manning innovation award nomination
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 43
Potential +/- Difference Inc.
Nomination Form.
NOTE: If there is more than one nominee, please complete the nominee information below for each
individual being nominated and indicate which of the nominees will act as the primary contact.
Once the entire form has been filled in, print and have all nominees and nominators sign and date.
Electronic signatures cannot be accepted.
Nominee:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.) Mr. Surname Heins First Name and Initial Thane C. Company Name Potential Difference Inc. Company Mailing Address
(street, city, province, postal) 2339 Concession 6-D
Almonte ON K0A1A0 Email Address [email protected] Business Telephone Number 613.256.4684 Cell Phone Number 613.795.1602 Residence Mailing Address Same as company address. Residence Telephone Number Same as business telephone number.
Have you ever been nominated in the past for a
Manning Award? (Yes/ No) No
If Yes, which year(s)
How did you learn of the Manning Awards? Television
Nominee’s Signature I, the above named nominee, hereby certify that I am a Canadian citizen, resident in Canada, and that I
have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Page 2 of 43
Nominator 1:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.) Surname First Name and Initial Company Name Company Mailing Address
(street, city, province, postal)
Email Address Business Telephone Number
Nominator 1 -- Signature I, the above-mentioned nominator, hereby certify that I have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Nominator 2:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.) Surname First Name and Initial Company Name Company Mailing Address
(street, city, province, postal)
Email Address Business Telephone Number
Nominator 2 -- Signature I, the above-mentioned nominator, hereby certify that I have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Page 3 of 43
Manning Innovation Award
Preface
Who is Thane Heins? Thane Heins is the President, CEO and Founder of Potential Difference Inc. Thane left the
restaurant business and joined the high tech industry in 1999 when he sold his successful Old Towne Hall Tea Room when he began becoming aware and concerned regarding issues of earth sustainability in the areas of energy, water and food. Thane has never considered himself to be an uninvolved “innocent” bystander and was a member of the Green Party of Ontario and ran in a Provincial Election in his riding of Renfrew, Nippissing, Pembroke in order to make his growing environmental concerns known and heard. He also ran in a Federal Election as an independent candidate and was the Vice President of his student council in College. Thane is married and the father of five children. What is Thane Heins’ Innovation? Thane Heins’s innovation is called Regenerative Acceleration Generator
Technology and represents a reversal of several currently accepted laws of physics in electricity and magnetism. Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology now allows electric vehicles to continually recharge their batteries which is something no other non-hybrid – pure electric EV can do. The exact final magnitude of recharge capability has not yet been determined but 76% recharge capacity has already been established. 100% recharge capacity would completely eliminate the need for EV grid plug-in recharging. What is Potential Difference Inc and what is it doing with the innovation? PDI is a Clean-Tech/Energy R&D
intellectual property development company which was founded by Thane Heins and incorporated in 2005. Initial PDI research began in the area of flywheel energy storage in collaboration with Dr. Paul Allarie at the University of Virginia's Rotating Machines and Control's Laboratory (ROMAC). PDI was invited to move its research into a satellite lab at the University of Ottawa in 2008 following a successful Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology demonstration at MIT. PDI's technologies were further developed and refined under the supervision of Dr. Riadh Habash in Ottawa University’s power lab. PDI is currently licensing or negotiating Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology licenses in India, Europe, USA, Canada and South America.
Page 4 of 43
Contents
Resume – 5
Innovation Summary – 8
Complete Innovation Description – 9
Technical Information - 9
Inductor LR Time Constant – 10
Independent Verification – 10
Mathematical Explanation – 12
Critical Minimum Frequency – 13
Creating Generator Acceleration – 13
Intellectual Achievement – 14
Intellectual Process – 14
Experimental Process – 15
Innovation Uniqueness - 20
Chronological Listing of Events & Challenges – 21
Prototype Development Overview – 25
Commercial Success – 27
Broad Acceptance and Recognition – 28
Industry Statements and Colleague Comments - 29
Innovation Funding - 40
Research Facilities &Technical Experts - 40
Acknowledgements – 41
Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits – 42
Epilogue - 43
Page 5 of 43
Resume of Thane Christopher Heins 2339 Concession 6-D Almonte, ON. K0A1A0
(613) 256-4684 [email protected]
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
January 1999 to Present President, CEO and Founder Potential Difference Inc. Almonte, Ontario
· Developed several new “green” technologies. · Incorporated new IP licensing company. · Sought investor revenue. · Initiated worldwide technology commercialization and IP licensing.
May 2003 to 2005 Self Employed Restaurant Consultant
Stay at home dad. September 2002 to May 2003 Executive Sous Chef Restaurant Les Fougeres, Chelsea, Quebec
. Monitored evening services . Liaised with owners, management and staff June, July 2001 Management Consultant New Life Retreat, Lanark, Ontario . Organized the office, improved guest relations, set up guidelines to
help create a more friendly customer environment . Developed raw food recipes and presentation methods . Reorganized and optimized the interior design levels . Educated the owner on hospitality related operational procedures May 1999 - September 2001 Co-author, and Computer Artist, Ottawa, Ontario
· Health and Diet book to be published in 2012 · Topics included; food and health, nutrition and associated topics.
June 1993 - September 1999 Owner / Executive Chef The Old Towne Hall Restaurant; Renfrew, Ontario.
· Operated 55 seat fine dining restaurant and personal art gallery. · Featured on CTV’s Regional Contact for dining excellence.
Page 6 of 43
May 1990 - October 1992 Executive Chef The Canadian Museum of Civilization; Hull, Quebec.
· Responsible for approximately 30 staff, 2 separate restaurants, Les Muse, cafeteria and catering and conference services.
· Managed 2.2 million dollar budget. · Catered to up to 1000 guests. · Implemented a cross training/ teaching program in conjunction with
Algonquin College for all kitchen staff to improve staff moral and to increase staff competence.
June 1988 - May 1990 Executive Catering Chef
Le Jardin Catering & Le Jardin Restaurant; Ottawa, Ontario. · Oversaw million dollar off premise catering division. · Entre Metier, Le Jardin Restaurant, Ottawa, Ontario.
May 1987 - June 1988 Executive Chef Grenville’s on Somerset; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Monitored food preparation and cooking. · Supervised evening service operations. · Established operational cooking procedures which allowed the
restaurant to double their seating capacity while at the same time maintaining optimal food quality levels without increasing the labour cost.
September 1988 - May 1990 Professor Art Instruction Algonquin College; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Basic, Advanced and Life Drawing & Portrait courses · Designed and implemented course curriculums.
April 1985 - May 1987 Executive Sous Chef
L’eau Vive Restaurant; Gatineau, Quebec.
· Monitored food preparation and cooking. · Supervised evening service operations. · Developed evening dinner menu selections, preparation and
presentation. · Trained staff on new menu service procedures. · Worked with Yanic Vincent, Pierre Trudeau’s former chef.
January 1983 - May 1985 Executive Sous Chef/Executive Catering Chef
The Ritz Restaurant Group; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Set up off premise catering division. · Monitored food preparation and cooking. · Supervised evening service operations. · Developed evening dinner menu selections, preparation and
presentation. · Trained staff on new menu service procedures.
May 1985 - July 1985 Chef’s Assistant (Part time)
Stonoway; John Turners residence, Ottawa, Ontario (Leader of the Federal Opposition’s Residence). · Served John Turner's family and catering functions.
Page 7 of 43
May 1983 - November 1988 Self Employed Wildlife Artist; Wakefield, Quebec. · Produced 15 original wildlife pieces along with prints and
commissions. · Sold artwork at various shows.
June 1982 - Feb. 1983 Electronic Technologist
University of Ottawa Electrical Engineering Department; Ottawa, Ontario, · Assembled and tested Masters thesis’, including the world’s first 64
state modem. ·
Summer 1980 Electronic Technician and Motor Technician Canadian International Paper Co.; Gatineau, Quebec.
EDUCATION
March 2003 Canadian Institute of Management Distance Learning Program Certified in Management Course. 1991 - 1992 University of Ottawa - Psychology Carleton University - Psychology, Industrial Design, Calculus
1990 - 1991 Toronto School of Business - Computer Programming and Systems Analysis
1985 - 1987 Algonquin College - Chef Program
Received award for highest final practical cooking exam mark 1983 - 1984 Ottawa School of Art - Landscape Painting, Life Drawing
1978 - 1982 CEGEP Heritage Campus - Science, Electronics Technology
.
Page 8 of 43
Innovation Summary
The innovation being presented is a new type of more efficient generator design which does not create “magnetic friction” when the generator is delivering power to a load (such as a light bulb). When any electric generator delivers power to a load a magnetic field is produced inside the generator. This magnetic field creates an electromagnetic form of friction (called counter-electromotive force or counter-electromotive torque) which is explained by a Law of Physics called Lenz’s Law and Newton’s Third Law which simply states: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”
This means for every one Watt of energy produced by any conventional generator - more than one Watt of energy has to be put back in to the prime mover input to keep the generator turning or it will decelerate and the generator output will decrease and the lights will eventually go out. The input energy can be fossil fuels, wind, water, steam etc. or anything that makes the generator turn to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. The thing that turns the generator is called the prime mover. The prime mover input energy making the generator turn always has to be greater than the output to account for the energy losses in the system and because of the generator created magnetic friction. If $1.00 worth of energy comes out $1.15 worth of energy (or more) must go in.
This magnetic friction can actually be useful and is currently employed in some electric vehicles’ generators to recharge the EVs batteries while simultaneously slowing down (braking) the vehicle. The innovation developed by Potential Difference Inc. reverses this counter-electromotive force/friction produced inside the electric generator and creates a complimentary-electromotive force or torque in its place which assists the generator’s rotation and adds to the torque supplied by the prime mover rather than resisting or diminishing it as per the conventional generator paradigm. When the Potential Difference Regenerative Acceleration generator delivers power to a load the generator responds by creating a complimentary force or torque to that supplied by the prime mover and the system accelerates rather than decelerates. Because the generator and prime mover are working in harmony rather than opposing each other the input power required by the prime mover must be reduced if a set speed is desired. In the conventional generator paradigm;
1. As the electrical power delivered by the generator to the load is increased, 2. The input power delivered to the prime mover must also be increased accordingly. 3. The more energy that is produced the more it costs in input energy supplied.
Whereas in the Potential Difference generator paradigm; 1. As the electrical power delivered by the generator to the load is increased, 2. The input power delivered to the prime mover must be reduced accordingly. 3. The more energy that is produced the less it costs in input energy supplied.
“Regenerative Braking” or “Kinetic Energy Recovery System” (KERS) are the terms normally used to describe
the conventional mode of recovering the energy stored in a moving vehicle as inertia. Both of these inertia recovery systems decelerate the vehicle as a result of their operation. Regenerative braking refers to a generator converting electric vehicle inertia into electrical energy for the batteries while KERS refers to storing vehicle inertia in a flywheel (mechanical battery) for later use. “Regenerative Acceleration” Generator Technology (ReGenX) or “Kinetic Energy Generating System” (KEGS)
are the terms used to describe the mode of generating kinetic energy while simultaneously generating electrical energy. For electric vehicles this means increased range and less recharging and for fossil fuel vehicles this means less fuel consumption and less green house gas emissions. For all other forms of electrical energy production it means a significantly more abundant supply of output power with much less harmful forms of energy input (fossil fuel, coal, nuclear) required and cheaper energy costs across the entire energy spectrum for consumers.
Page 9 of 43
Complete Innovation Description Technical Information
This innovation description explains to how the Regenerative Acceleration Generator and now all generators can now be made to create electricity and system acceleration instead of electricity and system deceleration. The quick solution is to employ 1) a high impedance generator coil and 2) operate the generator at a certain minimum operational frequency at which point the generator coil will cease to operate as an inductor and begin to operate as a capacitor.
This operational paradigm shift is achieved by delaying the generator coil’s ability to allow current to flow until the right moment. A conventional generator coil’s ability to produce a repelling magnetic field and perform in accordance with Lenz’s Law and Newton’s Third Law relies on one critically important ingredient and that ingredient is electric current flow. Because of the design properties and operational parameters of a conventional generator inductor coil, current flow and repelling magnetic field production are virtually synonymous. Current flow in a conventional generator coil is continuous as is the production of magnetic friction inside the generator. Conventional generator coils always operate as inductors in conventional generators. An inductor stores energy in the external magnetic field around the coil and it is this magnetic field that creates the “magnetic friction” inside the generator because it is equal and opposite in nature to the applied
magnetic field which induces the original voltage and current. Classically this is understood according to the law of Physics called Lenz’s Law. When a magnet approaches a coil of wire and current flows in the coil, the coil produces its own (equal and opposite repelling) magnetic field which has the same magnetic polarity as the approaching magnet. In order to keep the magnet approaching the coil, additional energy must be applied to overcome the coil’s induced repelling magnetic field that is trying to push back on the magnet as it approaches. A capacitor on the other hand stores energy internally in the electrostatic field and does not produce the
external magnetic field that is required to create the “magnetic friction”. As the magnet approaches the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil above a certain frequency, electric current flow is restricted by the coil’s frequency dictated impedance (AC resistance). Zt = 2 pi F L + Rdc where: Zt is the total coil impedance, F is the frequency, L is the coil inductance, Rdc is the DC resistance of the coil.
When the operational frequency of a generator coil is increased the AC impedance of the coil also increases because:
Page 10 of 43
When a critical operational frequency parameter is reached in the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil the coil stores energy as a capacitor, internally as voltage in the electrostatic field and no current flows in the generator coil or the load. When the magnet reaches top dead centre and is neither approaching nor receding the coil, the coil frequency drops to zero and the coil impedance drops to the coil’s DC resistance - which is low enough to now allow current to flow. This delayed current flow then produces a maximum magnitude repelling magnetic field which pushes away on the now already receding magnet with great force while attracting the opposite magnet on the rotor. Inductor LR Time Constant and Delaying Current and Reversing Generator Magnetic Friction This portion of the Technical Discussion pertains to the amount of time it takes to create the time delay mentioned above for any generator coil allow current to flow and to induce a repelling magnetic field when in the vicinity of a magnetic field. It is supported by independent empirical evidence as presented in the two Dutch Electrical Engineer videos below which are included on enclosed DVD. All generator coils produce an equal and opposite repelling magnetic field the only difference between a conventional generator coil and a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is:
The conventional generator coil produces a virtually instantaneous and continuous repelling magnetic field and pushes back on the approaching magnetic field 100% of the time.
The Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil does not produce a repelling magnetic field when the magnetic field is approaching.
The repelling magnetic field is stored and delayed inside the coil capacitance of the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil.
It only produces a repelling magnetic field when the magnetic field is already moving away from the coil so the result is an acceleration of the magnetic field away from the coil.
Video 1. Independent Regenerative Acceleration Generator Replication by Dutch Electrical Engineer
This video explains how to create a generator which accelerates when a load is applied. It also shows the system operating in conventional (decelerative) mode and then the Regenerative Acceleration mode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B750RHM9hTc Explanation of LR Time Constant and how it Contributes to Generator Acceleration
When a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field a voltage is induced in that coil of wire according to Michael Faraday’s Law of Induction. When the coil is connected to a load and the circuit is closed, current will flow through the coil and through the load.
As the operational frequency is increased the current flow decreases in direct proportion to the increase in impedance– if the frequency increase is high enough current flow will completely cease.
Page 11 of 43
The speed at which the coil passes through the magnetic field dictates the frequency of the voltage and current induced in the coil but because the generator coil is an inductor – current does not flow instantly and is delayed for a certain period of time. The amount of time delay is dictated by the LR Time Constant of the coil where: L is the coil inductance and R is the coil resistance. The Time Constant formula in a RL circuit is:
where R is the resistance (in ohms), L is the inductance (in henries) and the time constant τ (in seconds).
When a magnet is passed by any generator coil there is a delay in the rise/fall time of the coil which is caused by the back-EMF from the inductor/generator coil. As the current flowing through the coil tries to change the back-
EMF prevents the current from rising or falling. The rise time takes five time-constants to complete.
The graph below shows that for any inductor it takes 1 Time Constant for the current flow in the coil to reach 63.2% of its final value. This also means that the coil is producing 63.2% of its repelling magnetic field. 99.3% is reached at 5 Time Constants.
Diagram 1. Generator Coil Current Rise Time / Time Constant
The mathematical explanation below will show that a conventional generator coil’s Time Constant is very FAST
and therefore the coil’s ability to allow current flow and produce repelling magnetic field production is also very fast.
Conversely the Time Constant for a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is very SLOW – almost 10 times
greater than a conventional coil.
This means that a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil cannot react fast enough to allow current to flow in
the coil. If current cannot flow then the coil cannot produce a repelling magnetic field either. The only alternative for the coil is to store the approaching magnetic field energy as voltage inside the coil’s capacitance. Once the approaching magnetic field is no longer approaching i.e. at top dead centre, this stored voltage can be dissipated through the low DC resistance of the coil and a large delayed repelling magnetic field can be produced - pushing
away on the already receding magnet and accelerating its departure away from the generator coil.
Page 12 of 43
Video 2. Mathematical Explanation concerning LR Time Constant which contributes to acceleration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9bCAMWetL8
Time Constant example for a “Fast” conventional generator
If we take the variables from a conventional generator (from the demonstration video above) we can see how the Time Constant varies dramatically between a “fast” conventional coil and a “slow” Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil. Conventional Generator Time Constant & Coil Parameters
L = 106 mH Rdc = 21.1 ohms Rload = 200 ohms ___L___ = ________106 mH ______ Rtotal 21.1 ohms + 200 ohms Time Constant = 0.47 mSec
As we can see from the above time constant of 0.47 mSec the conventional coil has produced 63.2% of the total magnetic drag possible. This value is very fast and it shows why the conventional generator can easily create virtually instantaneous magnetic drag.
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil Time Constant & Coil Parameters
L = 2.182 H Rdc = 384.5 ohms Rload = 200 ohms ___L___ = ________2.182 H ______ Rtotal 384.5 ohms + 200 ohms Time Constant = 3.73 mSec As we can see from the above time constant of 3.73 mSec the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil has produced 63.2% of the total magnetic drag possible. This value is very slow and it shows why the Regenerative Acceleration Generator cannot allow current flow or produce magnetic drag or friction. A Time Constant Comparison between a conventional generator coil (0.47 mSec) and a Regenerative Acceleration generator coil (3.73 mSec) reveals that the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil ’s Time Constant (or reaction time) is almost 10 times greater. If we continue to add maximum load (more light bulbs etc) the Regenerative Acceleration Generator the Time Constant continues to increase to 5.68 mSec.
Page 13 of 43
Coil Parameters
Inductance
L (henries)
Resistance
Rdc (ohms)
Resistance
Rload (ohms)
Resistanc
e Rtotal (ohms)
Frequency
Hz (hertz)
Time
Constant
τ
(Seconds)
System
Reaction w/
Loading
Conventional Generator Coil
106 mH
21.1 ohms
200 ohms
221.1 ohms
50 Hz
0.46 mSec
System
Deceleration
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil
2.182 H
384.5 ohms
200 ohms
584.5 ohms
50 Hz
3.73 mSec
System
Deceleration
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil
2.182 H
384.5 ohms
200 ohms
584.5 ohms
100 Hz
3.73 mSec
System
Acceleration
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil
2.182 H
384.5 ohms
0.0 ohms
(infinite load)
584.5 ohms
100 Hz
5.68 mSec
Maximum System
Acceleration
Table 1. System Reaction for Conventional Generator Coil VS Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil
The table above shows the coil parameters required to create a generator coil which accelerates on-load (when a load is applied). As can be seen from the graph it is not enough to just employ a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil it must also be employed above the a minimum frequency where the coil impedance really takes effect. Critical Minimum Frequency The Critical Minimum Frequency is the coil operating frequency which dictates the coil reaction. The coil reaction determines whether or not the coil creates on-load acceleration or deceleration. A Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil that is operating below the critical minimum frequency will decelerate on-load as per a conventional generator coil. Creating On-Load Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil Acceleration
In order to produce generator on-load acceleration, the generator coil must operate above the critical minimum frequency that is specific to that coil. Changing the physical parameters of the coil will change its critical minimum frequency by raising or lowering it. .
Page 14 of 43
Intellectual Achievement
“Good science is good observation” It was discovered/observed (purely by accident) that a high impedance generator coil operating above a certain frequency will accelerate on-load rather than decelerate as per a conventional generator coil and as dictated by Lenz’s Law. A conventional generator coil is a low impedance, high current coil and is deliberately designed to conduct maximum current flow. As a result it also produces a maximum repelling magnetic field. A Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is a high impedance, high voltage coil and is deliberately designed to conduct minimum current flow while the magnet is approaching the coil but maximum current flow once the magnet is Top Dead Centre (TDC) to the coil – (neither approaching nor receding). The high impedance coil when operated above a certain frequency will produce a maximum repelling magnetic field albeit delayed until TDC. Intellectual Process
Original the Regenerative Acceleration Generator prototypes could only produce system Acceleration (positive kinetic energy) but no real useable electrical power. Because a Regenerative Acceleration coil is a low current coil it produces high voltage but low current. High current is required to produce useful electrical work such as recharging batteries or lighting lights etc. Producing positive kinetic energy could only be useful if it could be married to a conventional high current generator coil which produces useful electrical power and if the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil was used to reduce or negate the conventional generator’s decelerative effects. The Big If
If this could be accomplished it would mean that the energy and cost that needs to be returned to the prime mover to keep the conventional generator going when on-load could be offset some what and energy savings could be realized.
Page 15 of 43
Experimental Process & Innovation Evolution Generator design requirements for the “real world” dictated that the generator produce real useable power in a package that closely resembled the current generator designs as possible. A convenient retrofit needed to be developed that did not place too great a burden on end users. Prototype # 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5BqEiFK74
Prototype # 1 was a marriage between a pair of conventional generator coils and a pair Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coils. The best of both world’s was the desired outcome. Step 1 The idea was to load the conventional generator coils with a regular light bulb and create system deceleration as expected. Step 2 Then when the Regenerative Acceleration Coils were engaged the system was supposed to accelerate under identical load and identical input power conditions as the conventional generator with absolutely no increase in power to the prime mover. The prime mover in this case was an induction motor and if the current increased one iota during the test it would denote a failure in the design. Likewise if the current decreased while the system speed and generator output increased it would mean a experimental success. Prototype # 1 Success - 300% More With 43% Less But With One Slight Performance Flaw
As desired Prototype # 1 decelerated in conventional generator mode and accelerated in Regenerative Acceleration Mode while the current (and power) to the prime mover both decreased. One IP Performance Flaw is One Too Many
Potential Difference Inc. (PDI) is an intellectual property development and licensing company. PDI’s mandate is to develop technology IP and then license that technology. As a result it is incumbent on PDI to ensure that the IP being licensed is the most up to date and current version possible to protect the interests of our developmental licensing partners and investors.
Ultimately the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil outperformed the conventional generator coil and produced 300% more usable electrical power to the
load while requiring 43% less power to be delivered to the prime mover.
In real world terms this would mean 300% more power delivered
to the grid with 43% less green house gasses or nuclear waste.
Page 16 of 43
Prototype # 1 - The Flaw
Because the conventional generator coil and Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil were placed on the same core, the discharging magnetic field/flux from the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil was in the opposite direction to the flux in the conventional generator coil. The result was that when the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil was engaged the system accelerated, which was good but the output power to the load dropped, which was bad. Not bad in the sense that the technology didn’t work but bad in the sense that an IP improvement could possibly be made by someone else if PDI ceased development there. The onus was on PDI to make the improvement or risk having the technology usurped by an outside party. Prototype # 2 – The Solution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmFbINO0dCU
Prototype # 2 was ultimately a success but it went through many iterations before its final design destination as Prototype # 6
Prototype # 3 – Prototype # 2 but with a DC Prime Mover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5FvSVdf58
Prototype # 4 – Further Enhancements and Video Demo for NASA Goddard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKO8r-3xrw
The solution to Prototype # 1’s performance shortcoming was to reconfigure the physical arrangement of the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil and the conventional generator coil such that the direction of discharging flux from the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil would be in the same direction as the flux
going into the conventional generator coil.
Prototype # 3 was important because we needed to ensure that the on-load acceleration wasn’t restricted to just an AC induction motor and that is was just some sort of curious laboratory anomaly that couldn’t be used with other prime mover modes. As it turned out the technology performs equally well with a DC motor as the prime mover.
Page 17 of 43
Prototype # 4 – Prototype Design and Performance Explanation for NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obs
Experimental Process & IP Commercialization Genesis
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology IP commercialization began when California Diesel and Power requested a prototype to be built so that it could be tested and validated at their own facility in Sacramento CA. Their plan was to use the generator technology in an electric vehicle entry and to compete in the ten million dollar Automotive X Prize. PDI built a prototype for CD&P which they validated internally and eventually purchased an IP license agreement. Prototype # 5 California Diesel and Power Prototype
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAS5EKsIQM4
Prototype # 6 Upgraded CD&P Prototype with New Rotor Tested by NRC Scientist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARztYvprKkA
Coming Full Circle and Reaching “The Holy Grail for Generators” While the original Regenerative Acceleration Generator prototype introduced additional kinetic energy into the system it was unable to produce any useable electric power. By employing both types of coils in one generator design this problem was solved. When NRC scientist Doug Hartwick independently tested the regenerative Acceleration Generator prototype at the University of Ottawa he noted a huge gain in output power over the conventional generator with a significant input power reduction. Doug’s test was performed with both generators operating at identical speeds to ensure identical prime mover efficiency and to equalize all other test variables such as bearing friction and wind resistance etc. (Test data attached). If the prime mover input was not reduced however and both systems were allowed to react naturally with identical initial operating speeds and prime mover input the conventional system would decelerate down and the generator output would be reduced to 0.0 Watts while the Regenerative Acceleration Generator output equaled 4 Watts which led Doug to suggest, “this technology is the holy grail for generators.” Updated prototypes would later increase the electrical output to 10, 30, 50, 1000 Watts.
Eventually CD&P returned their prototype and it was upgraded with a new rotor with more powerful magnets and output was increased significantly over Prototype # 2. This prototype would eventually be independently third party tested by an NRC scientist and shown to produce over 223% more power to the load over the conventional generator with 40% less input power required by the prime mover at identical operating speeds.
Page 18 of 43
Potential Difference Intellectual Property Mandate Revisited (again) Prototypes # 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all successfully employed an “E” core which as the name implies is shaped like the capital letter E. Prototype # 1 employed an “I” core with both coils mounted on it which did not produce ideal results from an IP development standpoint. Generator coils are wound on top of soft metal ferromagnetic material which attracts the magnetic fields into the coil which is required to induce electrical power into the coil. IP Mandate Necessity is the “Mother of all Invention”
PDI’s IP development mandate necessitated that the “I” core coil design be revisited to explore the possibility of creating an “ideal” I core design solution of one existed at all. The eventual solution was to build a high voltage, high impedance Regenerative Acceleration generator coil and employ a step down transformer to do the work of providing usable current and electric power. Prototype # 7 was born. Prototype # 7 Successful “I” Core Performance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_UXcNMBGTA
Prototype # 8 “I” Core Success in an “E” Core Package
Prototype # 8 involved a return to the “E” core, dual coil design but with the elimination of the high current, low impedance conventional coil as per the earlier “E” core prototypes. Prototype # 8 proved successful as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPMbWzNuMOg
Prototype # 9 New “I” Core Design VS Conventional Generator Comparison
Experimental test data collected for prototype # 9 showed the conventional generator coil producing 7 Watts at 3100 RPM while creating system deceleration. The Regenerative Acceleration Generator produced 45 Watts at 3100 RPM which represents a 543% generator performance increase at identical operating speeds and drive shaft input torque.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3JVjbXOssQ
Page 19 of 43
Prototype # 9 Torque Paradigms Video for the Quebec Institute for Vehicle Advancement
Prototype # 9 was used to demonstrate the two different torque paradigms between a conventional generator and a Regenerative Acceleration Generator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC06V8vXUqI .......
Prototype # 9 Successful BIONX Electric Vehicle Integration Test
Potential Difference Inc’s IP commercialization and licensing efforts included the integration of the technology into an electric vehicle. Our first attempt was to determine if the Regenerative Acceleration Generator could operate successfully in an existing electric vehicle design. The BIONX bicycle retrofit provided the first evidence that this was indeed a good possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGvOBDCh7sA
Prototype # 10 End Game ReGenX Generator Design Fruition
Prototype # 10 represents the culmination of six years of Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology development. The design goal for this IP iteration was to remove the step down transformer and create a generator which provided usable electric power with acceleration and also with deceleration if desired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3gVfltiO-E
Prototype # 10 has also been followed up by Prototype # 11 which can be started as a motor and then converted over to generator mode when required and when opportunity dictates.
Page 20 of 43
Innovation Uniqueness
All electric generators create torque. A conventional generator creates a counter-electromotive torque when on- load and works against the torque supplied by the prime mover. As a result the prime mover must provide additional torque to overcome the generator’s induced counter torque (magnetic friction). The additional torque that is required to keep a conventional generator running comes at a financial and environmental cost because more energy must be expended to create the required torque and keep the generator running and producing electrical power. The energy required to keep generators running and producing electrical power also comes at a national security and human cost for some because human lives must be expended directly or indirectly in either recovering the energy required or expropriating it from those countries that have it. The more energy required by humanity the higher the costs associated with producing it. The Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology’s innovation uniqueness lies in the fact that it reverses the paradigm described above and allows generators to produce energy but it also allows them to produce a complimentary-electromotive torque which works with the prime mover and in harmony with the prime mover supplied torque. The intellectual achievement is a generator that requires less energy and less cost when supplying energy for humanity’s needs. It results in an energy solution that is viable and sustainable for everyone in the long term and does not rely on earth or human exploitation to meet its demands. For the Native Indians living downstream from the Oil Sands it means chemical toxin free water for fishing, drinking and bathing. For the Middle East it means and end to oil wars and external national destabilization efforts to control oil resources. For Americans it means a reprieve from the increasing pressure and demand to overextend its financial resources and military to control dwindling oil reserves in a naive and futile West vs East oil race that no one can win.
Page 21 of 43
Chronological Listing of Events, Innovation Evolution & Challenges
1) The original idea for the innovation came during a college lecture on Lenz’s Law in my motor/generator class while studying in the CEGEP/Electronics Technology Program in 1980. Lenz’s Law pertains to the production of a repelling magnetic field in a generator coil and how that magnetic field enters the air gap between the magnet and the coil and repels the magnet as it tries to approach the coil. My theory was that if said magnetic field could be diverted or even a small percentage this would make the generator that much more efficient because it would produce less magnetic drag. My idea was quickly shot down by my professor who said that in order to do this first I would have to violate Lenz’s Law, Newton’s Third Law and the Law of Conservation of Energy at that it was an impossible goal. 2) Twenty years later in 1999 I began working on Flywheel Energy Storage Technology with the University of Virginia’s flywheel research lab due to the development of a conical magnetic design I had developed. Flywheel energy storage systems are mechanical batteries which store energy as inertia and operate at very high speeds. 3) While developing the generator for the flywheel technology project it was discovered that at a certain RPM and coil frequency a generator coil will accelerate when a load is applied rather than decelerate as is commonly known. The original prototype accelerated so quickly and so unexpectedly that it began to fly apart with bits and pieces being shot in every direction which caused me to dive under the test bench for fear of my safety. 4) When the original generator prototype continually “refused” to decelerate when placed on-load it was seen as a serious problem that needed to be corrected. The original prototype was completely dismantled right down to the nuts and bolt in search of the “problem” which was thought to be a short circuit in the prime mover. No electrical faults were discovered in the troubleshooting “witch hunt.” 5) Once rebuilt the generator prototype continued to accelerate on-load so the problematic anomaly was determined to be something other than isolated incident and an investigation ensued to determine it had any beneficial attributes. 6) The original theory was that the magnetic fields induced by the generator coils were being magnetically coupled to the prime mover which was an induction motor due to the fact that all the connection components were ferromagnetic material and could conduct magnetic fields. If the generator’s induced magnetic fields were being diverted into the induction motor and strengthening the rotor or the stator’s magnetic field this would create additional torque and acceleration would result. 7) A simple experimental prototype was devised which had an induction motor with a moveable permanent magnet placed near the motor’s drive shaft. The drive shaft was connected internally to the motor’s rotor and stator coil. When the magnet was moved into the vicinity of the motor’s drive shaft the motor would accelerate and when moved away it would accelerate. 8) This gave credence to the original “on-load acceleration theory” and the early prototypes were designed to encourage and enhance this requirement.
Page 22 of 43
Enter the “Human Problem” - Lenz’s Law Applies in Humans Also
9) Provisional patents were filed and the generator performance was confirmed by Dr. Zahn at MIT who is an expert in electromagnetic systems. Dr. Zahn went on record with the Toronto Star’s Energy Reporter Tyler Hamilton (who was covering our trip to MIT) and said, “I have seen it and it works. It is not something I would have expected and now I am just trying to figure it out.”
10) Our trip to MIT was designed to solicit MIT’s assistance in validating the generator acceleration phenomenon and to help develop the backing theory so the technology could eventually be turned into a viable commercial product. 11) Tyler Hamilton and the Toronto Star published a story about our trip to MIT and the byline asked a deliberately misleading question which was designed for one reason only - to stir up controversy to “sell” the story. The question was, “Is this Perpetual Motion.” 12) While conducting his interviews Tyler asked me if the technology was a perpetual motion machine and I said no. Dr. Zahn asked me the same question as well and I said no. Dr. Zahn and I both concluded the same thing and it was obvious to anyone with honest intentions because a prime mover was always required and the prime mover needed to be plugged into an electrical outlet or external power source to make the system function, which excluded it from meeting the perpetual motion criteria. 13) Once the Toronto Star “Perpetual Motion” story was published in 2008, the proverbial “you know what” hit the fan http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042. The technology became an overnight sensation and all our previous legitimate attempts at following rational and accepted scientific investigation protocols were thrown out the window. 14) Dr. Zahn’s professional reputation at MIT was damaged and now tainted and he refused to continue the scientific investigation with us because he assumed that we made the perpetual motion claim to Tyler Hamilton and the Toronto Star even though the complete opposite was true. 15) Dr. Habash, our lab supervisor at our Ottawa University dismantled our technology webpage which was being set up to track the evolution of the technology in a public forum because he wanted to distance himself from the controversy. As did all Ottawa University professors eventually except for one who’s job security was threatened and who was eventually fired for supporting the technology. 16) The Toronto Star’s reader manipulation ruse worked perfectly and in a follow up story Tyler Hamilton boasted to his readers that it was one of the most read and discussed stories of the entire year http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/306532. What he didn’t tell his readers, even to this day was that the entire story was predicated on a lie and that it left a trail of disaster in its wake. 17) Winston Churchill one said that, “a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” As we have since learned (the hard way) when it comes to the media the truth is expendable or at
least temporarily ignored if a lie can be used to sell a story. Recently Richard Syrett produced a story on CBC radio in which he advertised Thane Heins as the inventor of a perpetual motion machine http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/.
Page 23 of 43
18) The truth was in 2008 when we went to MIT for technology validation we had no real idea what was going on and only had unproven theories and some empirical evidence that had no backing theory to base any commercialization efforts or justify soliciting investor funds. 19) Previous attempts at having the technology validated from at least a performance perspective and not a scientific one were also met with similar challenges and questions of the availability of scientific credibility or ethics in the energy research arena. 20) Potential Difference paid about one hundred thousand dollars from 2005 to 2010 searching for some public endorsement and validation of the technology so PDI could seek investor funds with some credibility.
Kinetrics Lab: A former Ontario Hydro testing facility spent an entire week evaluating the generator and provided a written report and a conclusion that stated that, “the starting capacitor in the base of the motor/prime mover was responsible for the on-load acceleration.” The report could not explain how it was possible that the starting capacitor “knew” when a load was being applied to the generator in order to initiate the acceleration or when to initiate deceleration when the load was removed. The evaluators refused to explain why the on-load acceleration phenomenon persisted when the capacitor was physically removed since it was only required on start-up. Requests for retesting and a new report were refused as was a refund which was based on over fifty errors in the report.
Electron Energy Corporation: A Pennsylvania magnetic manufacturing company was contracted to
evaluate the technology and two magnetic PhDs were consulted who performed seven hours of testing and a finite element analysis. In their written report they concluded that, “they could not evaluate the technology because the conventional generator which decelerated on-load rotated in the clockwise direction and the Regenerative Acceleration Generator which accelerated on-load, rotated in the counter-clockwise direction.” They did not explain why direction is irrelevant and Lenz’s Law does not differentiate and only states that... “when a magnet approaches a coil of wire...” We noted that during the
testing procedure the evaluators became agitated and frustrated that they were unable to eliminate the on-load acceleration phenomenon even after their machine shop produced a new machined part meant to “fix” the acceleration problem.
Filtran Transformers: An Ottawa based transformer manufacturing company was introduced to the
technology because they could manufacture the generator coils required and because their parent company could potentially invest in the technology’s development. We provided a live demonstration to their engineers and we were informed that there were irrefutable laws of the universe which prevented our technology from working.
Magna International: Magna International was introduced to Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology while we were at the University of Ottawa and it was our desire that they would sponsor our lab and our research in return for IP licensing rights. We provided four live technology demonstrations and allowed them to test one of our prototypes for an entire week. We were asked to provide torque testing which we did (test data attached). The request was made to ensure that the Regenerative Acceleration Generator did indeed produce complimentary torque as we claimed. Third party torque testing was independently performed by TRIAS Innovations at our Ottawa University satellite lab at it was successful and proved beyond any doubt that the technology did produce complimentary on-load torque which added to the prime mover torque and resulted in on-load system acceleration. Dave Pascoe, Vice President, Electric Vehicle Technologies then asked us to build him a perpetual motion machine. The relationship started to deteriorate and we were then informed that their engineers concluded that the technology didn’t work.
Electric Mobility Canada: Mike Elwood the Chairman of Electric Mobility Canada visited our lab at
Ottawa University and concluded that the technology was, “a game changer” and we were asked to present the technology to their members. Dave Pascoe, VP at Magna International and EMC board member stepped in and vetoed this technology presentation opportunity and claimed that Magna was conducting evaluations – which was completely untrue.
Page 24 of 43
Defense Research and Development Canada: Five PhDs from Defense Research and Development
Canada visited our lab at the University of Ottawa and validated the generator performance. When Richard Syrett of the CBC approached the DRDC and requested to interview the five PhDs they all received email warnings informing them that their employment would be terminated if they spoke about what they witnessed.
21) Many challenges have been encountered during the evolution of the Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology including technical development and financial resources issues but by far the most persistent and recurring problem is the problem of human perception and professionalism and the scientific acceptance of something new and unknown. While technical development and financial issues were virtually all solved, worldwide licensing initiated, over 3000 professional connections on LinkedIn, successful generator replications in Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, USA and Canada and with over two million generator videos viewed on YouTube the human problem for some still persists to this day: Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 Dear Mr Heins, I have reviewed your YouTube video and can save you a lot of time and money because the device does not work... You will find that perpetual motion machines still don’t exist. So thank you for the offer but I have no interest in helping you to develop this technology. Best Regards, Jon Hilton FIMechE CEng Managing Partner Flybrid Systems LLP Tel +44 (0)1327 855190 Mob +44 (0)7825 240708 Company Registration No: OC325755 Silverstone Technology Park Silverstone, Northamptonshire, NN12 8GX www.flybridsystems.com Overall Winner - British Engineering Excellence Awards 2009 22) Many times during the development and refinement of the technology at the University of Ottawa when the “human problem” would come up and Dr. Habbash would always remind us that, “this is not and engineering question, it is not even a physics question, it is a human question and it is a question of human acceptance which is often a very big problem.”
23) After successfully demonstrating the technology at MIT and enduring the “perpetual motion storm” that ensued we locked ourselves away in our lab and tried to focus on the tasks at hand while outsiders continually tried to have us evicted and crucified as scientific heretics who were “creating sins against science”. Eventually they would
even succeed.
Page 25 of 43
24) Prototype Development Overview
Although this has already been covered somewhat in the Experimental Process above here it is again in more detail:
1. Prototype # 0 was the prototype developed in my basement which was demonstrated at MIT, Kinectrics, EEC, Filtran Transformers and the original prototype we brought to Ottawa University when we moved in there. It only had the capacity to generate kinetic energy and no real usable electric power. It was our first proof of concept upon which we based our original provisional patent applications.
2. It didn’t take us very long once at Ottawa U to discover flaws in the original theory and then to invalidate our own original “generator magnetic flux migration into the motor acceleration theory” along with our costly patent work.
3. All it took was one piece of plastic pipe that was long enough and voila. 4. A new theory of operation needed to be produced which isolated the acceleration to the coil properties
only. Our new frequency based, high impedance, low current, self induced coil capacitance theory was developed which still exists to this day and it deals with the differences between the physical properties of the two coils.
5. Prototype # 1 was our first prototype built at the University of Ottawa in 2008 and it used two microwave oven step-up transformers as the generator coils. It successfully demonstrated conventional generator on-load decelerative performance using the high current windings and then showed on-load acceleration when the high voltage coils were employed to reverse the deceleration effects. An IP improvement demand was noted.
6. Prototype #2 was developed to satisfy the IP improvement that was required and it was also successful. 7. During the evolution of prototype # 2 and its subsequent iterations it was discovered that the high current
coil could be eliminated altogether and that the high voltage coils could indeed be used to produce usable electric power and acceleration.
8. The “E” coil was developed with two high voltage coils which both produced electric power and acceleration so a simplified “I” coil design also needed to be perfected.
9. Prototype # 9 represented the successful “I” core generator design evolution but had its own Achilles’ heel which needed to be addresses.
10. Prototype # 9 required a step down transformer to enable it to produce useable power. Since the step down transformer was an energy loss contributor to the system a way to remove it was desired.
11. Prototype # 10 was conceived and it successfully produced usable electrical power with acceleration but it had one huge crippling problem which threatened to derail the entire Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology Development Program.
12. The problem was that if one generator coil was used it would produce X amount of electrical power with Y amount of acceleration.
13. When a second coil was added however the electrical output of coil # 1 would drop by a certain percentage.
14. If a third coil was added, coil # 1’s output would drop even more and so on. 15. This problem was identified early on by us while at the University of Ottawa in 2008 but it was not
considered to be a significant problem (to be honest we didn’t know how to solve it so we ignored it since we really didn’t understand anything at that early stage). It did become a very significant problem in 2010 however when California Diesel and Power also identified the problem with their own prototype they were building in Sacramento. This problem also threatened to jeopardize our licensing negotiations which were ongoing at the same time.
16. The onus was on us to solve the problem and this was achieved with prototype # 11.
Page 26 of 43
17. Prototype # 11’s design solved the performance problem of coil output reduction and even reversed it so that when a second coil was placed on-load the output of the first coil would actually increase.
18. This turned out to be a very important developmental milestone which would come into play when the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil was employed as a motor coil.
19. The Regenerative Acceleration Generator employs a Salient Pole Coil Axial Flux Design or Pancake Motor Design. What this means is that each individual coil is antonymous and can be: A) individually switched on or off as a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil or B) on or off as a motor coil and even C) on or off as a regenerative braking coil.
20. Basically if your generator has three coils for example, one coil can be a motor coil, another can be a regenerative braking coil and the last one can operate as a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil or any other combination for that matter.
21. The really interesting, beneficial and fortunate aspect of having a motor coil and a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil operating side by side is that the discharging magnetic flux from the motor coil will be collected and recycled inside the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil boosting its output and increasing the overall system efficiency.
The final development paved the way for electric vehicle motor/generator development and integration
which is currently ongoing.
From the university lab to the real world
Page 27 of 43
Budding Commercial Success
Potential Difference Inc. started “selling” Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology IP licenses in 2010. Our first developmental licensing partner was California Diesel and Power. Currently we negotiating EV licensing rights with Hero Electric of India and we are in the process of integrating the technology into their scooter line. Hero Electric is affiliated with Honda in India and the company is called Hero Honda. We anticipate that our work with Hero Electric will eventually trickle up to Honda motorcycles and then Honda automobiles. Because our Regenerative Acceleration Generator licensing is free our revenues are primarily based on IP royalties generated from the sale of units which does not exist at this early stage. PDI creates Developmental Partnership arrangements whereby our clients pay for the development and integration costs associated with their specific application. Currently we are in the initial negotiating stages of this process with Hero Electric / Hero Honda. Our motor/generator coils will be manufactured at Toroid Tech / Northern Transformers in Toronto, Ontario. Motors will also be fully assembled at the Northern Transformers facility. Motor commutators will be manufactured and supplied by Industrial Commutator Company Ltd. of Barrie Ontario. Motor electronic components supplied by CanaKit of North Vancouver, BC. Scooters will be distributed in India, Europe and North America by Hero Electric. Potential Difference is also currently in the initial stage of developing portable generators for homes and businesses. Large scale generator development is in the initial communication stage for hydro electricity production in the Honduras, Africa and for a water purification initiative in India.
Page 28 of 43
Broad Acceptance and Recognition CHRYSLER ELECTRIFIED POWERTRAINS
“The technology looks really interesting and is revolutionary. I would like to learn more about the technology. Is it possible to organize a demo or a lecture in the USA?" GENERAL MOTORS
"This sounds interesting. I'd like you to connect with our Fuel Economy Learning Program manager, to schedule a time for you to come in and share the technology with us. We need to know more about the Physics behind it". "I have talked with my colleagues in GM US about your solution for vehicles. So, we would like more details about fuel economy and emissions regarding it. Do you have any company that use this approach in vehicles? I am open for discussion". MERCEDES-BENZ
"It would be fitting for the inventor of the automobile to be first with your revolutionary technology and for me to play a role in that would be awesome!" NISSAN Japan
"Thanks for providing technical information. If the effect of your invention is really true, I am sure there will be strong needs in the market. How can you prove this on an actual electric vehicle, for example by making a prototype using our Nissan Leaf? I would like to discuss your business model and financial requirements, investment needs, business plan." NEIL YOUNG
"We are really interested in using your generator technology in our LinkVolt project in order to eliminate roadside refueling.” EV WORLD Mike Brace, EV World Tech Editor "When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism." http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890 NASA
Erik Clark NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center "The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do a colloquium" US AIR FORCE
Omar Mendoza, Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Patterson "We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements" CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY Gilles Leclerc, Canadian Space Agency Space Technologies "I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at your technologies and to visit your laboratory"
Page 29 of 43
ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADA
Mike Elwood, Chairman Electric Mobility Canada and Vice President of Azure Dynamics "This is a freakin game changer!" ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADA Al Cormier, Executive Director Electric Mobility Canada "I am writing to ask you to submit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration technology for circulation to our Committee members" OTTAWA UNIVERSITY Dr. Habash, University of Ottawa "Of course it accelerates... this represents several new chapters in physics, that is why we are consulting MIT" UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Dr. Stanley Townsend, University of Toronto & Former Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics "Thane, Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist & an engineer. The level of technical detail was adequate to tell me that you probably have made a very significant advance in applied physics & in safely & successfully handling a new source of electric power. Congratulations!" MIT
Dr. Marcus Zahn "It works and it is not something I would have expected, now I am just trying to figure it out" RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
Dr. Evstigneev N.M., Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Science " A number of your experiments are not lying in the field of Maxwellian electrodynamics" UNIVERSITY OF CONCORDIA
Professor Joseph Shin, Concordia University "This is absolutely fascinating stuff you are doing" ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
Mike Simpson, Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute "You seem to have made an interesting discovery. Our internal physics experts review this information and have determined that it is very interesting work" PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO Donald Wallace, Executive Director Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy "Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal for Engineering and Public Policy?"
Page 30 of 43
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
David Mann, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science "If possible would like to meet with you to discuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics behind your invention. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps we can include some of your material on our website newsletter?" LINKEDIN SLIDESHARE Date: Fri, November 25, 2011 7:08 am
"Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology " is being talked about on Linkedln more than anything
else on SlideShare right now. So we've put it on the homepage of SlideShare (in the "Hot on Linkedln" section).
Well done!
-The SlideShare Team
Media Press Canadian Business Magazine http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/17096--the-next-great-canadian-idea-peripiteia-generator EV World – Electric Automobile Website - USA http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890 The Tech Journal - Pakistan http://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/major-breakthrough-in-ev-technology-to-recharge-batteries-conitually-with-infinite-range.xhtml USA Radio http://www.oneradionetwork.com/new-technologies/thane-heins-inventor-of-the-infinity-generator-just-imagine-no-more-energy-exploitation-september-1-2011/ USA Energy Research Site http://pesn.com/2011/08/28/9501905_Thane_Heins_Regenerative_Acceleration_Generator/ http://www.mevio.com/episode/293349/fen-110824
CBC Radio - Canada http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/ CBC Radio - Canada http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/08/29/episode-10---what-makes-them-tick/
Toronto Star Article http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042 Early Ottawa University Interview http://keyrecords.com/designers/thanes.html Ottawa Citizen Article http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=31887883-be00-4d3c-8763-d96564794cae Physics Website http://www.physorg.com/news121610315.html
Page 31 of 43
Industry Statements (small sampling) Letter # 1 – Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute From: Mike Simpson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Students Draft Report and TM4 Video To: "Thane C. Heins" <[email protected]> Received: Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:12 AM Mr. Heins, Thank you for sending these additional details. We've had our internal physics experts review this information and have determined that it is very interesting work. We are eager to understand the market implications, i.e., the
commercialized cost of the additional efficiency of this type of generator. All the best, Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute 1.303.567.8652 (office) 1.720.236.0295 (cell) move.rmi.org Letter # 2 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research Laboratory
From: Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:53 PM To: Thane Heins Cc: Spicer, Malory E Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC Subject: RE: RE: Potential Difference Inc Technology Introduction & Invitation Hi Thane, I will get authorization to travel within the next day or so. Please stand by. Also, by all the data you are showing, it seems to me that you are hung up on trying to "convince" college professors of the validity. Our approach is much different, we look at the perspective of, "how can it be advance to the next level and what are the potential applications". I look forward to working with you and finding the path for this technology. Best regards, Omar Mendoza, Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Patterson AFB Ohio 45433 (937) 255-2247
Page 32 of 43
Letter # 3 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research Laboratory --- On Mon, 11/2/09, Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC :
From: Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC Subject: RE: Consulting PhD Request - Regenerative Acceleration Technology To: "Thane C. Heins" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Tyler Hamilton" <[email protected]> Received: Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:42 AM Hi Thane, We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements rather than understanding it (We'll leave that to the smarter folks...in general, we still can't explain simple "magnetism", we just know what it does and we use it. If we had to explain it, we'd still be debating it). I believe my support contractor CTC is waiting for torque data to determine what the scale up would look like. Best regards, Omar Mendoza, Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Patterson AFB Ohio 45433 (937) 255-2247 (937) 255-2247 Letter # 4 - Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science
From: “CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE” David Mann <[email protected]> Subject: Electric Vehicle Regenerative Acceleration Technology To: [email protected] Cc: "Olga Barrat" <[email protected]> Received: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 3:28 PM Dear Thane, Thane, I was too late reading this E-mail, my apologies. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps we can include some of your material on our website newsletter? The following is an E-mail I received from Dr. Olga Barrat (CAAS). I am the Ontario representative of CAAS and if possible would like to meet with you to discuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics behind your invention. I live in Ottawa and you can call me on 613-741-5063 or 613-741-5063 . David Mann Ontario Representative, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science
Page 33 of 43
Letter # 5 – Canadian Space Agency From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:19 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Potential Difference Inc - Lab Data etc.
Dear Mr. Heins, I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at your technologies and to visit your laboratory. Best, -GL Gilles Leclerc DG Space Technologies - Technologies spatiales Canadian Space Agency - Agence spatiale canadienne Letter # 6 NASA –Goddard Space Flight Center Invitation Subject: re: previous phone call From: "Erik Clark" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 8:48 am To: “Dr. Habash University of Ottawa Professor” [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Riadh, I had contacted you this previous Saturday about trying to procure an abstract on the work you are doing with Thane Heins. The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do a colloquium, but would like to get an abstract on the work done so far before moving ahead. Let me know when you could provide this, so we can look at possibilities moving forward. – Erik Clark NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center Bldg 18 Room 200 Mailstop 730.0 Greenbelt , MD 20771 alt email: [email protected]
Page 34 of 43
Letter # 7 Electric Mobility Canada Letter From: Al Cormier <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Mike Elwood Regenerative Acceleration Demonstration and Comments To: "'Thane C. Heins'" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:15 AM Good morning Mr. Heins, I am pleased to advise that our Board of Directors has asked our Technology and Energy Development Committee to be the vehicle to comment on emerging technologies. The Chair of the Committee is agreeable to this mandate change. How this new process will evolve is yet to be determined but I am writing to ask you to submit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration technology for circulation to our Committee members. Regards Al Cormier, CAE/c.a.é. Executive Director / Directeur général Electric Mobility Canada – Mobilité électrique Canada Suite 309, 9-6975 Meadowvale Town Centre Circle Mississauga, ON L5N 2V7, Canada Tel: 416 970 9242 Fax: 905 858 9291 Email/Courriel: [email protected] Web site/site web: www.emc-mec.ca Letter # 8 Professional Engineers of Ontario - Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Donald Wallace (OCEPP) <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Donald Wallace (OCEPP) <[email protected]> Subject: Video Data - DND-NRC/DEW Engineering Lab Demo October 6th, 2009 To: "Thane C. Heins" <[email protected]> Received: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 1:53 PM Thanks, Thane. Both videos are very interesting. Are you familiar with the Centre’s Journal of Policy Engagement? (If not, you can
check it out on our website.) Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal? Cheers, Donald. Donald Wallace Executive Director Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy 25 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 1000 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6S9 416-840-1078 www.ocepp.ca
Page 35 of 43
Letter # 9 & 10 Dr. Stanley Townsend U of T
From: "Stan Townsend" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Technology Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:23:32 -0400 Thane: Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist & an engineer. The level of technical detail was adequate to tell me that you probably have made a very significant advance in applied physics & in safely & successfully handling a new source of electric power. Congratulations! You have almost certainly already applied to the USPTO for a patent application, and you will probably have had your patent application security classified. C'est la vie. :-) I have taken the liberty of forwarding a blind copy of this e-mail to you on to a physicist friend who might contact you further. You will find him to be highly technically knowledgeable in what you are doing, but you will also find him highly ethical in advising you & helping you to move forward within this newly developing technical community. Stay out of the limelight, and ignore any critical skeptics - don't let your energy get tied up in responding. Develop the new technology - it will market itself - you do not have to persuade skeptics. I am in Ottawa on June 22 P.M. & the 23rd, visiting my son at www.c3i.ca , and may arrange to visit you if possible. All best wishes for technical & business success - I agree with your leadership approach. Stanley J. Townsend, Ph.D., P.Eng. --- Stan Townsend <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Stan Townsend" <[email protected]> To: "TCH.PotentialDifference" <[email protected]> Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Technology. Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:29:43 -0400 Dear Thane: Thank you for your kind reply. My words will have been well deserved by you as the inventor (I'm equating Founder to Inventor - right?) It is not easy trying to do what you seem to have done. If you run into problems trying to "square your results" with the Conservation of Energy Rule, Let us talk about that, because I might be able to help you with that. I think that you have accomplished what you seem to have accomplished, but your "reconciliation" with present day physics "might not be taking everything into account." There is something that you might not yet be able to explain in simple physics/EE knowing. One of my past tasks (enjoyable, even at that!!) was to spend 8 years as Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics whilst it was on the campus of York University, under the leadership of Dr. Ralph Nicholls, Editor, one of Canada's pre-eminent physicists. I am well versed in the range of variation in the way that various physicists choose their perspective of how to support or disagree with apparently-debatable experimental physics. AND, if you have multiples greater than 100%, You ARE in the realm of physics, and not of electrical engineering – and there is a big difference. DO NOT STUMBLE ON THE PHYSICS OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!! Do Not explain the physics - stay with explaining ONLY the electrical POWER measurements - it will keep you out of a lot of media trouble. As a general rule, I would caution you to stay with the general approach of describing your experimental measurements on the functionality of what you have discovered, developed, and are currently experimental witnesses to. As for me, I would always retreat to the reality of what you are experiencing in the functional
Page 36 of 43
operation of the three variants of your discovery. Be very careful indeed of whether or not you want to equate conservation of energy to your input-output measurements - go with your measurements as they are, and stick to their explanation of energy out divided by energy in - and let the percentage efficiency results and the observations fall where they may. My hunch is that you might yet not be able to measure the source of the"extra energy" being entrained into your output - DO NOT ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE WHY OF "WHERE" "THE-GREATER-THAN-100%-EFFICIENCY" COMES FROM ----- EXPLAIN ONLY THE RESULTS OF THE MEASUREMENTS THAT YOU DO OF THE COMPOUND OUTPUT!! DEFER ANY DEFENSE OF THE SOURCE OF THE EXTRA ENERGY "ENTRAINED" BY THE INPUT - YOU "MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AT THIS POINT IN TIME!!" DO NOT SAY EVEN THIS - SAY ONLY THAT YOU ARE WORKING TO IDENTIFY THE NEW SOURCE --- END OF STORY!! Regards, Stan Stanley J. Townsend, Ph.D., P.Eng. Letter # 11 Russian Academy of Science Letter
From: Евстигнеев Николай <[email protected]> Subject: Some questions about your great work in electrodynamics To: [email protected] Received: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 2:08 PM Hello dear Thane! My name is Nick; I’m doctor in mathematics working in the field of partial differential equations and chaotic dynamics. I’m very interested in what you are doing with your experiments, because from the mathematical point of view what’s going on in your experiments is the break of SO3 symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Mills equations that makes it obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics. There are some questions about you great experimental work. I would be delighted if you take some time to answer those. These questions might be lame for I’m not too good in electro techniques and a very poor engineer, so please don’t judge me too hard. The questions are: 1. In your experimental work with Multi Coil Stators that are self-accelerating is the acceleration constant (a=constant) or does it stops when a certain rotation speed is achieved? In our observations so far the acceleration stops when a certain rotational speed is reached. However if the parameters of the coil are changed (i.e. increasing the wire gauge) the acceleration can be made to continue. Each coil has an ideal operating range or window of operation. 2. Is there a correlation between frequency (rotation velocity) and the number of turns in your accelerating high voltage coils, core material or it’s impedance? The acceleration is based on frequency dependant impedance. Coil impedance is a function of frequency
where: XL = 2pifL ZL = 2pifL + RDC As the frequency increases (rotor RPM) the impedance of the coil also increases so its current carrying capacity decreases accordingly. As the coil’s ability to carry current decreases the coil’s (Lenz induced) repelling magnetic field also decreases while at the same time the coil’s induced voltage is increasing.
Page 37 of 43
When the magnet is TDC (top dead centre) to the coil (neither approaching nor receding) the coil impedance drops to the DC resistance of the coil and the self induced voltage is maximum. The high voltage is then able to be dissipated through the small DC resistance of the coil – producing a delayed magnetic field which pushes away on the now receding magnet while at the same time attracting the next opposite magnet pole on the rotor. If the Self Accelerating coil is engaged at a rotor speed where current can flow in the coil (because the frequency is low) – then the coil acts like any conventional coil and produces a repelling magnetic field as per Lenz’s Law.
In bi-toroid transformer you have a central coil on a high reluctance flux core and two bifilar coils with serial connection on low reluctance flux cores (low resistance), right? Can you make these coils of a thick wire or those coils are supposed to be made of a thing wire with high impedance (Z)? The Primary Coil of the Bi-Toroid Transformer is set on a variable “high reluctance” flux path core. By variable we mean that the reluctance of the primary core leg is a function of primary coil impedance and the magnitude of flux flowing in the primary coil core. The physical size of the primary core leg is also much smaller that the secondary core legs to ensure that the primary core with its large flux in a small area produces the maximum reluctance – operating at very close to saturation – therefore inhibiting secondary induced flux from entering the primary core and encouraging secondary induced flux to stay in the lower reluctance outer flux path route. The primary coil impedance plays a role in disallowing secondary induced flux from coupling back through the primary core – while at the same time the higher gauge (low impedance) wire employed in the secondary windings represents a lower reluctance flux path route for secondary induced flux once again encouraging the secondary flux to stay away from the primary and follow the path of least reluctance in the outer flux path ring. Is there a resistance on a rotating ferromagnetic disk with spaces in your project with stationary magnets and coils when the load on the coils is on? Are those coils made of thick wire or of thing like the high voltage coils in your Multi Coil project?
There is some initial resistance due to the eddy current losses and hysteresis losses associated with the disk but the coil induced magnetic field has no declarative impact on the speed of rotation of the disk in fact it even accelerates a little when the coils are loaded probably because we are increasing the induction motor’s rotor flux magnitude. The coils employed are low gauge high current carrying wire which produce a maximum induced magnetic field. Thank you very much in advance! Yours truly, Nick. Dr. Evstigneev N.M., leading sc., dep. of chaotic dynamics, Institute for System analysis, Russian Academy of Science. I hope this answers your questions. Best wishes Thane.
Page 38 of 43
Part 2 Letter #12 Russian Academy of Science
--- On Fri, 1/29/10, Евстигнеев Николай <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Евстигнеев Николай <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Questions Answered To: "Thane C. Heins" <[email protected]> Received: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:42 AM Dear Thane! Thank you very much for the detailed answers you provided! Number of your experiments (Multi Coil Stators and bi-toroid transformer) are not lying in the field fo Maxwellian electrodynamics. Today I made a numerical simulation of a model problem – simulation of the Ampere’s force on the coil from the moving permanent magnet using Maxwell set of equations with bias currents in conductors. I changed number of terns in the “coil” and varied magnetic and electric properties of coil material to get the equivalent of high R and Z. In the simulation there are no effects that you have in experiments – in the simulation there’s a direct Lenz law as its stated by the physics. That is fascinating! I will inform you on any progress that i’ll make along with reports.
Thank you once again! Yours truly, Nick --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Thane C. Heins <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Thane C. Heins <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Part 2 To: "Евстигнеев Николай" <[email protected]> Received: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:17 PM Dear Nick, The R (DC resistance) should be low (50 ohms) but the Z (frequency dependent impedance) should be high. You have to create a scenario where the inductor acts like a capacitor (storing energy in electrostatic field NOT the electromagnetic field). The accelerating coils in this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/RC06V8vXUqI employ bifilar windings because the bifilar coil in this configuration has increased self-capacitance, which is a key component for acceleration. The frequency is about 400 Hz. See Bifilar coil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil Cheers Thane Thane C. Heins President Potential +/- Difference Inc. "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." ~ Max Planck
Page 39 of 43
Letter # 13 Global Energy Group
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Mark Turner <[email protected]> To: Thane C. Heins <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:27:44 AM Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Generator Licensing Request
Hi Thane, I am interested in possibly licensing your generator technology in our large overseas venture of a 50 megawatt project. I am heading up all the new technologies. I thought you would be a great fit to this project if you are interested. It is already fully funded. Please send me the licensing papers to have reviewed by my business partners...
E = MC 2 or ?
Live, Dream, Create Regards, Mark Power-Hub KW series Global Energy Group P744 Worldwide Inc. Web site:: http://www.gegworldofenergy.com/
Page 40 of 43
Funding Research and development funding for the Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology was provided through private investment. To date a total of $550,000.00 has been invested over 11 years. Investor List Kevin Thistle JC Cunningham Kim Cunningham Jim Hutcheson Deryck Allen Owen Charles Joseph Neulight Dan Gormley Stewart Brown Toroid Technologies Inc. / Saverio Panneta California Diesel and Power Orion Project Robert Clark Ellen & Bill Constantino Stephen John Schwanebeck Eli Dumitru Natalia Reznik Rocha Ura & Alex Rocha Ura Jason Putman Janet Radebaugh Ian Rooney Paul Sucholl Thane Heins Dale Heins John Heins Jay Heins Sarah Coulber Roger Coulber Kornelia Fedirchuck Don Anderson Blake Carruthers Chris Napier Randy Whitcroft Don Munro Research Facilities & Technical Experts
University of Virginia – Dr. Paul Allaire
MIT – Dr. Markus Zahn
University of Ottawa – Dr. Riahd Habbash
Dr. Nikolai Billaniuk
Luc Choquette
Saverio Panneta – Toroid Technologies Inc.
Don Mann
Pierre Guillimette – TRIAS Innovations
James Gastle – Gastle and Associates
Page 41 of 43
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to:
My wife and business partner Kim Cunningham for the first communication strategy, introduction to Kevin Thistle, financial support and for allowing me to do my thing.
Dale Heins for providing the first research facilities.
Sarah Coulber and Kornelia Fedirchuck for the first research funds.
Dr. Paul Allaire for the first technical assistance.
Kevin Thistle for the first real investor funds, company incorporation and unwavering support.
JC Cunningham for advice, encouragement and support.
Major Jim Hutcheson for advice and invaluable friendship and support.
Jeffrey Dale of the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation for introducing us to Ottawa University’s Dean of Engineering.
Dean Lague at Ottawa U for helping provide us with lab free space.
Dr. Habbash for ongoing technical support and the use of the U of O Power Lab for 2.5 years.
Luc Choquette for his Ottawa U lab support, friendship, assistance and educational help.
John Heins for video and computer work.
Saverio Panneta of Toroid Tech for free materials and technical advice.
James Gastle for genius level patent advice.
Debbie Weinstein at Lebarge and Weinstein for their legal services
Owen Charles for his friendship, facilitating the first IP licensing deal and for research funding support.
Bill and Ellen Constantino for financial support and friendship.
Scott Limestone at SolarNetOne for the introduction to Dr. Cerf at GOOGLE.
Neil Young for his support and allowing us to leverage his name.
Dr. Giovanni Fusina for doing independent testing and for providing test data.
Doug Hartwich for his independent test data.
Jay Heins for video work and advice.
Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star for introducing the technology to the world.
Richard Syrett for doing the CBC story.
Richard Lancalette
Lubo Morhac
Pierre Guillimette for his bottomless wealth if knowledge and his help at Ottawa U.
Randy Whitcroft
Don Mann
Chris Napier
Reverend Don Anderson
My parents David and Elaine Heins for their support and encouragement.
My children Kiya, Dayna, Robin, Daelyn and Callum for providing the reason to do this in the first place and to keep doing this.
Page 42 of 43
Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits
The following is a business plan questionnaire presented to Potential Difference Inc by Jim Roche, CEO of Stratford Managers. Stratford works with fast-growing businesses around the world involved in service
delivery, high technology, clean technology and manufacturing as well as non-profit companies. The Business Problem You're Solving
What is the business (not technical) problem? How is it solved now? Who is affected? At the present time electric vehicle acceptance and integration into the marketplace is hampered by poor range, long recharge times not to mention nonexistent EV recharge infrastructures. These issues are addressed and eliminated with the employment of EV Regenerative Acceleration Technology because now “plug in recharging” can be made virtually obsolete. Car manufacturers – struggling with battery weight and range limitations, governments – footing the bill for recharge stations, consumer inconvenience and the environment will all be positively affected by the integration of Regenerative Acceleration Technology. The Business Solution What is your business solution (not technical) and how/why is it a better solution? Currently electric vehicles have only two modes of recharging their mass of up to 1000 lb batteries; 1) plugging them into the grid, 2) regenerative braking (which recharges the batteries while slowing down, “breaking” the EV at the same time). As the name implies – Regenerative Acceleration is the exact opposite of regenerative braking in that the generator now recharges the batteries while accelerating the vehicle. Now EV batteries can be recharged during both braking, acceleration and coasting. Regenerative Acceleration Technology has the capacity to dramatically increase EV range and performance while at the same time reducing battery size and weight and completely eliminating grid “plug ins” because battery recharging can occur during more than 100% of the EV operation if an additional flywheel is employed while the EV is stationary. Market Opportunity / Strategy How many people/companies are affected by this problem, what are they spending today to overcome it, how much will they spend for your solution? Regenerative Acceleration Technology has viable solution applications in every single energy sector worldwide – basically anywhere energy is produced and used from Nuclear power, hydroelectric plants to home emergency generators and everything and everywhere in between. Power generation based on Regenerative Acceleration Technology would result in virtually none of the environmental damage currently caused by traditional power sources, and could ultimately replace these traditional sources in many contexts. Therefore, there is virtually unlimited financial potential for the application of Regenerative Acceleration Technology. Products / Technology What is your technology solution, what is your unfair technical advantage - your "secret sauce"? Generator technologies which ACCELERATE under load in rather than decelerate and outperform current generator technology at this early stage by over 4000%
Page 43 of 43
Epilogue
It is no secret that the world is starving for energy and the energy and environmental futures look very bleak for humanity’s next generation. Wind and solar power solutions are not enough to meet the growing demands. Electric vehicles are not the solution either because they will only increase the burden and increase the supply demands for fossil fuel and coal power generation that create more problems that they solve and are not sustainable in the long term. Even the so called “green” technologies can hardly be called green when the mining processes required to deliver the raw materials is factored into the equation. California banned rare earth metal mining due to the toxicity of the process. Rare earth metals are the primary building blocks for magnets used in many EVs. According to William Tahil, “the world has become enamored with the Lithium Ion battery. While this may be sustainable for portable electronics goods, it is not sustainable for EV applications. A balanced scientific and economic analysis concerning the sustainability of LiIon technology for EV applications has not been performed.”
Some Sort of Real Energy Breakthrough is Now Here
It is called Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology and it removes the magnetic friction produced inside generators and allows generators to produce much more with way less. When compared directly to a conventional generator which decelerates and eventually produces zero output power there is really no comparison. Thank You!
Thane Heins President and CEO Potential +/- Difference Inc. "The Transition of Power"
“Without some sort of real energy breakthrough…
we can see that future mobility is likely to become much more constrained than it is today…
meeting the urgent need to reduce the consumption of oil immediately at all costs or face the consequences of a meltdown in civilization”
~ William Tahil Research Director
Meridian International Research