floor" as being the one you reach after going up one level.
Three of these were scheduled to be replaced several years ago at my university - the administration however pulled the "voluntarily call the historical conservationists" trick and they are still operational.
The MULTI seems potentially awesome; even when used as a pure vertical lift, it looks like it could be used to make something that had multiple cars with passing, allowing a safe stops-and-doors system with the density of a paternoster but reduced opportunity for and severity of traffic jams, which is kind of the best of all worlds.
This what not what I expected - I spent a summer as a student working in a space with a manual cargo lift with no buttons, instead there was a hole in the wall with a chain. To go up you pull down on the chain, when you reached your floor you grab the (stationary, but the lift is moving) chain, which pulls it up and it stops, pull it up a bit further and it goes down - you have to guess the stop height to pull the chaiun at just the right spot
I watched 'Metropolis'(1927) the other day[1]; The rich main character lived in a building with these; I was not aware it was an actual thing, rather than just "The most future looking elevator that the effects team could cobble together" - The movie really did have some other amazing effects, so it was reasonable, I guess, to assume that this, too was a trick.
[1]I joked that it was more a dark warning of the dangers of bad civil engineering than the social commentary it's generally thought to be.
115 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 173 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9284672
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058885
They can theoretically squish you between the floor of a rising cabin and the ceiling, and between the ceiling of a cabin going down and the floor. To prevent this, you could place a movable board coupled to a sensor at ceiling of the cabin and the ceilings of the entry "doors". If the cabin starts squishing someone while going down, the board gets pushed upwards, and triggers an e-stop. If it starts squishing someone going upwards, again, the outer board at that floor gets pushed, and again, triggers the e-stop. (The board would have to be able to move more than the elevator needs to stop, obviously).
At that point, the remaining risk seems to be similar to regular elevators that don't have inner doors.
(Existing installations seem to have solved this passively with breakaway panels and gaps, which is probably good enough, but would make it possible to jump from the cabin into the shaft while it is between floors.)
There is a list in the German Wikipedia[0].
[0]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Paternosteraufzügen
I always make a point to go to the Rathaus and ride them when I visit.
The floors fold up where the lift's floor meets the building's floor to prevent crushing your foot. It also has a switch which immediately stops the paternoster and sounds an alarm. I had not realized that and stopped the system while showing it to my son.
My mother’s workplace had one when I was about seven, and I was terrified even to think about it.
I had a go on this a long time ago, the building was empty on Saturday and they turned the elevator on just for us who were having a programming competition there. We rode in circles, went over the top and jokingly returned in handstands, jumped on and off on each floor... And while they are generally pretty safe - each platform in upward shaft and in the cabin was on hinges, each top of the "door"frame and top of the cabin had a hanging piece of wood and if any of these things were moved, the elevator would stop, so your feet or other body parts won't be crushed if stuck between the cabin and the frame. But still, you can hurt yourself pretty badly (think broken bones or head injury) just from slipping or falling forward/backward if you try to step on or off too soon or too late.
Being twenty-somethings, we had a great fun on them, but if you think of people you see daily moving on escalators, in the mall, on the pavement, you can pretty easily see that an older person or a less coordinated person may have a problem with them.
Btw. For the brave out there, there is also an industrial "version" called belt manlift. Dying on them is pretty easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kPOxeV2lzs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUdL_st3FFw
What if the power shuts off at the peak? Or worse, at the bottom in the less trafficked basement level? So many questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paternoster_animated.gif
> What if the power shuts off at the peak? Or worse, at the bottom in the less trafficked basement level?
Then you're stuck in there just like you'd be stuck in most other elevators (or slightly less, since you might be able to get into the engine room if you don't mind the fact that it could restart at any time).
Even in the care-free days of the early 20th century I don't think a device that would casually throw you around like that would be open to the public!
There were also no signs stating that you shouldn't ride over the top ... so we did and probably would have even if they flipped.
Based on the adage that every (non-)warning sign is there for a reason, I can only assume that there have been incidents of people panicking after they realized they had gone to far.
Just to be clear: it’s absolutely safe to go around. Any other stories you may hear are the inside joke of those five beaurocrats on the top floor enjoying their tiny fiefdom of chaos.
Edit: could people downvoting this please give a reason? I’m really not complaining, just terribly curious what could possibly stroke people the wrong way in this benign post. Or is this the Paternoster conspiracy coordinating to keep their secret?
There is a variation which isn't - the "man lift".[1] Those are dangerous, and sometimes seen in parking garages for staff only. Those really do turn upside down at the top. They're usually equipped with a switch to shut them down if someone rides past the top landing.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KzEAs3Yclg
But if you jostle the car while it's going around the top or bottom, there's a risk of jamming the mechanism.
Thanks to the warning signs I wasn't really afraid. They made me realize that this sort of thing likely happens quite regularly.
I used to do this in the Paternoster in the Roger Stevens building at the Uni Of Leeds in the 1980s.
Imagine you’re in a building with 22 floors, and your event with a few hundred people just ended on the 18th floor. The elevator has three bays with cars that only carry about 20 people at a time.
While you’re in the crowd waiting to go down, you hear elevator cars race to the top of the building, then when they come back down, the doors open and you’re met by a car that is already packed with people. A lot of the passengers are avoiding making eye contact, and wait a second, some of them look like people you just saw leaving by the stairs in the fire escape!
Apparently, the elevator algorithm is trying to be efficient by starting at the highest floor with a request. Do you wait where you are, take the fire escape up one floor, two floors, or just walk down 18 floors moderately disgusted with the situation?
Where I’ve seen this happen is after speaking events in the university clubs near Grand Central Station in New York. The complete dynamics of the situation probably involve a minor risk to social reputation, and some people playfully trying out game theory to amuse their friends.
Thus the continuous force to overcome is just friction.
Because people apparently like them and because replacing an elevator is an expensive affair.
It’s not clear that paternoster lifts are really more dangerous than standard elevators. The failures of safeties described can happen with standard elevators as well.
A paternoster can transport at least 12 people per minute (depending on the speed of course) per direction from any floor to any floor, more if their travel paths don't overlap or people ignore the "max two people per cab" sign.
Second, throughput and latency. Every ~10 seconds, a cab for ~2 people arrives at each floor. That's a bit slower than if you press the button, the doors of a waiting elevator cab open, you get in, and it takes you to your direct destination. It's a lot faster than if you barely missed both elevators, and they stop at every second floor on the way up and down to let people in/out.
I wish we had one of these in our office.
In the course of the day it makes moving between adjacent floors for meetings completely effortless.
Sure, if you love stairs by all means take them. But no, it's just not convenient on the same level.
But unfortunately, that's not the only hazard pedestrians face from cars, not too long ago I saw a car jump the curb and run into a (fortunately) empty bus shelter. If anyone was waiting at that shelter, they'd have ended up under the car.
So yeah, I'd feel safer taking a paternoster every day than walking to work... at least then, my safety is in my own hands.
What a pointless and nonsense distinction to make. I was made to eat my vegetables as a child. They weren't physically forced down my throat.
The debate over whether such devices violate religious rules is pretty interesting. I have to imagine if there's an omnipotent deity looking upon on his followers from on high, he'd be thinking something like: Very clever, humans, but you know exactly why I made the rule, and it wasn't so you could win on a slight technicality by not pushing any buttons.
There are also Shabbat ovens. Turn on/off automatically, so you are not operating the machine!
A Shabbat oven could square with the spirit of the law if you do all your prep the day before and put it in a timed oven to enjoy later. Pretty similar in principle to people in an agrarian society harvesting before their day of rest so they can enjoy a meal together without laboring.
Islamic finance is a similar work-around, since charging interest (riba/usury) is against some interpretations of Sharia law. Banks structure special products that don't make guaranteed interest payments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance#Su...
I actually quite like the idea of setting aside some time for family and community without work, modern machinery or electronics.
(In a somewhat more reasonable/funny bending of the rules; Jews are apparently also forbidden to "tear cloth" on the Shabbat, since that counted as work back in the day for tailors etc. However, after some discussions in the rabbinate there is now "Shabbat toilet paper", which does not come on a roll but as loose leaves of paper so you don't have to do any tearing on the day itself.)
After more reading, there is apparently a sect that (while otherwise quite orthodox) considers electricity from photovoltaic power not to violate the commandment of "not making fire" and so provided they have PV panels or batteries they can use electricity freely on Shabbat. Still not for working of course, but a light would be OK.
http://www.kosherswitch.com/live/tech/how
the name says it all, but the actual way they devised to workaround the issue is IMHO extremely clever:
"Our technology revolves around several layers of Halachic uncertainty, randomness, and delays, such that Halachically, a user’s action is not considered to have caused a given reaction."
Do they? I can't imagine why an omnipotent deity would give a shit about whether or not people use electricity. What is the reason given?
It's important to note that not every member of a religious group interprets rules or follows them in the same manner. There are strict Orthodox Jewish sects that hew closely to these laws, and I've known many people from a Reform Jewish background who don't even keep Kosher. You see the same thing in Christianity with branches having varying degrees of liberal/strict rules. Individuals within those groups are even more varied still--for example many Catholics visit the Church only for Christmas/Easter and use birth control.
Also, jamming multiple elevator shafts into a building is usually non-trivial. If you have to choose between a paternoster and a regular elevator you will always pick a regular elevator because it helps people with movement disabilities (among other reasons).
They look like this from the inside:
https://youtu.be/I4hg_jGzO3U
There's a rather infamous warning sign associated with those:
http://i.imgur.com/2AphUVF.jpg
It even inspired a game:
https://www.linusakesson.net/games/klamrisk/index.php
I also think they're faster because less time is spent waiting for doors opening/closing.
Living in such a country now, it still somewhat annoys me when people talk about the "second floor" as being the one you reach after going up one level.
[1]I joked that it was more a dark warning of the dangers of bad civil engineering than the social commentary it's generally thought to be.