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

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

It’s 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 weren’t teaching me anything I hadn’t 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 Cook’s recently published book, "The Death of Rocketry", one Association member said, "One chapter begins with an explanation of the principle behind Cook’s 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 Cook’s device has stirred --- it creates an internal force for propulsion and therefore refutes Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, particularly the third one which holds that there is an equal and opposite reaction. Cook has charged Newton’s 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 Newton’s 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

"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.

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 Newton’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 o’clock and 3 o’clock 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 o’clock 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 o’clock position will be moving through the air at 400 mph while rotor B at the 3 o’clock 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 o’clock), 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.

It’s 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.

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.

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!

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, Cook’s crudely-built rig moved spasmodically across the floor.

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

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:

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 Cook’s 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:

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

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 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.

Cook’s 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 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 Newton’s third law, he’s 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.

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 weren’t for Newton.

"Some engineers have interpreted Newton’s 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 wasn’t endorsed because of Newton’s law! The model worked but that’s 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 Newton’s law."

Cook also demonstrated a model at NASA’s 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 Newton’s 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 I’ve been conducting experiments in Texas (at a relative’s 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 that’s 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 (Newton’s 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.

"I’ld like to see inventor William Lear, who’s working with a steam turbine of cars", the local inventor says. "I’m 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 Cook’s invention -- he says it’s his eighth. "Practically all of the rest dealt with the printing trade", he says. "They’ve 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. I’m just curious -- machinery fascinates me; it just comes second nature to me."

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

Isaac Newton’s third law of motion may well have been contradicted Monday afternoon in Stockton.

A contraption resembling a child’s 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.

Newton’s 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, that’s 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 earth’s 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 can’t 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.

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.

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, Cook’s 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 device’s 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Law analysis", Doll says. He added according to Newtonian analysis the helicopter should never have worked.

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 it’s an interesting device", Dell says. I can’t really see any promise for it in the industry but its fun to watch. I’m kind of rooting for him."

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

"He’s 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. "There’s no fundamental reason why someone in their backyard in Pittsburg can’t 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+

US Patent # 4,238,968

Robert Cook
December 16, 1980

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.