Cook Inertial Propulsion?US Patent #4238968

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

Note:  E-Mail addresses have been removed from the E-mails.  Spelling corrections have also been made.

Correspondence between Nick Cook and Robert Cook (July 2 - 14, 2002)

Subj: Boeing
Date: 02-07-02 17:26:24 EDT
From: Nick Cook
To: Robert Cook

Dear Mr Cook,

We may or may not be related, but I know we have an abiding interest in the
same subject area! I am the aerospace consultant to Jane's Defence Weekly
and am about to publish an article in that magazine on propellantless
propulsion. I would be particularly interested to profile the work you
undertook in 1999 (and maybe since) with the Boeing Phantom Works and
wondered if you could email me back with any relevant observations on
successes/failures and where your work has led since then. I am particularly
looking for illustrations for the article - and wondered if you might be
able to help there, too.

My number, should you need it, is xxx xx xxxx xxxx. I look forward to
hearing from you.

Best wishes, Nick Cook
Aerospace Consultant, Jane's Defence Weekly

Subj: Re: Boeing
Date: 02-07-12 16:17:26 EDT
From: Bob Cook
To: Nick Cook

Dear Nick Cook,

This is in answer to your e-mail of 02-07-02 in which you ask about my dealings with Boeing's Phantom Works.

I went to Boeing in Seattle, Washington for my third visit in November, December 1999. My reactionless propulsion system which I call the CIP engine was tested while attached to a 3 axis load cell. The main object of this test was to _disprove_ the principle my system is based on. The idea is based on what can be considered an unidirectional, reactionless, internal force system which does not expel any propellant mass like conventional rockets do. Although the system has propellant masses, they are recycled and not expelled while the unit is working. This 1999 testing was conducted primarily to see if the 90 to 100 pound reaction forces (demanded by Newton's laws) could be detected by the load cell. Much to the surprise of Boeing's engineering team, there was no reaction force detected! This proved beyond doubt that a true reactionless drive had been demonstrated. The only problem that surfaced was that the net positive force that was to register in the +y direction registered in the -y direction and for this reason the test was declared a failure! Four days after this "failed test" was conducted, it was found that the load cell was hooked up backwards and this meant that the net force was really in the +y direction. Boeing provided some parts to convert this test model from a 2 rotor model into a 4 rotor model and wanted me to return early in the year 2000. Unfortunately, because I was suddenly overwhelmed with many personal problems, i.e. deaths in the family, the moving of my workshop, the moving to a different home and worst of all running low on money, it has taken me almost 3 years to start to recover. I am in the process of setting up a private corporation limited to 35 investors and this should allow me to finish the modifications of the model and return to Boeing for the final test.

In the meantime, I have conducted some very interesting tests of the 2 rotor model on what is known as a "Cavendish Torsion Pendulum". This test was suggested by a scientist who lives in the Washington D.C. area. He felt that the system would fail this test, but IT DIDN'T! 6 impulses caused the unit to move in a very visual way. The scientist predicted that if the model worked, a micrometer would have to be used to measure the few thousandths of an inch that the unit would move on the torsion pendulum.

Many Tests Prove it Works

The system has been tested by the following methods:

1. On wheels.
2. On a platform floating on water.
3. On ice runners.
4. On air bearings.
5. Accelerometer testing.
6. Strain gauges.
7. Load cell.
8. Computer modeling.

All these tests have been successfully conducted by professionals working for such companies as Boeing, Hughes, Jet Propulsion Lab, United Airlines engineering, jet engine division of Rolls Royce, and General Electric to name a few. But because this idea is about 300 years ahead of its time, it has been rejected by people who know nothing about it or who hate the idea because they didn't invent it and because they are in positions of authority they have been able to prevent the acceptance of this idea by their respective companies. It has only hurt mankind which needs this type of invention to make the world a cleaner and better place to live. The outer space application of this idea could bring benefits beyond our wildest dreams. I hope that Boeing will soon fully accept my plan and go ahead and develop it. They are the only company working with me.

I recommend you order my book "The Death of Rocketry" for more about me and this work.

Robert Cook

Subj: Re: Boeing
Date: 02-07-14 06:41:17 EDT
From: Nick Cook
To: Robert Cook

Dear Robert,

Many thanks for your email. I had already been in touch with Gene Mallove
about your work, which interests me a great deal. I have included a short
report on the Boeing tests for my magazine, Jane's Defence Weekly, based on
what I read in Infinite Energy magazine. I have been following the
propellantless propulsion business for many years and have written
extensively on it. One day, I would very much like to come and talk to you
about your work.  I have your book and am about to settle down and read it. I
will send you mine - The Hunt for Zero Point - which is about to be
published (Aug 13) in America. It sets out the 'anti-gravity' story as I see

Many thanks again. I'll be in touch again shortly. And I'll send you a copy
of the article when it appears. Best wishes, Nick Cook


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