| News Item: |
 |
| Over the years, I have studied various mechanical designs dealing with various ways of moving a mass over only 90 to 180 degrees of a circle. Including oscillation of the mass in tubes, cylinders, or fixed to arms.
In Bob's one model I saw, the arm was picking up the mass as the arm came by, and carrying it across 180 degrees and removing it. Then the next arm repeated the whole thing. This should have produced a constant force distributed a crossed the 180 degrees. Then to keep from having to reload the weights, he went to a two arm model moving in opposite directions where he incorporated the split mass. This amounted to moving the mass back and forth over the 180 degrees. Where the output was higher when the mass was recombined, resulting in a pulse instead of a steady output. All this was not necessary he could accomplished the same thing by simply oscillating the mass fixed on the end of the arms, being sure that you had arms traveling in both directions to balance the system. From what I have seen of the operation of the CIP on their web site, the device is working in so far as producing Unidirectional Centrifugal Force. There is how ever no way that it is producing electrical feed back to the electric motor. So it can not be a unity or over unity device. Unless Bob Cook thinks that the CIP will run on its own with out the electric motor once the rpm's are high enough. I don't think so! The trouble with any system of this kind is the mass must come to a stop to change direction, and there is no output force at this point. There will be no detectable negative force when stopping if the arms are in sync for they will cancel each other. The force in a single direction is an analog pulse. You can obtain a more constant output by adding more arms that are out of sync with the first two, this will provide output while they are at rest, and vice versa. The more you add to the mechanism the heaver it becomes, requiring more force to over come this added mass. There for the oscillations per second must be increase to the arms in motion, to produce enough force to equal the total weight of the device. At higher speed there may be a problem with the exchange of the weights between arms. The higher the velocity the more stress on the whole mechanism. That is why it will fail before it produces enough lift, and why I say this is not the way to build it. Here Cook must use the "velocity" part of the formula for best results, where the other person was trying to develop his force using a change in radius, which is the worst way to go. Cook has the right idea, but must keep the mass moving constantly through the arc to achieve the best operation. Which is next to impossible with an oscillating device. The CIP Engine Bob Cook is building is liken to the Wright Brothers first air plane, it is crude, bulky, and not very efficient. I have discovered other better models that I believe will be more efficient then these mechanical models as Thornson and Cook are using. The Glatz Unidirectional Centrifugal Propulsion Engine (GUCP Engine) as I call it, which I have a design of now is partly mechanical. (Continued Next page) Copyright 2007 by Gordon K. Glatz |
| It began in my brain 54 years ago! |
 |