Bob Cook’s CIP Engine uses (2). He was exchanging
weights from the end of one arm to another moving in
opposite directions. The arms with out any weights
were still revolving full circle. Having mass them self
they still produce unwanted force in the opposite
direction, which must be over come by the ones
producing the usable output.
Also you must have a supply of weights and a way of
keeping them loaded for the arms to pickup. In my
opinion this is a very in inefficient device.
Waldon’s MIP Engine uses (2). He uses a perfect round
ring wall for the mass to run against being moved by an
arm attached to the shaft of an offset motor. The arm is
able to move in and out as the radius changes due to the
offset. Although the mass travels in a circle with no
change in the radius in reference to the center of the
ring, the radius to the center of the offset motor shaft
does change which causes a change in the velocity of
the mass. The velocity being higher on the shorter
radius half of the circle giving a higher CF then on the
other side. Waldon claims that he has achieved high
output and movement, but the last I heard he was
having problems with wear out due to high rpm and
Although the theory has been proven with the ones that
did manage to create movement, so far no one has built
one that has produced sufficient output to raise the UCF,
CIP, or MIP engine ( what ever you want to call them )
off the ground let alone a pay load. I do not believe any
mechanical version using present known configurations
will ever be practical for use as a prime mover. I do
believe that with newer versions with less moving
parts, or non mechanical ones it would be possible to
construct a UCF engine that could be used as a
replacement for present aircraft engines, and space
rockets. ( See drawn examples on following pages. )
Counter acting sideways movement. Since the
mass must come to a stop at each side of the
arc, and restart accelerating in the opposite
direction. It gives a pulsed output which must
be strong enough to over come the total
weight of the mechanism. That weight returns
each time the mass stops.
Now if the oscillation is horizontal the device
will move across the ground in a jerking
motion. If it is up the device will drop each
time the mass stops, so the mechanism will just
jump up and down. If more then two masses
are oscillating in different directions so there is
always one or more passing the high point of
the arc, then the output will be more constant.
But the moving mass must produce a force
greater then the total weight of the mechanism
and the added mass at rest. This requires using
higher mass velocities and puts more strain on
the mechanical parts driving the mass.
All the other patents I have looked at except a
couple use. (2.) They are all mechanical full
rotary that are using some method to shorten
the radius of one of the rotating masses, to
create an off balance at one point in the circle.
One uses solenoids with the weights as the
armatures. Each one is energized as it reaches
the point pulling the weight inward shorting
the radius. The problem is they are spinning a
bunch of weights that are excess baggage.
Only one at a time is producing the increase in
force at the off balance point, although the
force is relatively constant it still has to be
stronger then the total weight of the device.
This means very high RPM's. They put this one
in a boat acting horizontally and it moved the
boat slowly across the water.