Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968
~ USP # 3683707

![](0logo.gif) **[rexresearch.com](../index.htm)**



---

  
**Robert L. COOK**

**Inertial Propulsion Engine**

---

---

**[Joel Dickinson & R. Cook: *The
Death of Rocketry*](TheDeathofRocketry2012.PDF)  
[Marjorie Riley: *Vallejo Independent
Press* (21 Feb 1987); "Meet Robert Cook, Resident
Inventor"](#vipress)**   
**[Robert. Cook: "The Conversion of
Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion"](#cook:conv)**   
**[David Doll, *et al.: United Air
Lines Test Center & Process Engineering Report*
D-71-77 (11-11-1971)](#uareport)**   
**[John Davidson: *Concord Transcript*
(CA): Thursday 2 December 1971; "Concord Man Invents New
Propulsion Plan"](#contranscr)**   
**[June Land: *Stockton Record*
79(#308); Tues., 12 Feb. 1974; Newton Challenged"](#stktnrec)**
  
**[Sue Shoemaker: *The Green Sheet*
59 (#29); Friday, 8 Feb. 1974; "Machine Challenges
Newtons Law of Motion"](#grensht)**   
**[Robert Cook: US Patent # 3,683,707;
"Propulsion System"](#3683)**   
**[R. Cook: US Patent # 4,238,968; "Device for
Conversion of Centrifugal Force to Linear Force and
Motion"](#4238)**

**Robert Cook's Website:<http://www.forceborne.com>**

---

**The Cook Inertial Propulsion Engine (December
1999) ~**

![](novdec99a.jpeg)

---

***Vallejo Independent Press* (Friday,
February 21, 1987)**

**"Meet Robert Cook: Resident Inventor"**
  
**by Marjorie Riley**

Robert Cook, 47, Vallejos "resident inventor",
started "tooling around with machinery" when he was a very
small boy.

Its easy to see why. His father, a civil and
mining engineer, moved the family "all over the place" as he
went from job to job in Texas, Nevada, and California, and in
the process taught his son just about everything he knew about
mathematics and machinery.

Not long ago this informally educated engineer
was granted a patent by the US Patent Office for his "Device
for Converting Centrifugal Force to Linear Force and Motion".
More recently, he was a guest speaker at the annual dinner
meeting of the National Association of Naval Technical
Supervisors, Mare Island Chapter. Following the formal
lecture, Cook talked "until midnight" with a dozen or so
nuclear physicists and scientists who were among the audience
about his invention and the book, "The Death of Rocketry"
which he recently co-authored with physicist Joel Dickinson.

Pretty impressive when you learn that after
graduating from Mt. Diablo High School, young Robert enrolled
in engineering school, but quit not long afterwards.

"I was bored", he said, smiling at the memory.
"They werent teaching me anything I hadnt already learned
from my dad. It seemed like a waste of time."

Eager to start working with machinery, young
Cook became an apprentice printing pressman instead, working
for the old Walnut Creek Kernel. Later he worked as first
pressman on the big 150-ton Goss Urbanite offset press in
Gazette Press, a Berkeley commercial printing press.

Cook is credited with eight separate inventions
relating to his printing press days. "It was a good
introduction to spin dynamics", he said, "a concept that has
fascinated me ever since."

Concerning Cooks recently published book, "The
Death of Rocketry", one Association member said, "One chapter
begins with an explanation of the principle behind Cooks
Inertial Propulsion engine and some thoughts on how our lives
will be changed when the device is perfected and in
production. Another chapter deals with the controversy that
Cooks device has stirred --- it creates an internal force for
propulsion and therefore refutes Sir Isaac Newtons laws of
motion, particularly the third one which holds that there is
an equal and opposite reaction. Cook has charged Newtons laws
are incorrect, thus challenging the entire foundation of
physics and mechanics, of his device does work."

A news release from The Communication Process in
San Francisco states: "The... [invention]... apparently
contradicts Newtons third law of motion, and he (Cook) has
met with severe criticism and disbelief from scientific and
academic establishments. Nevertheless he (Cook) has
successfully built numerous working models and is now in the
process of building a flying vehicle powered by the CIP unit."

Concerning the invention, Cook himself says:
"The rocket was abandoned as a serious means of propulsion
shortly after its invention by the Chinese in 1214 AD.
Although in recent years the rocket has been revived by the
industrialized nations of the world, the extremely low
efficiencies involved -- 2% or less -- make it a
less-than-satisfactory method of travel, especially for outer
space applications. Clearly, of mankind wishes to make
significant advance in the exploration of space, an
alternative and more efficient means of propulsion must be
developed.

"The Cook Inertial Propulsion (CIP) engine
provides the new technology needed for a major step forward in
space exploration. The CIP engine is not a new energy source,
but a tested and proven method of converting Coriolis and
centrifugal forces into linear thrust. The result is a
reactionless propulsive system powered by conventional energy
sources which is expected to yield efficiencies in the range
of 80-85% when fully perfected."

---

**"The Conversion of Centrifugal Force
Into Linear Force and Motion"**   
  
**by Robert Cook**

Years ago, Albert Einstein remarked:

"When first studying mechanics, one has the
impression that everything in this branch of science is
simple, fundamental and settled for all time. One would hardly
suspect the existence of an important clue which no one
noticed for 300 years. The neglected clue is connected with
one of the fundamental concepts of mechanics --- that of
Mass."

And now, with the discovery of the CIP engine
mechanical principle, which has been followed by the
successful demonstration of many CIP engine prototypes,
another neglected clue in the field of mechanics has been
found --- that of an internal, reactionless force which can be
produced by converting centrifugal force into a linear thrust.

Science in general has considered centrifugal
force a "pseudo force" incapable of affecting motion to any
great degree. "Bounded motion" is all centrifugal force was
considered capable of producing. I will show that a constant
linear force can be produced by centrifugal force when
properly controlled.

I will limit my comments on Newtonian Law to his
3rd law of motion regarding action and reaction because my
work deals with reactionless force systems deemed unworkable
by this 3rd law.

**Background of the Experiments ~**

In my early experiments starting February 1968,
I had originally started to search for a new energy source
based on a combination of forces, i.e., gravity, magnetism,
and centrifugal force. An error I made in design resulted in
the discovery of a new method of propulsion and ended
(temporarily) my search for a new energy source. The early
system utilized a Coriolis Effect to create the propulsive
effect, but it was highly inefficient (about 1%).

A report, "D-71-77" dated 11-11-71 prepared by
the engineering staff of United Airlines Test Center in San
Francisco, concluded that although highly inefficient, the
system nonetheless worked in spite of Newtons laws. A series
of accelerometer tests completed in late December 1972 by this
same group also proved the system was producing an internal
force, but also showed poor efficiency.

After numerous attempts to improve the
efficiency of that system which was granted US Patent #
3,683,707, I decided in late 1974 to look for another more
efficient method to create unidirectional force.

The series of tests concluded in a 6-month span
in 1974 had given me three clues on how to do this, and they
were:

1. The system would require counter-rotating
rotors.   
2. The system would require a series of flexible drive shafts
for the rotors.   
3. A positive control for the inertia of the propellant mass
would be needed.

The fourth and final clue would be sound in
November of that year. This last clue dealt with the splitting
and transferal of the propellant mass.

**How the CIP Works ~**

In order to understand the reasons for the
formerly mentioned series of mechanical actions, we must
analyze the effects of unbalanced spinning rotors on wheels in
effecting motion.

If we build an unbalanced rotor resembling a
one-bladed aircraft propeller (Fig. 1), and spin it in a
horizontal plane, it will tend to cause a gyrating force or a
force in all directions in that horizontal plane.

**Fig. 1: Unbalanced Rotor ~ \*\*\***

![](1fig1.gif)

In order to control gyration, we need
counter-rotation and synchronization, so if we take two
counter-rotating unbalanced rotors and spin them together
(Fig. 2), the gyration will become an oscillation or it could
be called an alternating force similar to AC current.

**Fig. 2: Two Unbalanced Rotors Produce
Alternating Force ~ \*\*\***

![](1fig2.gif)

If the unbalanced centrifugal force is plotted
on a graph, it will show a regular sine wave exactly as a
single phase alternating current.

If we are to propel with this force, we must
rectify it by causing a multiple spin.

The multiple spin is needed in order to effect
the "energy state" of the propellant mass. This amounts to an
orbit and a spin for the propellant mass.

The reason for this is best shown by analyzing a
2-bladed helicopter rotor.

If a helicopter is not moving through the air,
but is sitting on the ground with the rotor spinning at a high
speed, and the blade tips are moving at say 300 mph, this
velocity will remain the same relative to the environment all
around the circle of rotation. If we, some way, could cause
the rotor tips to fly off at the 9 oclock and 3 oclock
positions simultaneously, then the tips would leave in a
tangent or straight line to the front and back of the
helicopter and their speed would be 300 mph in two different
or opposite directions. Their momentum or energy state would
be identical --- the same amount of energy or resisting force
would be required to stop them individually. Their energy
state is the same.

If the helicopter is then flown forward at say
100 mph, something very interesting happens to the energy
state of these rotor tips when they reach the 9 and 3 oclock
positions. If we view the rotor from the top and see it
rotating clockwise, the following will become obvious when the
helicopter is moving at 100 mph.

1. The rotor (A) at the 9 oclock position will
be moving through the air at 400 mph while rotor B at the 3
oclock position will move at 200 ph through the air (Pilots
must consider the advance ratio of the copter blades or it
goes out of control.).

2. If we now release the rotor tips in these
same positions (3 and 9 oclock), tip A will leave (in a
tangent) at 400 mph, and tip B will leave at 200 mph. The
inertial state can be determined by the momentum equation,
Momentum = MV.

Its obvious that tip A with twice the velocity
will have 2 times more energy and be in a higher energy state
than tip B.

The point I am trying to make very clear is that
when the center of rotation of 2 spinning masses arranged in
this fashion is moved in a straight line (or in a circle like
the upper arm of the CIP unit does), the energy state of the
two masses will be affected; one mass will increase its energy
state, while the other one decreases.

The rotor on the demonstration model is set like
a helicopter rotor that spins in a vertical plane instead of
horizontal and also orbits. This is what allows one half of
the propellant mass to be transferred while in a low energy
state.

**The Oscillator & Nucleus ~**

Once the small rotor sheds one half of its mass,
the rotor goes temporarily out of balance and in order to
prevent negative force impulses from causing negative effects
on the overall system, the rotor is allowed to oscillate and
its oscillations are controlled by a built-in Nuclear Mass
which actually provides the centripetal force to make the
mass, still attached to the small rotor, spin in the ideal
fashion. A motion limiting slot as well as a flexible drive
shaft complete the unit. Although one rotor unit works well
enough to demonstrate the new principle, the ideal
configuration is a 12 rotor combination with units based at
120 degree intervals. This will produce a constant force and
would have the potential for vertical lift.

A 12 rotor system should be ready for testing by
December of 1981.

**Endorsements ~**

All scientists and engineers (except for2) have
endorsed the CIP principle after seeing the model.

Prof. Ching Fong (former chairman of the Physics
Dept, UC Davis, and Prof. Of Solid State Physics) has analyzed
the system and estimates the energy efficiency potential at
53% and a propulsion efficiency of 98%.

Prof. Durward Jackson of California State
University at Los Angeles declares the system "One of the 10
greatest inventions in history".   
Countless numbers of engineers have declared it the greatest
invention in history!

---

**United Air Lines Test Center &
Process Engineering Report**   
**By David Doll, et al.**

**Introduction ~**

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, Cooks crudely-built rig moved
spasmodically across the floor.

This report provides a dynamic analysis of
Cooks mechanism. The cycle demonstrated by Cooke, as well as
two other cycles which offer performance improvements, are
examined.

**Cooks Propulsion Cycle ~**

Cook set up his working model so that the
propellant mass followed the path shown in Figure 3. From
point 1 to point 2 the propellant mass is pinned against the
end of the tract by centrifugal force. The thrust seen in tis
segment is the component of centrifugal force in the direction
of the cart motion. This thrust is:

(1) \*\*\*

![](2form1.gif)
where mp is the propellant mass,   
*R* is one half the sliding distance of the track,   
*W* is the angular velocity of the rotor, and   
*T* is time.

Due to Cooks positioning of the spring, the
propellant mass spends more time behind the center of rotation
of the track than forward of the center. Thus, the net thrust
in segment 1-2 is negative.

When the propellant mass reached point 2, the
spring force overcomes the centrifugal force, and the mass
accelerates down the tract to point 3. During this portion of
the cycle the system acts as a mechanical analogue to a
rocket. The propellant mass is accelerated in the aft
direction b 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:

(2) \*\*\*

![](2form2a.gif)
Where *K* is the spring constant, and

(3)\*\*\*

![](2form3.gif)

*m*o is the mass of the cart.

At point 3 the propellant mass strikes the end
of the cart producing a negative impulsive force.

where delta *t* is the time required to
stop the propellant mass, and:

Fo = KR - mpRw2

During this segment of the cycle the propellant
is stopped at the expense of the forward momentum of the cart.

The resultant thrust on the cart for the entire
cycle is shown in Figure 3. [Not Available]

**A Modification of Cooks Cycle ~**

A significant improvement in performance can be
achieved by using viscous damping to arrest the propellant
mass [i.e.: "Sorbothane"]. 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.

Cooks cycle could also be improved by the use
of a constant force rather than the variable 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.

---

***Concord Transcript* (CA): Thursday 2
December 1971**

**"Concord Man Invents New Propulsion
Plan"**   
**by John Davidson**

Concord resident Bob Cook, 37, has invented a
new propulsion system which he says will cut air pollution and
power just about anything that moves.

His only problem is that, thanks to Newtons
third law, hes having a hard time finding believers.

"For every action, there is an opposite and
equal reaction", said Sir Isaac Newton almost 300 years ago.

According to Cook, who is a printing pressman by
trade, these few and "somewhat ambiguous" words are greatly
responsible for the delay in developing his new system.

Cook says his system is a completely new way of
moving cars, airplanes, etc., by converting centrifugal force
into a line of "linear force".

At this state, his principle is illustrated in a
small working model -- built with hand tools -- that resembles
some sort of surrealistic bicycle.

It consists of an aluminum frame, a motor, and
four small rotors or "carriers".

The rotors are hollow and they have weights
inside, which can slide back and forth. The motor operates a
cam which pulls in springs attached to the rotors.

When the invention is started, it powers the
frame forward in a series of jerks because of three actions
outlined by Cook:

The spinning of a rotor which sends the weight
to one end, which multiplies the force at that end;

As the weighted end of the rotor nears the high
point of its forward spin the attached string pulls it back.
This generates more resistance at the high point, which
results in more positive force there.

The negative centrifugal force created by the
weighted end of the rotor in its backward spin is nullified by
adding more rotors, which are timed so there is a minimum
negative force.

Sounds simple? Not really, says Cook, but it
could be put into use now if it werent for Newton.

"Some engineers have interpreted Newtons law to
say that such a mechanism will not work (because the backward
spin of the rotors presumably would offset the forward spin)",
Cook says. "Others say not so."

"Several small models have already been built to
test the principle involved and they work", the inventor adds.

"One model was demonstrated at the University of
Arizona but it wasnt endorsed because of Newtons law! The
model worked but thats besides the point.

Another model was recently demonstrated at the
engineering department of United Air Lines in San Francisco.
There an engineer was given the job of studying the idea. His
conclusion: "The system would work in outer space and might be
a good substitute for helicopter rotors", Cook says. "This
engineer felt that this system did not violate Newtons law."

Cook also demonstrated a model at NASAs Ames
Research Center at Mt. View, but says engineers there refused
to believe that the model was really propelling itself with
centrifugal force since they felt Newtons law was against it.

"Like all new and really outstanding systems,
this idea is being met with skepticism and this could delay
its development and eventual use for several years", Cook
notes.

Cook, a bachelor who has lived in Concord on and
off for almost 20 years, says he has taken time off from his
printing trade to work on his system and to try to promote it.

"Off and on for about the last two years Ive
been conducting experiments in Texas (at a relatives home)",
Cook says. He moved to Concord the latest time about six
months ago and has been continuing work at the home of
friends.

The inventor says he struck upon the idea for
his propulsion system accidentally.

"I was more or less working on a motor --- a
perpetual motion experiment, just out of curiosity even though
thats considered nutty. I made a mistake which put the motor
out of balance. Then I realized it was foing to propel itself.
It was at that time I became interested in this principle
(centrifugal force)."

After that accidental discovery, Cook says he
came to Oakland to see a patent attorney, and a patent search
was conducted to see if someone had a similar device.

He says he filed for a patent in April 1969, but
it was refused on the grounds it was contrary to the laws of
mechanics (Newtons third law).

After that, Cook refilled according to a change
he had made in the design (he found he had made a slight
mistake in the original). That was in October of last 
year, and that application is still pending.

Right now he says he is in the process of
contacting business and getting media coverage.

"Ild like to see inventor William Lear, whos
working with a steam turbine of cars", the local inventor
says. "Im looking of someone to help me develop my system."

The most important use of his device would be in
cars, Cook says, since it could be helpful in cutting smog.

"It can be used on just about anything that
moves", he says, noting that it could be powered even by solar
energy in space. "All you need is something to cause the
rotors to spin."

In an actual full-sized motor, he adds, there
would have to be an 18-rotor mechanism (the rotors would only
have to be 8 inches long each).

He centrifugal force propulsion system is not
Cooks invention -- he says its his eighth. "Practically all
of the rest dealt with the printing trade", he says. "Theyve
all worked. But financially speaking, the inventions were too
late since those types of presses were just about obsolete."

Cook, who has a high school education, says he
is "more or less self taught. Im just curious -- machinery
fascinates me; it just comes second nature to me."

The inventor claims his centrifugal force system
really does not oppose Newtons law. "When the frame moves,
thats the reaction (in Newtons principle). This system just
diverts the reaction."

Well, they doubted Copernicus and Freud too...

---

***Stockton Record* 79(#308); Tues., 12
Feb. 1974**

**"Newton Challenged"**   
**by June Land**

Isaac Newtons third law of motion may well have
been contradicted Monday afternoon in Stockton.

A contraption resembling a childs large-scale
erector set model, described by its inventor as an internal
propulsion device, passed its final test -- it moved forward
on almost frictionless ice.

Newtons law says that for every action there
has to be an equal and opposite reaction, or to put it another
way -- for a body to move it must be acted on by an outside
source.

"Newton made a mistake, thats all", said the
inventor, Bob Cook, 39, of Pittsburg, who maintains the device
will revolutionize transportation.

The device is made of counter-rotating cams and
gears resting on thin blades that are powered by an electric
motor, but battery or even solar power could be used, says
Cook.

He explained the contraption is propelled by the
so-called "phantom" Coriolis force trapped inside the rotors
which results in the motion despite the absence of friction.

Webster identifies the Coriolis force as
corresponding to the Coriolis acceleration of a body equal to
the product of the mass by the Coriolis acceleration and
responding as a result of the earths rotation for the
deflection of projectiles and the motion of the winds to the
right in the northern hemisphere and to the left I the
southern hemisphere.

Skeptics claimed the device would "just sit
there and rock back and forth" if all friction were
eliminated, said Cook.

It moved forward in short spurts Monday
afternoon at Oak Park Ice Rink, however. Cook maintains the
experimental model can be improved to get a more constant
force by more and a better combination of rotors.

"I have definitely proven the principle is sound
by doing all the tests that are required. Now I have to
determine the efficiency", he explained.

Some of the tests included movement on an air
cushion suspended from ropes and in a raft floating in a
swimming pool.

People say it cant work because it defies the
laws of nature", said the soft-spoken and rather shy inventor
who admitted he has no formal education.

He was a printer for about 18 years in the East
Bay area and says he stumbled on the idea for the contraption
when he was experimenting with a new energy source.

"I made a mistake and came up with this."

Cook has been working on the test model for
about 6n years and has invested some $50,000, according to an
assistant, Joel Dickenson, 24, of Pittsburg.

Cook claims the device can be used to propel
automobiles and "could even move in space" if solar power were
used.

He patented the device in 1972 and the next step
is to either raise capital to produce a working model or to
sell the idea to a manufacturer, said Dickenson.

---

***The Green Sheet* 59 (#29); Friday, 8
Feb. 1974**

**"Machine Challenges Newtons Law of
Motion"**   
**by Sue Shoemaker**

An apparently simple, 85-pound device which Bob
Cook of Pittsburg has invented may not revolutionize
transportation and aerospace industries overnight -- but then
again maybe it will.

Cook has spent the last six years and about
$50,000 developing what he claims is a revolutionary new 
method of propulsion, which defies scientific laws of nature.

Despite doubts ranging from skepticism to
outright disbelief on the part of scientists and engineers at
Ames Research Center and United Air Lines, Cook says his
device in a more sophisticated form would be capable of
solving the energy crisis and propelling any vehicle, from
bicycles to space craft.

Basically, Cooks device consists of four rotors
mounted in two levels on a frame. Atop each rotor is a weight
which slides back and forth in a short track.

As the rotor turns forward, the weight, attached
by a spring to the frame of the machine, slides forward,
jerking the machine forward.

As the rotor continues its revolution the weight
slides back, but because the speed of the rotor has been
reduced the weight moves back with less force than it moves
forward, so although the machine jerks backward, the backward
jerk is weaker than the forward jerk and the net effect seems
to be a slight forward movement.

The forward thrust is intermittent, occurring
only when the weight slides forward once per revolution, but
Cook and his assistant, Joel Dickinson, are working to improve
it by making the forward thrust continuous.

Cook acknowledges the device he is now testing
is a crude model, "sort of like the Wright brothers first
plane", he says with a chuckle. Although rotor ovelment is now
very slow, he says it and the speed of the machine could be
increased 1,000 times.

"With the help of advanced hydraulics and ball
bearings, there would be hundreds of uses for it", he says.

Cook was testing the device at Buchanan Air
Field in Concord Wednesday and planned to take it back to Ames
later in the week. Although it is currently powered by
electricity, he says one of the devices most revolutionary
features is that it can run on any type of power, from steam
to solar energy.

In addition, he claims the machine needs
relatively little power to reach great speeds, an important
factor in times of fuel shortage.

"This form of inertial propulsion could
eventually be the most widely used form of propulsion. It
could outrun anything we have now", he predicts.

And even of more scientific significance, Cook
and Dickinson, who admitted he was an "A-1 skeptic" until he
saw the machine, are sure the invention disproves Newtons
Third Law of Motion, that every action has an equal and
opposite reaction.

They are confident that once it is accepted by
the scientific establishment the device will force a
reevaluation of the basis of physics and revolutionize the
entire field.

But acceptance does not seem forthcoming,
although scientists at both United Airlines and Ames have been
sufficiently interested in the device to test and analyze it.

Their conclusion has been that, on a theoretical
basis the device should not work; that according to known
scientific principles it cannot contradict Newtons Law and do
what Cook believes it does.

But to David Doll, an aeronautical engineer at
United, this does not entirely rule out the possibility Cook
has really discovered something.

"He may have something in this invention which
is not covered by simple Newtons Law analysis", Doll says. He
added according to Newtonian analysis the helicopter should
never have worked.

"Maybe hes got another helicopter", he says.

According to Doll, the United scientists
concluded the device would not be practical for use by the
airlines. In addition to certain technical problems which
would be encountered in adapting the device on a large enough
scale to lift and propel planes, he says the method is
substantially less efficient than current means of propulsion.

"But its an interesting device", Dell says. I
cant really see any promise for it in the industry but its
fun to watch. Im kind of rooting for him."

An Ames scientist who is familiar with Cooks
work is more discouraging. While the device may have limited
success on earth, it would never work in deep space, he
claims.

"Hes trying to violate the laws of nature and
not having much success", he said. "But it might be nice as a
Christmas toy for the kids."

Dr. John Trenholm, a physicist at the University
of California Lawrence Laboratory at Livermore, is unwilling
to be quite so strong in his skepticism.

"I have my doubts that it does what he thinks it
does, but the important thing is to see if it performs and
then try to explain why", Trenholm says.

And even if Cook has developed a new form of
propulsion, Trenholm says, it is probably so weak that it will
never prove useful in transportation.

But even limited success would be very valuable
to science, he adds. "The value would not be in practical
applications but in pointing out to scientists that in some
small way the principles on which they base their work is
wrong.

The discovery of just such an "error" years ago
led to the development of the hydrogen bomb, he said.

"The scientific community is not always right",
Trenholm pointed out. "Theres no fundamental reason why
someone in their backyard in Pittsburg cant come up with
something really significant."

A former printing pressman, Cook has worked full
time on his invention for the past six years. Although he has
had no advanced training in engineering or physics he says he
comes from a "long line of engineers and physicists".

---

**US Patent # 3,683,707**   
**"Propulsion System"**   
**Robert Cook**

**Figures only... Link to
the complete patent -- PDF format -- at the European
Patent Office:**

**http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US3683707&ID=US+++3683707A1+I+**

![](3683a.gif)  
![](3683b.gif)  
![](3683c.gif)  
![](3683d.gif)  
![](3683e.gif)

---

  
  
**US Patent # 4,238,968**

**Robert Cook**   
**December 16, 1980**

**"Device for Conversion of Centrifugal Force to Linear
Force and Motion"**

**Abstract ~**

A device to employ centrifugal force for use as
linear motion utilizing a pair of counter rotating arms about
a common axle. One arm contains a mass splitable and
transferable to the other arm and back again at one hundred
and eighty degree intervals. The device may include a surface
travel system or two of such devices may be employed in tandem
for any mode of travel.

**Inventors:  Cook; Robert L.** (605
Wilson Ave., Vallejo, CA 94590)   
Appl. No.:  945245     Filed: 
September 25, 1978

Current U.S. Class:  74/84R;
74/84S        Intern'l
Class:  F16H 033/20   
Field of Search:  74/84 R,84 S   
References Cited [Referenced By]   
U.S. Patent Documents:   
# 1,953,964 ~ Apr., 1934 ~ Laskowitz 74/84.   
# 2,009,780 ~ Jul., 1935 ~ Laskowitz 74/84.   
# 2,306,723 ~ Dec., 1942 ~ Floraday 268/124.   
# 2,350,248 ~ May., 1944 ~ Nowlin 74/61.   
# 3,555,915 ~ Jan., 1971 ~ Young, Jr. 74/84.   
# 3,683,707 ~ Aug., 1972 ~ Cook 74/84.   
# 3,968,700 ~ Jul., 1976 ~ Cuff 74/84.

Primary Examiner: Herrmann; Allan
D.      Attorney, Agent or Firm:
Bielen and Peterson

**Claims: [Claims not included here ]**

**Description**

**BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION**

The present invention relates to a device for
the conversion of centrifugal force to linear force and,
therefore, linear motion. The device may be used to propel any
common vehicle such as automobiles, rail cars, and marine,
aviation and space carriers, and the like.

As enunciated by Sir Issac Newton, an object
directed along a curved path will exert a force against the
retraining or directing item. In other words, a force is
produced by an object that constantly changes direction, since
a change in speed or direction constitutes acceleration. As is
well known, the centrifugal force is directly proportional to
the mass of the object, or the radius of the circle through
which the object moves, or the square of the angular velocity
of the spinning object. Therefore, doubling the number of
revolutions per minute of the object, will increase the
centrifugal force by a factor of four (4).

Centrifugal force often expressed in the amount
"times" the normal pull of gravity or "g's", may produce a
surprisingly large force. For example, an object following a
circular path having a radius of ten centimeters, at a rate of
six hundred revolutions per minute, generates a centrifugal
force which is 41 times gravity.

As can be surmised, a device that enables the
transformation of the centrifugal force produced by a rotating
body into a linear force, with only a modest efficiency, may
be applied to any mode of vehicle travel.

In the past, various attempts have been put
forth to reap the advantages of the powerful and easily
generated centrifugal force by effecting such a
transformation. For example, these apparatuses have rotated
mass members and shifted the center of gravity relative to the
axis of rotation. The result has been the development of a
centrifugal force greater where the mass has shifted, than the
remainder of the rotational cycle. In essence, the length of
the radius of the arm has been changed. As is well known, the
conservation of angular momentum would tend to correspondingly
decrease the speed of the mass shifted.

As an example of a successful machine of this
type, reference is made to U.S. Pat. No. 3,683,707, issued on
Aug. 15, 1972, to applicant. However, machines of this type,
although workable, are not efficient enough to produce the
desired linear force to warrant general use.

**SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION**

The present invention provides a device for
converting the force of a spinning or rotating mass into a
linear component of force usable to propel a vehicle in a
linear path.

In accordance with the present invention, a
first rotating arm is provided, moving about an axis of
rotation. A pair of balanced masses rotates at the terminus of
the arm in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the first
arm. A second arm counter-rotates about the same axis with
respect to the first rotating arm and moves within a plane
parallel to the plane of rotation of the first arm. A
mechanism cooperative between the first and second arms
permits the transfer of one of the balanced weights from the
first arm to the second arm. At a selected point in the
rotational path of both arms, one of the masses transfers
causing cancellation of the centrifugal force produced by the
first rotating arm. The mass again transfers from the second
arm to the first arm after one hundred eighty degrees of
circular travel of both arms. At this point, there is a
centrifugal force bias in favor of the arm having the masses
which continues for another one hundred eighty degrees of
arcuate travel, when compared to the prior semicircle
traveled. In other words, the net result of the arm having the
pair of masses is an imbalanced centrifugal force during half
of the circular path of both arms.

The resultant imbalance may be transmitted into
a linear uni-directional component of force by mounting both
rotating arms on a rail or frictional wheel carriage.

Usage of two synchronized sets of
counterrotating arms to a leg connecting both axes of
rotation, necessarily eliminates the deflecting component of
the centrifugal force along the axes of the counter rotating
arms. In this case, the rail and frictional wheel carriage
would not be required since a true linear force has been
fashioned.

It is, therefore, an object of the present
invention to provide a device that efficiently converts
centrifugal force from rotating members into linear force and
linear movement.

It is a further object of the present invention
to provide a device useable as a source of motivation for any
vehiclar means by the employment of rotational motion which is
converted into linear motion.

It is yet another object of the present
invention to provide an imbalanced centrifugal force in a
given semicircle of the rotational cycle of an object and the
usage of the linear components of the centrifugal force
produced to propel a vehicle.

It is another object of the present invention to
combine the effects of a plurality of devices producing a
biased centrifugal force to cause linear motion without the
necessity of frictional engagement of the vehicle with a
surface of travel.

The invention possesses other objects and
advantages as concerns particular features and
characteristics, thereof, which will become apparent as the
specification continues. For a better understanding of the
invention, reference is made to the following description.

**BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS**

FIG. 1 is a plan view of the device with the
counter rotating arms shown in phantom at the transfer points.

![](4238a.gif)

FIG. 2 is sectional view taken along line 2--2
of FIG. 1.

![](4238b.gif)

FIG. 3 is a broken sectional view taken along
line 3--3 of FIG. 2.

FIG. 4 is a broken side elevational view of the
mass transfer mechanism in the activated position.

![](4238-4.gif)

FIG. 5 is broken sectional view taken along line
5--5 of FIG. 4.

![](4238-5.gif)

FIG. 6 is a broken sectional view taken along
line 6--6 of FIG. 4.

![](4238-6.gif)

FIG. 7 is a broken side elevational view of the
mass transfer mechanism in the deactivated position.

![](4238-7.gif)

FIG. 8 is a broken sectional view taken along
line 8--8 of FIG. 7.

![](4238-8.gif)

FIG. 9 is a broken sectional view taken along
line 9--9 of FIG. 7.

![](4238-9.gif)

FIG. 10 is a broken sectional view taken along
line 10--10 of FIG. 7.

![](4238-10.gif)

FIG. 11 is a fragmentary sectional view showing
a pair of devices in side-by-side connection.

![](4238-11.gif)

FIG. 12 is a schematic view showing a pair of
devices in side-by-side connection, with the connecting leg in
phantom.

![](4238-12.gif)

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS**

With reference to the drawings, the device or
apparatus as a whole is depicted in its entirety by reference
character 10. FIG. 1 shows the device 10 which includes a
first arm 12 and a second arm 14 which counter rotate with
respect to one another about an axle 16, FIGS. 1 and 2. The
circular paths of the arms 12 and 14 lie in parallel planes
such that the arms are positioned in overlying alignment twice
during the rotational cycle of both arms 12 and 14. As shown
by FIG. 1, in partial phantom, the alignment of the two arms
takes place one hundred and eighty degrees (180.degree.) apart
and these positions are denoted as the "transfer points I and
II", a fuller explanation of which will be hereinafter
provided.

In the present embodiment, the device 10 is
contemplated for use on a surface, but the device may be
employed for any method of travel including travel in water,
air and space media. As shown, the device 10 travels on a rail
track 18 by the use of wheels rotating about spindles 22 that
support frame 24, via forks 26, which are fixed by attached to
frame 24 and spindle 22. The frame 24 secures to axle 16 by
the use of flange 28 by any suitable means, such as welding.

With reference to FIG. 2, driving shaft 30 turns
by the energy derived from any source of power (not shown).
Block portion 32 and bearings 34 support shaft 30 to allow
smooth axial turning of the shaft, well known in the art.
Shaft 30 includes a miter gear 36, on the end nearest axle 16,
which meshingly engages bevel gear 38 integral with bushing
40, which is free to slide about the bearing surface 52
circumferentially affixed to axle 16. Flanges 42 and 44 afix
to arm 14 such that the rotation of bushing 40 rotates arm 14
about the axis of axle 16. The upper end of bushing 40
connects to bevel gear 46 which meshingly engages miter gear
48. Stud 50 fixedly engages axle 16 and bearing 54
circumscribes the stud 50. Miter gear 48, thus rotates about
the fixed axis of stud 50. C-rings 56 and 58 prevent the
movement of stud 50 and miter gear 48.

Bevel gear 60 meshingly engages miter gear 48
and rotates in the direction opposite to bevel gear 46. Flange
62, depicted as integral with bevel gear 60, affixes to arm 12
such that arm 12 rotates opposite to arm 14.

One end of arm 12 includes a bearing mount 64
which circumferentially holds shaft 66. Pin 68 positions shaft
66 within bearing 64 which has a seal 70. Miter gear 72
affixes to shoulder 74 which surroundingly engages shaft 66.
Miter gear 72 meshingly engages bevel gear 76 and turns shaft
66. Flanges 78 and 80 join to hold bevel gear in a stationary
position with respect to miter gear 72. Stiffeners 82 and 84
strengthen the interconnection of flanges 78 and 80 to the
frame 24.

Universal joint 86 affixes shaft 66 to shaft 88
which passes through bearing mount 90. Stub 92 affixes to base
plate 94 which secures to bearing mount 90. Stub 92 passes
through an arcuate slot 96 in arm 12, best depicted in FIG. 3;
the purpose of which will be described in detail as the
specification continues. The lower end of stub 92 is capped by
washer 98 and nut 100. Stub 92 may travel within the confines
of arcuate slot 96 subject to dampening by spring 124.

Shaft 88 engages bearing 102 which fits within
hub 104 having wings 106 and 108. Bars 110 and 112 affix to
wings 106 and 108 respectively on one end and to masses 114
and 116 on the other end. Masses 114 and 116 are preferably of
equal size; mass and weight, therefore, balance one another
when shaft 88 rotates bars 110 and 112 (which are of equal
length) and the masses 114 and 116. The hub 104 also functions
to dampen oscillations upon the transfer of one of the
weights, as will be discussed in detail hereinafter. Arm 14
has a U-shaped channel 118 between partitions 128 and 129
corresponding in the width dimension to the width of mass 114
or 116. Opening 120 and 122 receive the fingers (not shown) of
mass 114 or the fingers of mass 116 (only exemplar finger 130
shown) dependent upon which mass is transferred from arm 12 to
arm 14.

Pin 132 rides on cam follower 134 which travels
a flexible circular cam on track 136. Cam track 136 is
supported by a plurality of blocks, including blocks 138, 140,
142, and 144. Block 140 includes an inclined surface having a
handle structure 144 thereattached, such that the circular
track 136 may be lowered to the same level at block 140 as it
is at block 138.

The mechanism involved in the actual transfer of
one of the masses 114 or 116 may be more clearly explained by
FIGS. 4-10. As an example, mass 116 may be employed, as
depicted in phantom on FIG. 2, as the transferred mass. FIG.
4, showing the mechanism in the activated position, includes
bar 112 having a plate 150 which fits into arcuate channel
152. Bar 112 affixes to plate 150. The combination is capable
of holding weight 116 while revolving about hub 104. As
depicted by FIG. 5, the pin, when elevated by the track 136,
runs through partially V-shaped channel 154.

The mass 116 includes two equal portions 156 and
158, each portion respectively enclosed by caps 160 and 162,
having a slidable relationship therebetween. Finger 130 of
mass portion 158 slides within openings 164 and into slot 120
when the mass 116 transfers from arm 12 to arm 14. Spring
means 166 urges mass member 158 away from slot 120 while the
movement of pin 132 in channel 154 urges mass member 158
toward slot 120. Mass portion 156 also includes a finger,
spring means, and opening arrangement (not shown) identical to
mass portion 158 such as finger 130, spring means 166, and
opening 164, for use with opening 122 (FIG. 2).

Pin 132 includes a slot 168 and a key 170 in arm
14 to prevent rotation of the pin 132 in the vertical plane
during transfer of the mass 116. Mass 114 contains the same
mechanism as mass 116 for the purposes of the transfer, from
arm 12 to arm 14, and the masses be substituted freely to
perform the transfer function to evenly distribute wear and
tear and the like.

In operation, the device 10 has two counter
rotating arms 12 and 14 that are synchronized to vertically
align at two positions within their rotational cycles, where
either mass 114 or 116 transfers to and from the first arm 12.
As heretofore explained, mass 116 has been arbitrarily chosen,
but proper calibration may employ mass 114 in the transfer
mechanism herein described.

Power from a source drives driving shaft 30
which turns miter gear 36 and bevel gear 38. Arm 14 affixed to
bushing 40 rotates in a plane substantially horizontal to the
axis of driving shaft 30. Bevel gear 46 turns miter gear 48
which spins bevel gear 60. Arm 12 attached to flange 62,
integral with bevel gear 60, rotates in a plane parallel to
the plane of arm 14 and in an opposite direction to the path
of rotation of arm 14 through gearing arrangements arms 12 and
14 vertically align at "transfer points I and II", shown on
FIG. 1.

Miter gear 72 and bevel gear 76 rotate shaft 88
and turns masses 114 and 116 in a vertical plane as arm 12
rotates in a horizontal plane. At transfer point I, depicted
in FIG. 2, the mass 116 fits between partitions 128 and 129,
shown in phantom, of arm 14. At this point, the mass 116 the
end of arm 14 has no relative motion therebetween. Just prior
to that point, pin 132 enters channel 154 because of the rise
in track 136 and spreads portions 156 and 158 apart. Fingers,
shown by exemplar finger 130, enter openings 120 and 122, and
bar 112 with affixed plate 150 rotates out of arcuate channel
152. Thus, mass 116 has been transferred to arm 14, FIGS. 4-6.

Arm 12 continues its rotation with only mass 114
for one hundred and eighty degrees to "transfer point II". It
should be noted that hub 104 preferably dampens the
oscillating motion produced by mass 114 on the arm 12 by being
of a weight equal to the combined weight of masses 114 and
116. Likewise partitions 128 and 129 should be equal in weight
to hub 104, such that the sum of the weight of masses 116 and
partitions 128 and 129 equals the sum of the weight hub 104
and weight 114. Thus, the device 10 is balanced during the
portion of the cycle of arm 12 between the "transfer points I
and II".

With reference to FIG. 3, the stub 92 bears on
spring 124 such that the oscillation force of mass 114 on arm
12 is dampened in one direction to help smooth the motion of
arm 12 as it rotates.

When "transfer point II" is reached, the
transfer mechanism reverses, FIGS. 7-10. Pin 132 lowers from
channel 154 because of the position of track 134. Fingers,
shown by exemplar 130 remove from openings 120 and 122. Plate
150 engages portions 158 and 160, FIG. 9, and mass 116 again
rotates on bar 112 with mass 114.

The mechanical components of device 10 may be
sealed in a vacuum with shaft 30 and handle structure 148
extending therethrough to reduce the effect of air friction on
the rotating arms.

When arm 12 includes both masses 114 and 116,
axle 16 receives a force along arm 12. This specifically
occurs counterclockwise between "transfer point II" and
"transfer point I". This linear force may be broken into two
component forces, one in the direction of the arrow 172 and
the other in a force horizontally disposed. The horizontal
force, a deflecting force, is absorbed by the rigidity of rail
track 18. Thus, device 10 moves along track 18 in the
direction of the arrow 172. It should be noted that a
plurality of pairs of arms identical to arms 12 and 14 may be
placed on axle 16 to create a steady force in the direction of
arrow 172. The device 10 alone will produce a pulse force
during the time arm 12 travels from transfer point II to
transfer point I. The transferring mechanism may be
deactivated by pulling handle mechanism 148 and therefore the
lower portion of bock 140. The sliding of the upper and lower
portions of block 140 on surface 146, lower arm track 136 such
that pin 132 does not enter channel 154 and transferring of
mass 116 does not occur. Similarly the raising of track 136
one hundred and eighty degrees from block 146 would reverse
the transfer mechanism such that the device 10 would travel in
a direction opposite to arrow 172. In other words, raising the
track 136 to activate pin 132 opposite block 140 would brake
device 10 moving in the direction of arrow 172 or cause device
10, at rest, to move in a direction opposite to arrow 172.

Device 10 may be used with an identical device
to eliminate the need for rail track 18 and its equivalent.
Applicant hereby incorporates, by reference, the specification
of his U.S. Pat. No. 3,683,707, issued Aug. 15, 1972, wherein
applicant describes the cancellation of horizontal forces. In
particular, column 8, lines 9-38, describes the resolution of
forces in the Y axis and cancellation of the forces in the X
axis.

By analogy, a set of devices identical to device
10 may be placed together, preferably side-by-side, with a leg
174 connecting identical axles 16 such that identical arms 12
are located at transfer point I on the first device and
transfer point II on the second device FIGS. 11 and 12.

While in the foregoing specification embodiments
of the invention have been set forth in considerable detail
for purposes of making a complete disclosure of the invention,
it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that
numerous changes may be made in such details without departing
from the spirit and principles of the invention.

---