Dear Mr. Armstrong,
It was recently brought to my attention that you received a letter from Mr. Norman Baker requesting that a device known as the CIP (Cook Inertial Propulsion) engine be investigated as to its validity. I subsequently received a phone call from Dr. Richard Abrams of the Hughes Malibu Research Labs, asking me to expound the HAC-funded study of this system which I had performed in 1990.
Dr. Abrams reached the same conclusion that my study did, namely that the system can not possibly work, since it violates Newton’s laws of motion. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this argument. The flaw lies in the fact that if the device does indeed work, it would inherently violate Newton’s laws as they are written, and it is therefore meaningless to use these laws as “proof” that the CIP principle is invalid. An analogy would be telling Christopher Columbus, “You can’t possibly sail around the world because the world is flat!” To be sure, the CIP principle, if genuine, would revolutionize transportation and energy usage in the true sense of the word. But why bother challenging a law that has been adhered to for over 300 years?
For one thing, certain well-documented phenomena are known to transcend Newtonian theory. Relativistic physics is a well-known example of this, as is the behavior of subatomic particles. But how does this relate to non-relativistic, macroscopic systems such as the CIP engine? In fact, there is strong evidence to suggest that under certain circumstances, particularly in the case of rotating systems, Newton’s laws appear to be violated. For example, a physicist by the name of Dr. Bruce DePalma has found that a spinning steel ball, when propelled upward by a spring, rises faster and falls slower than the same steel ball when not rotating. Nothing in Newtonian theory can account for this phenomenon. Could it be that the CIP engine is tapping into this yet undocumented realm of physics? Nothing hinders the advancement of technology more than the tendency to cling to accepted laws. As any scientist knows, a hypothesis must be properly tested to prove or disprove its validity.
Mind you, I am not contending that the CIP engine does work, but merely that it has not been properly investigated. The system’s inventor, Robert Cook, has had lengthy discussions with several physicists who now believe the CIP principle to be valid. Apparently, their insight into the non-Newtonian realm has enabled them to view the CIP from a different perspective than Dr. Abrams and myself. In light of this, I would recommend having a representative from Hughes who is well-schooled in the arena of theoretical physics meet with Mr. Cook to discuss the theory behind the device. The cost would be minimal, and the potential rewards immeasurable.
Thank you for your concern.
David W. Stephens
Staff Engineer, Dynamics Activity
Environmental Sciences Business Unit
Hughes Space and Communications