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.
It began in my brain 63 years ago!
Last revision 10/06/2014
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. Only these crude
mechanical types require a motor. Even my
better version which has only one moving part
would require a motor. There are how ever other
ways of producing this force that would not
require a motor.

Copyright 2007 by Gordon K. Glatz
Page 2