Cook Inertial Propulsion?US Patent #4238968
Significance of CIP

Force Borne Web
Technical Info
Cook's Biography
Cook's Commentary

Latest Updates
News - 08/18/2007
Cook's Commentary - 09/20/2007
Midway Driller 2 - 08/02/2004
West Kern Today - 07/2004
Most Frequented

Cook's Commentary
CIP Principle
Contact Information

*The following article is from the 2000 Spring Issue of the West Coast Edition of the California Sun


By Erick C. Wyndham

On November 29th and 30th, 1999, while the meeting with the World Trade Organization (WTO), Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton was causing riots in Seattle, Washington, a few miles away at Boeing Air Field, Robert Cook, a self made spin dynamic and engineering genius (see millennium issue of the California Sun, November 99 & January 2000 issues of Infinite Energy), was demonstrating his Cook Inertial propulsion (CIP) System to [a test engineer at the "Phantom Works"] at Boeing's Stealth Division. Cook was unveiling a system which science in general believed was impossible to prove.


According to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. However, Cook's CIP System is a reactionless drive. What this means is there is no recoil, no opposite or equal reaction as his system thrusts forward. This violates the long standing laws of physics, specifically Newton's. Although this system is not new, (there are over 100 patents on reactionless drives- see Di Bella & Thornson's), Cook's system is the only one that has been proven to work well enough to interest engineers such as the ones at Boeing! His inertial propulsion engine converts angular momentum to a linear force, all without lost energy caused by backward thrust.


The CIP System, consists of two small rotors (which spin vertically) and are attached on opposite ends of a much bigger two bladed propeller-like-arm that spins horizontally.  At the demonstration for Boeing, the goal was to throw the spinning arm out of balance, by adding a five pound weight to the system and then at the end of 180° of arm travel, have the weight brought back to zero velocity and ejected from the arm. This was to take place while on the opposite side of the arm another five pound weight was attached to create a new cycle for 180° of arm travel.  Throwing the four foot diameter arm out of balance resulted in a three to five pound second impulse, which could propel the unit in deep space or anywhere on earth, sea or in the air. A complete, precision made, twelve to sixteen rotor model could generate over 20,000 pounds of force with very little horsepower. All powered by electricity with no emissions and little noise.

While the system tested at Boeing was picking up five pound weights and accelerating them to over 1,000 feet per minute and then ejecting the weights from the system, the Boeing load cell, which the system was attached to (see photos), registered zero reaction impulse, which is totally contrary to Newton's 3rd law! In spite of this proof of Newton's law deficiency some of Boeing's dynamicists (who were not present at, the model testing) were still insisting that Cook's principle could not work because of Newton's 3rd law. The engineers doing the testing sided with Cook and disagreed with the company dynamicists.


In a nut shell, reactionless drive engines, violate Newton's Laws of Motion.  Apparently, there are legends of so-called scientists not willing to embrace a technology that invalidates their existence. Reactionless engines cast doubt on the validity of the laws of thermodynamics, motion, conservation of momentum and action-reaction. Anything that leaks through the law of conservation of momentum automatically challenges the law of conservation of energy. Relativity is based solidly on the conservation of momentum, mass-energy and electric charge. Any true reactionless drive, throws two of the three into doubt.



To print, change the paper orientation in print settings from "Portrait" to "Landscape".