Revised Land Based Oberth Maneuver Vehicle:
Original Land Based Oberth Maneuver Vehicle:
--------------------
I've completed a basic comparative analysis of the 2 options and found that in essence they are equivalent in terms of efficiency, but the revised version is more practical since the passengers don't need to experience negative and positive G forces, there doesn't need to be 2 separate ramps to depth, and the same ramp can be used to accelerate the vehicle in any direction.
--------------------
References:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/land-based-oberth-manuever.974146/
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.5126818
Thoughts on Building a Wormhole with ESK8 Components?
A Gravity-Electric Hybrid & Thoughts on a "Land Based Oberth Maneuver?"
Land Based Oberth Maneuver
Land Based Oberth Maneuver (gravitational potential energy powered vehicle)
------------------
Summary:
The maglev vehicle first accelerates horizontally in vacuum from gravity alone pulling a water tank down a gravitational well. The well curves 90 degrees to a horizontal section and when the falling tank reaches the horizontal section the vehicle applies a mechanical impulse to the tether sufficient to stop the tank, which transfers 100% of the mechanical impulse plus the kinetic energy of the tank to the vehicle via the tether. In some cases, depending on the masses of the vehicle and tank, at 70% kinetic to kinetic conversion efficiency via regen braking at the destination, more energy can be recovered from the vehicle than is used in the mechanical impulse, the balance of energy derived from the lowered gravitational potential energy of the water tank. Below certain depths, geothermal heat is sufficient to convert the water to steam, enabling power production via a turbine as the water rises back to the surface. In essence the system combines transportation, hydroelectric and geothermal power with potential improvements in efficiency and reduction in pollution over current systems by reducing the number of energy conversion steps and using renewable energy sources. A novel aspect of this "revised" land based maneuver vehicle is it isn't necessary for the vehicle to descend into a gravitational well, only the reaction mass, leading to reduced comparative infrastructure costs and increased passenger comfort.
----------------------
Calculations for both vehicles (vehicle and reaction mass go into ramp vs only reaction mass goes into ramp) and it seems both are equivalent (as suspected). In other words it isn't necessary for the vehicle to drop into a gravitational well to perform an Oberth Maneuver.... only the reaction mass needs to.
For example with:
A = Tank Mass kg = 1000kg
B = Vehicle Mass kg = 1000kg
D = Gravity m/s^2 = 9.8m/s^2
E = Height m = 1000m
For the original vehicle (both vehicle and reaction mass drop into well):
K = Comparison Vehicle Velocity at Surface = 242.48m/s
L = Comparison Vehicle Vehicle KE at Surface = 29400002 J
M = Comparison Vehicle Mechanical Impulse = 19600001 J
^notice KE is greater than impulse on account of tank's lowered gravitational potential energy
For the revised vehicle (only the reaction mass drops into well):
H = Vehicle Final Velocity After Impulse = F+G = 197.98989m/s
I = Mechanical Impulse = ((1/2)AF^2)+(((1/2)BG^2)) = 9800000 J
J = Vehicle Kinetic Energy After Impulse = (1/2)BH^2 = 19599998 J
N = Difference in Mechanical Impulse = M-I = 19600001 J -9800000 J = 9800001 J
P = Vehicle Kinetic Energy After Impulse + Difference in Mechanical Impulse Used on Ground = J+N = 19599998 + 9800000 = 29399998J
Q = P = Vehicle Kinetic Energy on Surface After Mechanical Impulse on Tether and After Mechanical Impulse on Ground, Same Total Impulse as M = 29399998 J
Comparison
L =~ Q
^When only the reaction mass goes into the well, it takes less of an impulse on the cable to stop the tank, resulting initially in lower velocity, but when the same total impulse is used (the remaining impulse used against the ground after the tank stops), then the final velocity and energy consumed is the same for the same vehicle and tank mass and ramp depth.
---------------------
In other words as long as the reaction mass drops into the well (whether the vehicle enters the well or not), and the same total impulse is used (entirely on the cable with the original vehicle or combination cable/ground with the revised vehicle), the final vehicle kinetic energy and velocity at the surface is the same.
The revised vehicle is more practical since the passengers don't need to experience negative and positive G forces, there doesn't need to be 2 separate ramps to depth, and the same ramp can be used to accelerate the vehicle in any direction.
Again, only the empty tank is lifted... the water is heated with geothermal in a sealed underground chamber (like a pressure cooker) where it is then run through a turbine and steam pipe to the surface, enabling power generation both as the water tank descends (powering the vehicle) and ascends (as geothermal steam).
Assuming 70% recovery of the vehicle's kinetic energy at the destination via regen braking and minimal transit losses via maglev in vacuum, more energy is potentially recoverable from the vehicle than was used for the mechanical impulse (on account of the lowered gravitational potential energy of the tank), and more energy still is recovered from the water turning to geothermal steam and running through a turbine on its way back to the surface.
In essence the concept both provides transportation at airplane-like speeds and generates electricity, theoretically reducing fuel costs to $0 and without necessarily causing pollution during normal use.
Original Land Based Oberth Maneuver Vehicle:
--------------------
I've completed a basic comparative analysis of the 2 options and found that in essence they are equivalent in terms of efficiency, but the revised version is more practical since the passengers don't need to experience negative and positive G forces, there doesn't need to be 2 separate ramps to depth, and the same ramp can be used to accelerate the vehicle in any direction.
--------------------
References:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/land-based-oberth-manuever.974146/
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.5126818
Thoughts on Building a Wormhole with ESK8 Components?
A Gravity-Electric Hybrid & Thoughts on a "Land Based Oberth Maneuver?"
Land Based Oberth Maneuver
Land Based Oberth Maneuver (gravitational potential energy powered vehicle)
------------------
Summary:
The maglev vehicle first accelerates horizontally in vacuum from gravity alone pulling a water tank down a gravitational well. The well curves 90 degrees to a horizontal section and when the falling tank reaches the horizontal section the vehicle applies a mechanical impulse to the tether sufficient to stop the tank, which transfers 100% of the mechanical impulse plus the kinetic energy of the tank to the vehicle via the tether. In some cases, depending on the masses of the vehicle and tank, at 70% kinetic to kinetic conversion efficiency via regen braking at the destination, more energy can be recovered from the vehicle than is used in the mechanical impulse, the balance of energy derived from the lowered gravitational potential energy of the water tank. Below certain depths, geothermal heat is sufficient to convert the water to steam, enabling power production via a turbine as the water rises back to the surface. In essence the system combines transportation, hydroelectric and geothermal power with potential improvements in efficiency and reduction in pollution over current systems by reducing the number of energy conversion steps and using renewable energy sources. A novel aspect of this "revised" land based maneuver vehicle is it isn't necessary for the vehicle to descend into a gravitational well, only the reaction mass, leading to reduced comparative infrastructure costs and increased passenger comfort.
----------------------
Calculations for both vehicles (vehicle and reaction mass go into ramp vs only reaction mass goes into ramp) and it seems both are equivalent (as suspected). In other words it isn't necessary for the vehicle to drop into a gravitational well to perform an Oberth Maneuver.... only the reaction mass needs to.
For example with:
A = Tank Mass kg = 1000kg
B = Vehicle Mass kg = 1000kg
D = Gravity m/s^2 = 9.8m/s^2
E = Height m = 1000m
For the original vehicle (both vehicle and reaction mass drop into well):
K = Comparison Vehicle Velocity at Surface = 242.48m/s
L = Comparison Vehicle Vehicle KE at Surface = 29400002 J
M = Comparison Vehicle Mechanical Impulse = 19600001 J
^notice KE is greater than impulse on account of tank's lowered gravitational potential energy
For the revised vehicle (only the reaction mass drops into well):
H = Vehicle Final Velocity After Impulse = F+G = 197.98989m/s
I = Mechanical Impulse = ((1/2)AF^2)+(((1/2)BG^2)) = 9800000 J
J = Vehicle Kinetic Energy After Impulse = (1/2)BH^2 = 19599998 J
N = Difference in Mechanical Impulse = M-I = 19600001 J -9800000 J = 9800001 J
P = Vehicle Kinetic Energy After Impulse + Difference in Mechanical Impulse Used on Ground = J+N = 19599998 + 9800000 = 29399998J
Q = P = Vehicle Kinetic Energy on Surface After Mechanical Impulse on Tether and After Mechanical Impulse on Ground, Same Total Impulse as M = 29399998 J
Comparison
L =~ Q
^When only the reaction mass goes into the well, it takes less of an impulse on the cable to stop the tank, resulting initially in lower velocity, but when the same total impulse is used (the remaining impulse used against the ground after the tank stops), then the final velocity and energy consumed is the same for the same vehicle and tank mass and ramp depth.
---------------------
In other words as long as the reaction mass drops into the well (whether the vehicle enters the well or not), and the same total impulse is used (entirely on the cable with the original vehicle or combination cable/ground with the revised vehicle), the final vehicle kinetic energy and velocity at the surface is the same.
The revised vehicle is more practical since the passengers don't need to experience negative and positive G forces, there doesn't need to be 2 separate ramps to depth, and the same ramp can be used to accelerate the vehicle in any direction.
Again, only the empty tank is lifted... the water is heated with geothermal in a sealed underground chamber (like a pressure cooker) where it is then run through a turbine and steam pipe to the surface, enabling power generation both as the water tank descends (powering the vehicle) and ascends (as geothermal steam).
Assuming 70% recovery of the vehicle's kinetic energy at the destination via regen braking and minimal transit losses via maglev in vacuum, more energy is potentially recoverable from the vehicle than was used for the mechanical impulse (on account of the lowered gravitational potential energy of the tank), and more energy still is recovered from the water turning to geothermal steam and running through a turbine on its way back to the surface.
In essence the concept both provides transportation at airplane-like speeds and generates electricity, theoretically reducing fuel costs to $0 and without necessarily causing pollution during normal use.
Last edited:
