(7 of 7) - The Manta Generator
by Jerry Decker for KeelyNet

As mentioned on the other Tilley pages at KeelyNet, I got the impression based on Mr. Tilleys' description that he had designed and installed off-the-shelf wind and solar power systems when he said he kept 'running out of daylight' to keep the solar cells generating. That is when I think he got the idea for the spinner.

It strikes me that he would have kept abreast of anything new that would be of use in his business including generators. I have long been fascinated by neodymium and rare earth magnets because of their incredible strength in such a small package so decided to see if I could find anything that he might have found out and tested successfully.

Using that as my query, I looked for anything unique or novel about a neodymium based generator and found just such a thing at;

It was called a MANTA generator and was claimed to produce 12VDC @ 35amps with just one turn of the shaft by hand.

#PMG226 - $1195.95 plus $45.00 S&H

weight 22lbs / 8" X 9" X 9" - keyed shaft is 7/8" by 2.75" long

I posted this to the KeelyNet Interact discussion list and received not one single response saying I was full of baloney.

Usually someone would tear into something like this and at least correct my erroneous thinking.

The closest thing was the observation that the torque necessary to spin the generator UNDER LOAD would be significantly higher than WITHOUT A LOAD. I didn't bring that up in the original post because so many have had the chance to play with the old Army field telephone generators, where the handle spins freely with no load but is very hard to turn with a load applied. But it is a valid point that must be stated.

However, with a generator such as the MANTA connected to a charge controller that fed a battery network, I think the load might require less torque than we think, thus allowing excess energy to be produced and fed into the batteries.

Now, if you take into consideration the John Bedini and Wilson claims, where both used a heavy spinning mass, it seems to add the final piece to the Tilley Spinner.

Where a high flux magnetic field is connected by shaft or belt to a heavy flywheel (like the 5 foot wooden one used by Wilson) or the flywheel used by Bedini to take advantage of what Bedini CLEARLY RECOGNIZED early on as a gravity tap, thus the name 'Gravity Field Generator'.

Sorry John, we are all slow to pick up on just how far ahead you really are, since you FREELY released that in 1984!

For me, the combination of the high density neodymium magnet Manta Generator AND a heavy flywheel (which I think and Bedini points out is probably the modification Tilley speaks of), that would fit the bill for the spinner.

At the workshop, I and others put our hands on the thick sealed aluminum box and I could feel no vibration though it was spinning. Meaning the flywheel was well balanced. This box and the DC motor were mounted on a very rigid, metal plate and with thick black rubber sheeting as vibration insulation. I think this was to suppress resonances due to vibration.

I call your attention to the photo above, showing the thick rubber mat as well as the heavy metal support plate on which the motor and spinner are mounted. To further 'confuse' the issue, one of the Tilley asociates told us without that rubber 'insulation' the spinner would not work properly, but I think that is simple misdirection.

This isn't necessarily the answer, just my opinion based on the information provided in this series. I would ask that you take another look at this diagram kindly provided by John Bedini, where he uses a rotating mass (for gravity coupling and energy extracton) and note how the magnet 'energizer' is pulsed in a way similar to the E.V. Gray motor but without the 'power tube'.

Bedinis' 1984 original release

The question always arises IF this thing works, where would the excess energy come from? I tend to think Bedini is right on target, that it does come from gravity in conjunction with bucking magnetic fields.

Such an aether/zpe coupling effect is described by Harold Aspden in post;

http://escribe.com/science/keelynet/m13150.html

an excerpt of the key portions;

Imagine an electric machine having no electrical input itself and which, when started on no load by a drive motor and brought up to speed (3250 rpm), thereafter runs steadily at that speed with the motor drawing a little extra input power with a time delay rate of about two minutes.

The machine rotor has a mass of 800 gm and at that speed its kinetic energy together with that of the drive motor is no more than 15 joules, contrasting with the excess energy of 300 joules needed to satisfy the anomalous power surge [to spin up from rest].

Imagine further that when the motor, after running five minutes or more, is switched off and the machine is stopped, you can restart it in the same or opposite direction and find that it now has a memory in the sense that it will not now ask for that 300 joules of excess input. 30 joules will suffice provided that the time lapse between starting and restarting is no more than a minute or so.

This is not a transient heating phenomenon. At all times the bearing housings feel cool and any heating in the drive motor would imply an increase of resistance and a build-up of power to a higher steady state condition.

The experimental evidence is that there is something spinning of an ethereal nature coextensive with the machine rotor. That 'something' has an effective mass density 20 times that of the rotor, but it is something that can spin independently and take several minutes to decay, whereas the motor comes to rest in a few seconds.

Two machines of different rotor size and composition reveal the phenomenon and tests indicate variations with time of day and compass orientation of the spin axis. One machine, the one incorporating weaker magnets, showed evidence of gaining strength magnetically, as the test were repeated over several days.

I will soon be reporting in detail on these findings, after further work and evaluation of the implications. The phenomenon was something I should have been prepared for, having regard to my years of theorizing, but this discovery was unexpected as it has crept in loud and clear in a project aimed at testing a motor principle totally unrelated to 'vacuum spin'. It has appeared obtrusively and I do not yet know whether, in adapting to its presence, it can serve in improving machine performance or become detrimental.

Additional files relating to this aether/zpe coupling effect;

Reynolds Dilatant Matrix
Reynolds Bridge between Classical & Modern Physics
Reynolds Structure for Time, Energy, Space & Matter
Chaos Conversion

And Finally!

Deckers' - Bedini/Wilson/Tilley Building Power System Hybrid

I am inclined to think Aspdens sudden starts and stops as with Bedinis' must also play a part. This also reminds me of the Dean drive, which also used sudden starts and stops to initiate a unidirectional force, essentially rectifying inertia.

A sort of 'bucking' effect which could well produce an excess of energy above and beyond what it took to produce the 'bucking' as posted in this excerpt from;

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/pearson.htm

...with the vacuum underpinned by a compound medium of opposites we can call the 'ether', a whole new vista appears. Now energy CAN be created or destroyed - provided negative and positive energies change TOGETHER in EXACTLY balanced amounts!

...At first this seemed to present a difficulty. Would not the two halves of ether MUTUALLY ANNIHILATE as primaries of opposite energy collided at high speed?

...it turned out that the need to conserve momentum prevented MUTUAL annihilation of energies from occurring during collisions. Indeed the two conservation laws of energy AND momentum, which had to be applied SIMULTANEOUSLY, led to a totally different result.

...Instead of annihilating, primaries INCREASED in number! In fact, 18% MORE of BOTH kinds appeared, on average, from EACH collision of opposites.

...When primaries collide by approaching one another from any other direction, so that their trajectories intersect at some ARBITRARY ANGLE, the analysis is only made slightly more complicated. Note it is necessary to consider RELATIVE velocities of approach. From such vantage points some collisions will also APPEAR to be HEAD-ON, so yielding THE SAME RESULT as the one previously described.

...However, for collisions NOT HEAD-ON, a sideway SCATTERING MOTION is imparted. And this applies equally to the general case just mentioned. Each primary GAINS extra momentum in this transverse direction, the positive one gaining positive momentum and the negative one gaining the negative variety. It follows that corresponding evaluation then yields the average gain ratio just quoted (18%).

However, the positive and negative gains of both momentum and energy could CANCEL under conditions of MULTIPLE COLLISIONS (noise). It therefore follows that everything that exists must ultimately have derived from the zero energy state of nothingness.

Also the late Russian scientist, Chernetskii, claimed that by bucking plasmas together, he could generate an excess of energy.

Another device built, tested and patented by a fellow named Spence from England was a hollow cylinder with anodes on the inside rim and a cathode at the center. Intense magnetic fields swirled around causing a tornadic like focusing of the plasma ions onto the cathode, resulting in claims of overunity.

The Spence device is much like Schaubergers' 'impansion/vortex theories' and the Griggs Hydrosonics device which used 'shearing' to produce anomalous/excess heat. All of these indicative of a bucking principle such as the plasma shearing/bucking type effect as with Chernetskii, all part of this aether/zpe coupling phenomena.

There are of course many pieces to these puzzles and claims, even misdirection or lack of clarity in getting the ideas across.

I make NO CLAIMS that any of this is THE ANSWER to the Tilley puzzle but it makes sense to me. Please don't come whining to me if you spend the bucks to build it and it doesn't work as I THEORIZED.

In my opinion, it could be built and tested for about $4,000-$5,000USD and welcome anyone who might want to FUND ME to build and test the thing. It doesn't matter WHO does it, as long as it gets done, verified, duplicated and put into USE or proven as just another 'crank' idea that didn't work when built, won't be the first time and certainly not the last!

As with all realists, proof comes from buying the parts, assembling it and testing to see if there is an overunity effect.

That is what KeelyNet was designed for and tries to do, bring 'Order out of Chaos' by collecting information, sharing it and correlating it as in these pages about the Tilley claims.

Thanks go to Prescott Rathborne for paying for my travel expenses to see the Tilley demo and lab, Dan York for his insights, advice and massive support, Chuck Henderson for his unflagging advice, suggestions and hard work and finally John Bedini who remains a beacon for those of us seeking just ONE working overunity device that anyone can build and USE.

Lest I forget, yet more thanks to the 'heavenly host' of folks (KeelyNetters) who share information with me, the discussion list and everyone else who visits or contributes information or donations TO or purchases FROM KeelyNet.

That includes your

kind donations ( www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm )
(pay by credit card, PayPal OR checks/money orders via mail)

AND/OR

purchase of our products at www.keelynet.com/products.htm

which helps to keep the KeelyNet website online and
providing new, hopefully interesting information.

In the event you build this or have additional information to share, please EMAIL ME and if its relevant, I will update these pages and blame, woops, I mean CREDIT you for the correction if you so desire.

Contact the Tilley Foundation for updates and further information

If you found this file useful or interesting, please consider a donation or a purchase to help keep KeelyNet online and providing free information. Thanks!