Cook Inertial Propulsion?US Patent #4238968
FBPI Press Release 1

Force Borne Web
News
Technical Info
Endorsements
Multimedia
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

Multimedia
Cook's Commentary
CIP Principle
Contact Information

Read the 4 questions posed by Daimler Benz and the answers Bob Cook gave them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CIP Engine Test Impresses Engineers at Boeing Aircraft

By: Robert Cook

July, 1999 -- 

A series of "strain gauge" tests performed by engineers at a Boeing Aircraft facility in Seattle, Washington have created a lot of interest in Robert Cook’s CIP propulsion system. One more series of tests, called "pendulum tests", will be required before this very unique propulsion system is given full endorsement by the engineers. This test will require the model to be suspended on 48 foot long ropes and the idea is to see if the unit will move off-center when it is turned on. There is very little doubt, in the minds of those that have witnessed the previous tests, that the CIP unit will not be successfully proven by this different approach to testing it. This will probably happen in August or September of 1999.

Cook wants to do some pendulum testing locally, on his modified model, before returning to the Boeing plant at Seattle. He hopes to be able to use one of the abandoned tall buildings at Vandenberg Air Force Base because: the taller the ceiling of the building, the better the results of what could be a history making test. No reactionless propulsion system has ever passed such a test.

The Boeing company is the second notable company to see successful results from tests conducted on Cook’s invention. In 1971 United Airlines engineering department, in San Francisco, tested an early model of Cook’s invention for several weeks and in a "dynamics analysis" report prepared by David Doll, he stated:

"On 9/10/71 Robert Cook brought to UAL a device designed to convert centrifugal force into a linear thrust. In spite of being declared in violation of the laws of motion by the US Patent Office, Cook’s crudely-built rig moved spasmodically across the floor."

The 28 page report went on to show mathematically why the system worked and how it could be improved. In 1972 an "accelerometer test" at United Airlines test facilities (which took several weeks to perform) gave further proof that the so called impossible unidirectional force system worked! How it worked was very plainly explained in paragraph 3, page 2 of their earlier report D-71-77 dated 9/10/71 where it states:

 

"3. During this portion of the cycle the system acts as a mechanical analogue of a rocket. The propellant mass is accelerated in the aft direction by the spring force and the resultant reaction produces a forward thrust upon the cart. In addition to this reaction force there is Coriolis force which is the inertial effect occurring when a mass is constrained to move in a straight line across a rotating body. The total thrust in segment 1-2 is

where K is the spring constant, and etc., etc."

 

One of the other interesting things mentioned in that report was a suggestion on how to improve the performance of the system. "A significant improvement can be achieved by using viscous damping to arrest the propellant mass. Not only can the large negative impulse be avoided, but by delaying the travel of the mass to the end of the track, the negative centrifugal force component can be reduced... Cook’s cycle could also be improved by the use of a constant force, rather than the variable spring force to accelerate the propellant mass. This would increase the thrust during the ejection stroke by allowing the use of greater force and improving the timing of the stroke."

After the accelerometer testing was completed, the engineers at United Airlines testing facility were satisfied that the CIP principle worked in spite of what Newton’s laws and the US Patent Office said. The Patent Office later changed its mind and issued Cook a patent in August of 1972 on the system tested by Jensen and Doll.

Eb Jensen and David Doll knew that the scientific community would not accept their reports and both were quoted as saying that they would stand by their work. When they were questioned about whether they believed the CIP principle had been proven to their satisfaction, they never backed down and always have stated that they believed that the results of the successful testing were true and correct– the CIP principle worked! Many years after their acceptance of the new propulsive principle, Jensen and Doll stood by their belief that Cook had done the impossible. David Doll went on to become the head of the UAL Jet Engine Maintenance Department.

In late 1990 a computer model of the CIP was set up and tested by engineers at Hughes Aircraft in the Los Angeles area. The first three runs of the computer model showed positive results but, unfortunately for Cook, the computer programmer refused to accept the positive results. He could not bring himself to believe that Newton’s laws had been broken so he proceeded to alter the program until he received the answer he wanted– zero net force. Scientists and engineers, who later saw how the program had been altered, were all agreed that this was not Cook’s principle but a make believe, magic torque machine which did not represent the real world. Pure sabotage! This test had originally shown not one, but two different internal, unidirectional forces!

In March of 1997 the same model that had been set up at Hughes (which at first showed positive results but later "readjusted" into a "fantasy" that didn’t work) was honestly tested at a computer simulation testing facility- Knowledge Revolution of San Mateo, California. The computer information needed to set up the model was provided by Richard Rose, a Designated Engineering Representative (DER) for the FAA with degrees in both aeronautical and civil engineering. His specialty is structural and stress engineering. Taking into consideration "the human factor", no clue was provided to the programmers as to what the system to be modeled in the computer was supposed to accomplish because if they knew what it was all about, they wouldn’t believe the positive results and might do what was wrongly done to the 1990 Hughes computer model test. Cook did not like to do this, but human nature had to be taken into account.

Dr. Paul E. Mitiguy conducted the true and honest computer testing at Knowledge Revolution and he found a very interesting impulse generated by the system. Although he didn’t know it, this was the impossible, unidirectional, internal, reactionless force deemed impossible by Newton’s laws! The very one first detected by the Hughes computer in 1990 but later altered by the Hughes programmer into a physical monstrosity that didn’t work. We certainly hope Dr. Mitiguy doesn’t get too upset when he finds out what Cook and Rose withheld from him. He did a terrific job.

So far seven top engineers from the Jet Propulsion Lab, Boeing Aircraft, Hughes Aircraft, General Electric, Rocketdyne, United Airlines test center and the FAA have seen and tested Cook’s working models. They have all endorsed the CIP principle as being sound and a practical propulsion system!

 

Friends Betray Cook

Robert Cook has worked on his propulsion system for over thirty-one years. Almost from the outset of this work, the only ones helping Cook in any way have been people with "common sense" or scientists and engineers who love new "truths". For the most part these people have been in bad financial situations and unable to provide Cook with the tremendous funds needed to develop such an incredible system but, they have given Cook much appreciated encouragement and moral support.

On the other hand people with money, who have joined Cook in his endeavors, have always become greedy along the way and have attempted to take away Cook’s patent rights. This has resulted in lawsuits that have taken years to resolve and forced Cook to spend a fortune on attorneys instead of using that money to develop the invention.

One recent case, that took place in Florida, involved a group of people that joined Cook in a "Trust" created to develop the system for marine applications. This group provided Cook and his family with a beautiful house and showered them with many expensive gifts. Cook grew to love and trust this group of "friends" and he sincerely wanted to repay their kind generosity many times over.

Everything went great for a year until the marine applications model Cook was building neared completion. By July of 1997 it became obvious to practically everyone, who saw the model at that stage of completion, that it was going to work and bring in "tons" of money for the "Trust". Certain people had seen the model work and were impressed enough to believe Bill Gates might want to come and see the work for himself for the purpose of investing some of his fortune in it.

On August 6, 1997 Robert Cook received this fax message originating from Stuttgart, Germany from Karl E. Noreikat, an engineer from the Daimler Benz automobile division. He wanted Cook to answer four questions regarding Cook’s invention.

 

The fax contained the following text:

 

 

 

 

,

 

as you may know from Mr. Hoffmann we have problems understanding the operating principle of the CIP-machine thoroughly. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to ask you some questions, concerning your invention.

A)

As you say, the CIP-engine derives from principles, which were not defined by Newton. Please tell us, which forces, momentums and reactions are not defined by Newton. How do you define them and how do you calculate with them. In your opinion, are the axioms of Newton (partly) wrong or just incomplete?

B)

How is it possible to neutralize the centrifugal force without causing any reactions in the opposite direction. We believe that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.

C)

How is the CIP-engine powered? Is the use of a combustion engine, an electric motor etc. necessary?

D)

How high is the efficiency of the CIP-engine? Which percentage of the input energy can actually be used for propulsion?

We would be delighted if you could answer our questions. Additionally some technical drawings and formula describing the function principle of the CIP-machine might be helpful.

Yours Sincerely,

 

Noreikat

 

 

Cook contacted Richard Rose who was in New Orleans, Louisiana at the time on FAA business at Lockheed Aircraft. He got advice from Rose on how to best answer the four questions asked by Mr. Noreikat and, on August 13, 1997, Cook phoned directly to the Daimler Benz engineering department at Stuttgart to talk to Mr. Noreikat. Mr. Noreikat wasn’t there so Cook spoke to another engineer, a Mr. Lange. Cook explained to Mr. Lange more about what was meant by the fax message Cook was about to send to Daimler Benz. What Cook explained to Lange (and what the fax message sent to Daimler said) caused pandemonium to break loose at the engineering department when this information was received. According to a witness, who was visiting the engineering department at the time, all "hell broke loose" when the fax was received. All he could basically hear was, "Koch... ja, ja! Newton... nein, nein!"

Cook’s fax contained the following text:

 

 

 

To: Daimler Benz
70546 Stuttgart
Attn.: Mr. Karl E. Noreikat
Department F1M/KB-G250

 

Answers to Questions A, B, C, D

 

A.

The inapplicability of forces and impulses to Newton is empirical in that the CIP models have propelled (on ice, in water, and uphill) in seeming defiance of Newton’s principles. These were toy-like models producing ounces of force. The new model will produce several thousand pounds of force.

B.

Much of the negative impulses that arise during a complete cycle are isolated from the CIP via the oscillator (a free swinging nucleus mass) whose natural over swing due to conservation of momentum can be controlled at 90° location so as to avoid an additional negative impulse. This has been demonstrated by five different models.

C.

External power is a battery or small gas engine used at "full power" for only a few seconds to accelerate the CIP to operating speed and then idled back to minimum power to overcome CIP internal friction.

D.

Percentage of efficiency increases with time. Small amounts of energy are continually input to overcome internal friction but the kinetic energy of the vehicle being accelerated continually increases =KE/E input.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Please consider sending a representative to talk to me in person. I would recommend someone with a doctorate degree in theoretical physics. It has been my experience that speaking on a "Ph.D." level requires at least three hours of discussion in person. Written discussions will not succeed in most cases. Thank you very much for your interest in my work. I sincerely hope we can do business together.

Most Respectfully,

 

Robert L. Cook

 

P.S.: The ancestral home of the "Koch" family from which I descend is Hanover, Germany.

 

 

 

On September 10, 1997 Cook received a fax message from a Daimler representative in Canada notifying Cook about a visit Daimler wanted to arrange with him at his Palm Beach, Florida home with German scientists representing Daimler Benz. Cook was delighted to hear the news and he called his associates in the "Trust" to share the good news. A few hours later the sheriff knocked on Cook’s door and handed him a court summons filed by the "Trust" associates. They were falsely charging Cook with breach of contract and suing him for $337,000! Later, an eviction notice to Cook was delivered by mail demanding that Cook and family vacate the premises in THREE DAYS! The lawsuit was later dropped by one of the two plaintiffs and later abandoned by the other after Cook brought in an outstanding attorney whose specialty was business fraud. The price Cook paid was; three years of work lost plus thousands of dollars in attorney and travel expenses... but the work continues on.


For More Information Contact:

Force Borne Web
PO Box 1433, Taft, CA, 93268
Tel: 661-763-9837
FAX: N/A
Internet:  forceborne@bak.rr.comCompanyEmail

 

 
Up

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