Thane Heins Manning Innovation Nomination

Manning Innovation Award PrefaceWho is Thane Heins? Thane Heins is the President, CEO and Founder of Potential Difference Inc. (PDI). Thaneleft the restaurant business and joined the high tech industry in 1999 when he sold his successful Old Towne HallTea Room when he began becoming aware and concerned regarding issues of earth sustainability in the areas ofenergy, water and food.Thane has never considered himself to be an uninvolved “innocent” bystander and was a member of the GreenParty of Ontario and ran in a Provincial Election in his riding of Renfrew, Nippissing, Pembroke in order to makehis growing environmental concerns known and heard. He also ran in a Federal Election as an independentcandidate 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 GeneratorTechnology 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 theirbatteries which is something no other non-hybrid – pure electric EV can do. The exact final magnitude of rechargecapability has not yet been determined but 76% recharge capacity has already been established. 100% rechargecapacity 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 Cleantech/Energy R&Dintellectual property development company which was founded by Thane Heins and incorporated in 2005. InitialPDI research began in the area of flywheel energy storage in collaboration with Dr. Paul Allaire at the Universityof Virginias Rotating Machines and Controls Laboratory (ROMAC). PDI was invited to move its research into asatellite lab at the University of Ottawa in 2008 following a successful Regenerative Acceleration GeneratorTechnology demonstration at MIT. PDIs technologies were further developed and refined under the supervisionof 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 1 of 45

Contents 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 - 20Chronological Listing of Events & Challenges – 21 Prototype Development Overview – 25 Commercial Success – 27 Broad Acceptance and Recognition – 28Industry Statements and Colleague Comments - 29 Innovation Funding - 45 Research Facilities &Technical Experts - 45 Acknowledgements – 46 Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits – 47 Epilogue - 43 Resume of Thane Christopher Heins Page 2 of 45

Innovation SummaryThe innovation being presented is a new type of more efficient generator design which does not create “magneticfriction” 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 magneticfield 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 everyaction 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 hasto be put back in to the prime mover input to keep the generator turning or it will decelerate and the generator outputwill decrease and the lights will eventually go out. The input energy can be fossil fuels, wind, water, steam etc. oranything that makes the generator turn to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. The thing that turns thegenerator is called the prime mover. The prime mover input energy which makes the generator turn always has to begreater than the output to account for the energy losses in the system and because of the generator createdmagnetic 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 rechargethe EV’s batteries while simultaneously slowing down (braking) the vehicle.The innovation developed by Potential Difference Inc. reverses this counter-electromotive force/frictionproduced inside the electric generator and creates a complimentary-electromotive force or torque in its placewhich assists the generator’s rotation and adds to the torque supplied by the prime mover rather thanresisting or diminishing it as per the conventional generator paradigm.When the Potential Difference Regenerative Acceleration generator delivers power to a load the generator responds bycreating a complementary force or torque to that supplied by the prime mover and the system accelerates rather thandecelerates. Because the generator and prime mover are working in harmony rather than opposing each other theinput power required by the prime mover must be reduced if a set speed is desired. Page 3 of 45

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 theconventional mode of recovering the energy stored in a moving vehicle as inertia. Both of these inertia recoverysystems decelerate the vehicle as a result of their operation. Regenerative braking refers to a generator convertingelectric 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) arethe 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 fuelconsumption and less green house gas emissions. For all other forms of electrical energy production it means asignificantly 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.Complete Innovation DescriptionTechnical InformationThis innovation description explains to how the RegenerativeAcceleration Generator and now all generators can now bemade to create electricity and system acceleration instead ofelectricity and system deceleration.The quick solution is to employ 1) a high impedancegenerator coil and 2) operate the generator at a certainminimum operational frequency at which point thegenerator coil will cease to operate as an inductor andbegin to operate as a capacitor.This operational paradigm shift is achieved by delaying thegenerator 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 accordancewith Lenz’s Law and Newton’s Third Law relies on one critically important ingredient and that ingredientis electric current flow.Because of the design properties and operational parameters of a conventional generator inductor coil, currentflow and repelling magnetic field production are virtually synonymous. Current flow in a conventional generatorcoil is continuous as is the production of magnetic friction inside the generator. Conventional generator coilsalways operate as inductors in conventional generators. Page 4 of 45

An inductor stores energy in the external magnetic field around the coil and it is this magnetic field thatcreates the “magnetic friction” inside the generator because it is equal and opposite in nature to the appliedmagnetic field which induces the original voltage and current. Classically this is understood according to the lawof Physics called Lenz’s Law. When a magnet approaches a coil of wire and current flows in the coil, the coilproduces its own (equal and opposite repelling) magnetic field which has the same magnetic polarity as theapproaching magnet. In order to keep the magnet approaching the coil, additional energy must be applied toovercome 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 theexternal magnetic field that is required to create the “magnetic friction”. As the magnet approaches theRegenerative Acceleration Generator coil above a certain frequency, electric current flow is restrictedby the coil’s frequency dictated impedance (AC resistance). When the operational frequency of a generator coil is increased the AC impedance of the coil also increases because:Zt = 2 pi F L + Rdcwhere:Zt is the total coil impedance,F is the frequency,L is the coil inductance,Rdc is the DC resistance of the coil. 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.When a critical operational frequency parameter is reached in the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil, thecoil stores energy as a capacitor, internally as voltage in the electrostatic field and no current flows in thegenerator coil or the load. No current flow also means no repelling magnetic field production. When the magnetreaches top dead centre and is neither approaching nor receding from the coil, the coil frequency drops to zeroand the coil impedance drops to the coil’s DC resistance - which is low enough to now allow current to flow. Thisdelayed current flow then produces a maximum magnitude repelling magnetic field which pushes away on thenow already receding magnet with great force (and acceleration) while attracting the opposite rotor magnet.Inductor LR Time Constant and Delaying Current and Reversing Generator Magnetic FrictionThis portion of the Technical Discussion pertains to the amount of time it takes to create the time delay mentionedabove for any generator coil allow current to flow and to induce a repelling magnetic field when in the vicinity of amagnetic field. It is supported by independent empirical evidence as presented in the two Dutch ElectricalEngineer videos below which are included in the video files attached..All generator coils produce an equal and opposite repelling magnetic field the only difference between aconventional 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. Page 5 of 45

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 EngineerThis video explains how to create a generator which accelerates when a load is applied. It also shows the systemoperating in conventional (decelerative) mode and then the Regenerative Acceleration mode. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B750RHM9hTcExplanation of LR Time Constant and how it Contributes to Generator AccelerationWhen a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field a voltage is induced in that coil of wire according toMichael Faraday’s Law of Induction. When the coil is connected to a load and the circuit is closed, current will flowthrough the coil and through the load.The speed at which the coil passes through the magnetic field dictates the frequency of the voltage andcurrent induced in the coil but because the generator coil is an inductor – current does not flow instantly and isdelayed for a certain period of time. The amount of time delay is dictated by the LR Time Constant of the coilwhere:L is the coil inductance andR is the coil resistance.The Time Constant formula in a RL circuit is: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 bythe back-EMF from the inductor/generator coil. As the current flowing through the coil tries to change but theback-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 reach63.2% 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. Page 6 of 45

Diagram 1. Generator Coil Current Rise Time / Time ConstantThe mathematical explanation below will show that a conventional generator coil’s Time Constant is very FASTand therefore the coil’s ability to allow current flow and produce repelling magnetic field production is also veryfast.Conversely the Time Constant for a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is very SLOW – almost 10 timesgreater than a conventional coil.This means that a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil cannot react fast enough to allow current to flow inthe coil. If current cannot flow then the coil cannot produce a repelling magnetic field either. The only alternativefor the coil is to store the approaching magnetic field energy as voltage inside the coil’s capacitance. Once theapproaching magnetic field is no longer approaching i.e. at top dead centre, this stored voltage can be dissipatedthrough the low DC resistance of the coil and a large delayed repelling magnetic field can be produced - pushingaway on the already receding magnet and accelerating its departure away from the generator coil.Video 2. Mathematical Explanation concerning LR Time Constant which contributes to acceleration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9bCAMWetL8Time Constant example for a “Fast” conventional generatorIf we take the variables from a conventional generator (from the demonstration video above) we can see how theTime Constant varies dramatically between a “fast” conventional coil and a “slow” Regenerative AccelerationGenerator coil.Conventional Generator Time Constant & Coil ParametersL = 106 mHRdc = 21.1 ohmsRload = 200 ohms___L___ = ________106 mH ______ Rtotal 21.1 ohms + 200 ohmsTime Constant = 0.47 mSec Page 7 of 45

As we can see from the above time constant of 0.47 mSec the conventional coil has produced 63.2% of the totalmagnetic drag possible. This value is very fast and it shows why the conventional generator can easilycreate virtually instantaneous magnetic drag.Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil Time Constant & Coil ParametersL = 2.182 HRdc = 384.5 ohmsRload = 200 ohms___L___ = ________2.182 H ______ Rtotal 384.5 ohms + 200 ohmsTime Constant = 3.73 mSecAs we can see from the above time constant of 3.73 mSec the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil hasproduced 63.2% of the total magnetic drag possible. This value is very slow and it shows why theRegenerative 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 RegenerativeAcceleration generator coil (3.73 mSec) reveals that the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil’s TimeConstant (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. Inductance Resistance Resistance Resistance Frequency Time System Coil L Rdc Rload Rtotal Hz Constant ReactionParameters (henries) (ohms) (ohms) (ohms) (hertz) τ w/ (Seconds) LoadingConventional 106 mH 21.1 ohms 200 ohms 221.1 50 Hz 0.46 mSec SystemGenerator ohms DecelerationCoilRegenerative 2.182 H 384.5 ohms 200 ohms 584.5 50 Hz 3.73 mSec SystemAcceleration ohms DecelerationGeneratorCoilRegenerative 2.182 H 384.5 ohms 200 ohms 584.5 100 Hz 3.73 mSec SystemAcceleration ohms AccelerationGeneratorCoilRegenerative 2.182 H 384.5 ohms 0.0 ohms 584.5 100 Hz 5.68 mSec MaximumAcceleration (infinite load) ohms SystemGenerator AccelerationCoil Page 8 of 45

Table 1. System Reaction for Conventional Generator Coil VS Regenerative Acceleration Generator CoilThe table above shows the coil parameters required to create a generator coil which accelerates on-load (when aload is applied).As can be seen from the graph it is not enough to just employ a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil it mustalso be employed above the a minimum frequency where the coil impedance really takes effect.Critical Minimum FrequencyThe Critical Minimum Frequency is the coil operating frequency which dictates the coil reaction. The coil reactiondetermines 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 decelerateon-load as per a conventional generator coil.Creating On-Load Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil AccelerationIn order to produce generator on-load acceleration, the generator coil must operate above the critical minimumfrequency that is specific to that coil. Changing the physical parameters of the coil will change its critical minimumfrequency by raising or lowering it.Intellectual Achievement“Good science is good observation”It was discovered/observed (purely by accident) thata high impedance generator coil operating above acertain frequency will accelerate on-load rather thandecelerate as per a conventional generator coiland as dictated by Lenz’s Law.A conventional generator coil is a low impedance,high current coil and is deliberately designed toconduct maximum current flow. As a result it alsoproduces a maximum repelling magnetic field.A Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is ahigh impedance, high voltage coil and is deliberatelydesigned to conduct minimum current flow while themagnet is approaching the coil but maximumcurrent flow once the magnet is Top Dead Centre(TDC) to the coil – (neither approaching norreceding). The high impedance coil when operatedabove a certain frequency will produce a maximumrepelling magnetic field albeit delayed until TDC.Intellectual ProcessOriginally, the Regenerative AccelerationGenerator prototypes could only produce systemAcceleration (positive kinetic energy) butno real useable electrical power. Page 9 of 45

Because a Regenerative Acceleration coil is a lowcurrent coil it produces high voltage but low current.High current is required to produce useful electricalwork such as recharging batteries or lighting lightsetc.Producing positive kinetic energy could only beuseful if it could be married to a conventionalhigh current generator coil which produces usefulelectrical power and if the Regenerative AccelerationGenerator coil was used to reduce or negate theconventional generator’s decelerative effects.The Big If ?If this could be accomplished it would mean that theenergy and cost that needs to be returned to theprime mover to keep the conventional generatorgoing when on-load could be offset somewhat andenergy savings could be realized.Experimental Process & Innovation EvolutionGenerator design requirements for the “realworld” dictated that the generator producereal useable power in a package that closelyresembled the current generator designs aspossible. A convenient retrofit needed to bedeveloped that did not place too great a burdenon end users.Prototype # 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5BqEiFK74Prototype # 1 was a marriage between a pair of conventional generator coils and a pair of RegenerativeAcceleration Generator Coils. The “best of both worlds” operation was the desired outcome.Step 1 The idea was to load the conventional generator coils with a regular light bulb and create systemdeceleration as expected.Step 2 Then when the Regenerative Acceleration Coils were engaged the system was supposed to accelerateunder identical load and identical input power conditions as the conventional generator with absolutely noincrease in power to the prime mover. The prime mover in this case was an induction motor and if the currentincreased even one iota during the test it would denote a failure in the performance and the design.Likewise if the current decreased while the system speed and generator output increased it would mean aexperimental success. Page 10 of 45

Prototype # 1 Success = 300% More With 43% Less But With One Slight Performance FlawAs desired Prototype # 1 decelerated in conventional generator mode and accelerated in RegenerativeAcceleration Mode while the current (and power) to the prime mover both decreased. 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.One IP Performance Flaw is One Too ManyPotential Difference Inc. (PDI) is an intellectual property development and licensing company. PDI’s mandate isto develop technology IP and then license that technology. As a result, it is incumbent on PDI to ensure that theIP being licensed is the most up to date and current version possible to protect the interests of our developmentallicensing partners and investors.Prototype # 1 - The FlawBecause the conventional generator coil andRegenerative Acceleration Generator coilwere placed on the same core, thedischarging magnetic field/flux from theRegenerative Acceleration Generator coilwas in the opposite direction to the fluxflowing into the conventional generator coil.The result was that when the RegenerativeAcceleration Generator coil was engagedthe system accelerated, which was good butthe output power to the load dropped, whichwas bad.Not bad in the sense that the technologydidn’t work but bad in the sense that an IPimprovement 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 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.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmFbINO0dCUPrototype # 2 was ultimately a success but it went through many iterations before its final design destination asPrototype # 6 Page 11 of 45

Prototype # 3 – Prototype # 2 but with a DC Prime Mover 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.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5FvSVdf58Prototype # 4 – Further Enhancements and Video Demo for NASA Goddard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKO8r-3xrwPrototype # 4 – Prototype Design and Performance Explanation for NASA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obsExperimental Process & IP Commercialization GenesisRegenerative Acceleration Generator Technology IP commercialization began when California Diesel and Powerrequested 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 dollarAutomotive X Prize. PDI built a prototype for CD&P which they validated internally and eventually purchased anIP license agreement.Prototype # 5 California Diesel and Power Prototype http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAS5EKsIQM4Prototype # 6 Upgraded CD&P Prototype with New Rotor Tested by NRC Scientist 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.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARztYvprKkA Page 12 of 45

Coming Full Circle and Reaching “The Holy Grail for Generators”While the original Regenerative Acceleration Generator prototype introduced additional kinetic energy into thesystem it was unable to produce any useable electric power. By employing both types of coils in one generatordesign this problem was solved. When NRC scientist Doug Hartwick independently tested the RegenerativeAcceleration Generator prototype at the University of Ottawa he noted a huge gain in output power over theconventional generator with a significant input power reduction. Doug’s test was performed with both generatorsoperating at identical speeds to ensure identical prime mover efficiency and to equalize all other test variablessuch 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 identicalinitial operating speeds and prime mover input the conventional system would decelerate down and the generatoroutput would be reduced to 0.0 Watts while the Regenerative Acceleration Generator output equaled 4 Wattswhich led Doug to suggest, “this technology represents the holy grail for generators.” Updated prototypeswould later increase the electrical output to 10, 30, 50, 1000 Watts with 0.0 Watts still coming from theconventional generator.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 thecapital letter E. Prototype # 1 employed an “I” core with both coils mounted on it which did not produce idealresults from an IP development standpoint.Generator coils are wound on top of soft metal ferromagnetic material which attracts the magnetic fields into thecoil 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 ofcreating an “ideal” I core design solution if 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 ofproviding usable current and electric power. Prototype # 7 was born.Prototype # 7 Successful “I” Core Performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_UXcNMBGTAPrototype # 8 “I” Core Success in an “E” Core PackagePrototype # 8 involved a return to the “E” core, dual coil design but with the elimination of the high current, lowimpedance conventional coil as per the earlier “E” core prototypes. Prototype # 8 proved successful as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPMbWzNuMOg Page 13 of 45

Prototype # 9 New “I” Core Design VS Conventional Generator ComparisonExperimental test data collected for prototype # 9 showed the conventional generator coil producing 7 Watts at3100 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=L3JVjbXOssQPrototype # 9 Torque Paradigms Video for the Quebec Institute for Vehicle AdvancementPrototype # 9 was used to demonstrate the two different torque paradigms between a conventional generator anda Regenerative Acceleration Generator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC06V8vXUqI.......Prototype # 9 Successful BIONX Electric Vehicle Integration TestPotential Difference Inc’s IP commercialization and licensing efforts included the integration of the technology intoan electric vehicle. Our first attempt was to determine if the Regenerative Acceleration Generator could operatesuccessfully in an existing electric vehicle design. The BIONX bicycle retrofit provided the first evidence that thiswas indeed a good possibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGvOBDCh7sAPrototype # 10 End Game ReGenX Generator Design FruitionPrototype # 10 represents the culmination of six years of Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technologydevelopment. The design goal for this IP iteration was to remove the step down transformer and create agenerator which provided usable electric power with acceleration and also with deceleration if desired. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3gVfltiO-EPrototype # 10 has also been followed up by Prototype # 11 which can be started as a motor and then convertedover to generator mode when required and when opportunity dictates. Page 14 of 45

Innovation UniquenessAll 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 provideadditional 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 andenvironmental cost because more energy must be expended to create the required torque and keep the generatorrunning and producing electrical power.The energy required to keep generators running and producing electrical power also comes at a national securityand human cost for some because human lives must be expended directly or indirectly in either recovering theenergy required or expropriating it from those countries that have it. The more energy required by humanity thehigher the costs associated with producing it.The Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology’s innovation uniqueness lies in the fact that it reverses theparadigm described above and allows generators to produce energy but it also allows them to produce acomplimentary-electromotive torque which works with the prime mover and in harmony with the prime moversupplied torque.The intellectual achievement is a generator that requires less energy and less cost when supplyingenergy for humanity’s needs. It results in an energy solution that is viable and sustainable for everyone in the longterm 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 and toxin-free water for fishing,drinking and bathing. For the Middle East it means and end to oil wars and external national destabilization effortsto control oil resources. For Americans it means a reprieve from the increasing pressure and demand toover extend its financial resources and military to control dwindling oil reserves in a naive and futile West vs Eastoil race that no one can win. Page 15 of 45

Chronological Listing of Events, Innovation Evolution & Challenges1)The original idea for the innovation came during a college lecture on Lenz’s Law in my motor/generator classwhile studying in the CEGEP/Electronics Technology Program in 1980. Lenz’s Law pertains to the production of arepelling magnetic field in a generator coil and how that magnetic field enters the air gap between the magnet andthe coil and repels the magnet as it tries to approach the coil. My theory was that if said magnetic field could bediverted or even a small percentage of it, this would make the generator that much more efficient because itwould produce less magnetic drag. My idea was quickly shot down by my professor who said that in order to dothis first I would have to violate Lenz’s Law, Newton’s Third Law and the Law of Conservation of Energy and thatit was an impossible goal.2)Twenty years later in 1999 I began working on Flywheel Energy Storage Technology with the University ofVirginia’s flywheel research lab due to the development of a conical magnetic design I had developed. Flywheelenergy 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 andcoil frequency a generator coil will accelerate when a load is applied rather than decelerate as is commonlyknown. The original prototype accelerated so quickly and so unexpectedly that it began to fly apart with bits andpieces being shot in every direction which caused me to dive under the test bench in fear for my safety.4)When the original generator prototype continually “refused” to decelerate when placed on-load it was seen as aserious problem that needed to be corrected. The original prototype was completely dismantled right down to thenuts and bolts in search of the “problem” which was thought to be a short circuit in the prime mover. No electricalfaults were discovered in the troubleshooting “witch hunt.”5)Once rebuilt, the generator prototype continued to accelerate on-load so the problematic anomaly wasdetermined to be something other than isolated incident and an investigation ensued to determine it had anybeneficial attributes.6)The original theory was that the magnetic fields induced by the generator coils were being magnetically coupledto the prime mover which was an induction motor due to the fact that all the connection components wereferromagnetic material and could conduct magnetic fields. If the generator’s induced magnetic fields were beingdiverted into the induction motor and strengthening the rotor or the stator’s magnetic field this would createadditional torque and acceleration would result.7)A simple experimental prototype was devised which had an induction motor with a moveable permanent magnetplaced 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 whenmoved away it would accelerate.8)This gave credence to the original “on-load acceleration theory” and the early prototypes were designed toencourage and enhance this requirement. Page 16 of 45

Enter the “Perpetual Human Problem” - Lenz’s Law Applies in Humans Too!9)Provisional patents were filed and the generator performance was confirmed by Dr. Zahn at MIT who is an expertin 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 haveexpected 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 andto 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 deliberatelymisleading question which was designed for one reason only - to stir up controversy to “sell” the story. Thequestion was, “Is this a Perpetual Motion Machine.”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 itwas obvious to anyone with honest intentions because a prime mover was always required and the prime moverneeded to be plugged into an electrical outlet or external power source to make the system function, whichexcluded 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 fanhttp://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042. The technology became an overnight sensation and all ourprevious legitimate attempts at following rational and accepted scientific investigation protocols were thrown outthe window.14)Dr. Zahn’s professional reputation at MIT was damaged and now tainted and he refused to continue the scientificevaluation with us because he assumed that we made the perpetual motion claim to Tyler Hamilton and theToronto Star even though the complete opposite was true.15)Dr. Habash, our lab supervisor at Ottawa University dismantled our technology webpage which was being set upto track the evolution of the technology in a public forum because he wanted to distance himself from thecontroversy. Dr. Habash informed me that someone hacked into the Uof O server and took out the informationwhich would have been a major security breach. I would learn later that this “breach” was actually a breach oftrust with more to follow. All Ottawa University professors followed suit except for one whose job security wasthreatened and who was eventually fired for supporting the technology. U of O students nicknamed our lab the“perpetual motion lab.”16)The Toronto Star’s reader manipulation ruse worked perfectly and in a follow up story Tyler Hamilton boasted tohis readers that it was one of the most read and discussed stories of the entire yearhttp://www.thestar.com/Business/article/306532. What he didn’t tell his readers, even to this day was that theentire story was predicated on a lie and that it left a trail of disaster in its wake. Page 17 of 45

17)Winston Churchill one said that, “a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get itspants on.” As we have since learned (the hard way) when it comes to the media the truth is expendable or atleast temporarily ignored if a lie can be used to sell a story. Recently in 2011 Richard Syrett produced a story onCBC radio in which he advertised Thane Heins as the “inventor of a perpetual motion machine” to sell his story aswell. http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/.18)The truth was, in 2008 when we went to MIT for technology validation we had no real idea what was going on (nordid anyone else) and we only had unproven theories and some empirical evidence that had no backing theory tobase 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 scientificone were also met with similar challenges and questions of the availability of scientific credibility or ethics in theenergy research arena.20)Potential Difference paid about one hundred thousand dollars from 2005 to 2010 searching for some form ofpublic endorsement and or validation of the technology so PDI could seek investor funds with some credibility. Kinectrics 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 relevant 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 – Request for Perpetual Motion Machine: 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. Page 18 of 45

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. At that point the relationship began to deteriorate because the request could not be satisfied. Shortly thereafter Magna 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. Defence Research and Development Canada: Five PhDs from Defence 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 in the Ottawa University lab.21)Many challenges have been encountered during the evolution of the Regenerative Acceleration GeneratorTechnology including technical development and financial resources issues but by far the most persistent andrecurring problem is the problem of human perception and professionalism and the scientific acceptance ofsomething 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 inHolland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, USA and Canada and with over two million generator videos viewed onYouTube the human problem for some still persists to this day:Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011Dear Mr Heins,I have reviewed your YouTube video and can save you a lot of time and money because the device does notwork... 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 CEngManaging Partner/Flybrid Systems LLPwww.flybridsystems.comOverall Winner - British Engineering Excellence Awards 200922)Many times during the development and refinement of the technology at the University of Ottawa when the“human problem” would come up and Dr. Habash would always remind us that, “this is not and engineeringquestion, it is not even a physics question, it is a human question and it is a question of human acceptance whichis often a very big problem.” Page 19 of 45

23)After successfully demonstrating the technology at MIT and enduring the “perpetual motion storm” that ensued welocked ourselves away in our lab and tried to focus on the tasks at hand while outsiders continually tried to haveus evicted and crucified as scientific heretics who were “creating sins against science”. Eventually they wouldeven succeed.24) Prototype Development OverviewAlthough this has already been covered somewhatin the Experimental Process above here it is againin 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. Page 20 of 45

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. 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 autonomous 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 21 of 45

Budding Commercial SuccessPotential Difference Inc. started “selling” Regenerative Acceleration GeneratorTechnology 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 andwe are in the process of integrating the technology into their scooter line.Hero Electric is affiliated with Honda in India and the company is calledHero Honda. We anticipate that our work with Hero Electric willeventually trickle up to Honda motorcycles and thenHonda automobiles.Because our Regenerative Acceleration Generator licensingis free our revenues are primarily based on IP royalties Step 1 Hero Electric Scootersgenerated from the sale of units which does not exist atthis early stage.PDI creates Developmental Partnership arrangementswhereby our clients pay for the development and integrationcosts associated with their specific application.Currently we are in the initial negotiating stages of thisprocess with Hero Electric / Hero Honda.Our motor/generator coils will be manufactured at ToroidTech / Northern Transformers in Toronto, Ontario. Motorswill also be fully assembled at the Northern Transformersfacility. Step 2 Honda Electric MotorcyclesMotor commutators will be manufacturedand supplied by Industrial CommutatorCompany Ltd. of Barrie, Ontario. Motorelectronic components supplied byCanaKit of North Vancouver, BC.Scooters will be distributed in India,Europe and North America by HeroElectric.Potential Difference is also currently inthe initial stage of developing portablegenerators for homes and businesses.Large scale generator development isin the initial communication stage for Step 3 Honda Automobileshydro electricity production in the Honduras,Africa and for a water purification initiative in India. Page 22 of 45

Broad Acceptance and RecognitionCHRYSLER ELECTRIFIED POWERTRAINS“The technology looks really interesting and is revolutionary. I would like to learn more about the technology. Is itpossible to organize a demo or a lecture in the USA?"GENERAL MOTORS"This sounds interesting. Id like you to connect with our Fuel Economy Learning Program manager, to schedule atime for you to come in and share the technology with us. We need to know more about the Physics behind it". "Ihave talked with my colleagues in GM US about your solution for vehicles. So, we would like more details aboutfuel economy and emissions regarding it. Do you have any company that use this approach in vehicles? I amopen for discussion".MERCEDES-BENZ"It would be fitting for the inventor of the automobile to be first with your revolutionary technology and for me toplay 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 bestrong needs in the market. How can you prove this on an actual electric vehicle, for example by making aprototype 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 roadsiderefueling.”EV WORLDMike Brace, EV World Tech Editor"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws ofelectromagnetism." http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890NASAErik 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 FORCEOmar Mendoza, Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory WrightPatterson"We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements"CANADIAN SPACE AGENCYGilles Leclerc, Canadian Space Agency Space Technologies"I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look atyour technologies and to visit your laboratory" Page 23 of 45

ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADAMike Elwood, Chairman Electric Mobility Canada and Vice President of Azure Dynamics"This is a freakin game changer!"ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADAAl 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 regenerativeacceleration technology for circulation to our Committee members"OTTAWA UNIVERSITYDr. Habash, University of Ottawa"Of course it accelerates... this represents several new chapters in physics, that is why we are consulting MIT"UNIVERSITY OF TORONTODr. 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 significantadvance in applied physics & in safely & successfully handling a new source of electric power.Congratulations!"MITDr. 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 SCIENCEDr. 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 CONCORDIAProfessor Joseph Shin, Concordia University"This is absolutely fascinating stuff you are doing"ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTEMike Simpson, Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute"You seem to have made an interesting discovery. Our internal physics experts review this information and havedetermined that it is very interesting work"PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIODonald 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 24 of 45

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCEDavid 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 betterfeel about the physics behind your invention. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps we caninclude 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 anythingelse on SlideShare right now. So weve put it on the homepage of SlideShare (in the "Hot on Linkedln" section).Well done! - The SlideShare TeamMedia Press a “Double Edged Sword”Canadian Business Magazinehttp://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/17096--the-next-great-canadian-idea-peripiteia-generatorEV World – Electric Automobile Website - USAhttp://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890The Tech Journal - Pakistanhttp://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/major-breakthrough-in-ev-technology-to-recharge-batteries-conitually-with-infinite-range.xhtmlUSA Radiohttp://www.oneradionetwork.com/new-technologies/thane-heins-inventor-of-the-infinity-generator-just-imagine-no-more-energy-exploitation-september-1-2011/USA Energy Research Sitehttp://pesn.com/2011/08/28/9501905_Thane_Heins_Regenerative_Acceleration_Generator/http://www.mevio.com/episode/293349/fen-110824CBC Radio - Canadahttp://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/CBC Radio - Canadahttp://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/08/29/episode-10---what-makes-them-tick/Toronto Star Articlehttp://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042Early Ottawa University Interviewhttp://keyrecords.com/designers/thanes.htmlOttawa Citizen Articlehttp://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=31887883-be00-4d3c-8763-d96564794caePhysics Websitehttp://www.physorg.com/news121610315.html Page 25 of 45

University of Ottawa Mandated Regenerative Acceleration Generator Student ReportToward the end of the 2009 school year Dr. Habash approached me with a request to help five of his third yearstudents, two of which he feared were about to fail their power electricity course.I was asked to allow the five students to replicate the Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology and writea report on it. The students worked diligently for three months and were successful at re-creating a generatorwhich decelerated under load in accordance with Lenz’s Law and then accelerated under load in violation of thesame law.All five students received a passing grade on their report and all passed the class!(student draft report is included in the supplemental material)Third Year EE Students Regenerative Acceleration Generator Project Video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJXB1UYkY8We were making exciting strides on the fourth floor and the students were eager to share their work with otheruniversity professors. Our invitations to share their excitement with other Ottawa University professors on thesixth floor and elsewhere continually fell on deaf ears."Dear Thane:I do not have any intention to take part in this nonsense.You seem to be unaware of the fact that the French Academy of Sciences has decided to stopconsidering projects like that in 1775.With best regards,Sergey"----------------------------------------Dr. Sergey LoykaSchool of Information Technology and Engineering (SITE)University of Ottawa,161 Louis Pasteur Ottawa,Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5Email: sergey.loyka@ieee.org; sloyka@site.uottawa.caIt took me quite a while to understand what “projects” the French Academy of Science banned in 1775. Myattempts to convince Dr. Loyka that the knowledge required to make an induction coil operate and store energyas a capacitor rather than on inductor was not available in 1775 - only got me thrown out of his office andeventually the university as well.Out of 300 PhD invitations sent to Ottawa U profs only the Dean of Engineering, the Director of Engineering andDr. Habash actually saw the technology and confirmed that it was not a perpetual motion machine. Eventuallyafter much rumor and innuendo induced pressure each one recanted and withdrew their support as well, as noone wanted to end up like Ponds and Fleishman. Dr. Habash often told me I ought to be glad I didn’t end up likeGalileo. Page 26 of 45

Industry Statements (small sampling)Letter # 1 – Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain InstituteFrom: Mike Simpson msimpson@rmi.orgSubject: Re: Students Draft Report and TM4 VideoTo: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.caReceived: Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:12 AMMr. Heins,Thank you for sending these additional details. Weve had our internal physics experts review this information andhave determined that it is very interesting work. We are eager to understand the market implications, i.e., thecommercialized cost of the additional efficiency of this type of generator.All the best,Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute1.303.567.8652 (office)1.720.236.0295 (cell)move.rmi.orgLetter # 2 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research LaboratoryFrom: Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC[mailto:Omar.Mendoza@WPAFB.AF.MIL]Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:53 PMTo: Thane Heins Cc: Spicer, Malory E Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSCSubject: RE: RE: Potential Difference Inc Technology Introduction & InvitationHi Thane,I will get authorization to travel within the next day or so. Please stand by. Also, by all the data you are showing, itseems to me that you are hung up on trying to "convince" college professors of the validity. Our approach is muchdifferent, we look at the perspective of, "how can it be advance to the next level and what are the potentialapplications". 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 Ohio45433 (937) 255-2247 Page 27 of 45

Letter # 3 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research Laboratory--- On Mon, 11/2/09, Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC :From: Mendoza, OmarCiv USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSCSubject: RE: Consulting PhD Request - Regenerative Acceleration TechnologyTo: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.ca , Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.ca, gregory_kardasz@magna.on.caCc: rhabash@site.uottawa.ca, "Tyler Hamilton" thamilton@thestar.caReceived: Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:42 AMHi Thane,We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements rather thanunderstanding it (Well leave that to the smarter folks...in general, we still cant explain simple "magnetism", wejust know what it does and we use it. If we had to explain it, wed still be debating it). I believe my supportcontractor 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 Ohio45433 (937) 255-2247 (937) 255-2247Letter # 4 - Canadian Association for the Advancement of ScienceFrom: “CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE”David Mann david.m5561@gmail.comSubject: Electric Vehicle Regenerative Acceleration TechnologyTo: thane_heins@yahoo.caCc: "Olga Barrat" obarrat@telus.netReceived: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 3:28 PMDear Thane,Thane, I was too late reading this E-mail, my apologies. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhapswe 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 todiscuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics behind yourinvention. I live in Ottawa and you can call me on 613-741-5063 or 613-741-5063 .David MannOntario Representative, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science Page 28 of 45

Letter # 5 – Canadian Space AgencyFrom: Gilles.Leclerc@asc-csa.gc.ca [mailto:Gilles.Leclerc@asc-csa.gc.ca]Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:19 PMTo: chris.hadfield-1@nasa.gov; napior@rogers.comCc: Chris.Hadfield@asc-csa.gc.ca; Gilles.Brassard@asc-csa.gc.caSubject: 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 atyour technologies and to visit your laboratory.Best, -GL Gilles LeclercDG Space Technologies - Technologies spatiales Canadian Space Agency - Agence spatiale canadienneLetter # 6 NASA –Goddard Space Flight Center InvitationSubject: re: previous phone callFrom: "Erik Clark" eclark@cne-mail.gsfc.nasa.govDate: Tue, February 12, 2008 8:48 amTo: “Dr. Habash University of Ottawa Professor” rhabash@site.uottawa.ca--------------------------------------------------------------------------Riadh,I had contacted you this previous Saturday about trying to procure an abstract on the work you are doing withThane Heins. The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do acolloquium, but would like to get an abstract on the work done so far before moving ahead. Let me know whenyou could provide this, so we can look at possibilities moving forward.–Erik ClarkNASA-Goddard Space Flight CenterBldg 18 Room 200 Mailstop 730.0Greenbelt , MD 20771alt email: eclark@cne-mail.gsfc.nasa.gov Page 29 of 45

Letter # 7 Electric Mobility Canada LetterFrom: Al Cormier al.cormier@emc-mec.caSubject: RE: Mike Elwood Regenerative Acceleration Demonstration and CommentsTo: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.caCc: melwood@azuredynamics.com, sdallas@torontoelectric.com , tsmolinski@hydro.mb.caReceived: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:15 AMGood morning Mr. Heins,I am pleased to advise that our Board of Directors has asked our Technology and Energy DevelopmentCommittee to be the vehicle to comment on emerging technologies. The Chair of the Committee is agreeable tothis mandate change. How this new process will evolve is yet to be determined but I am writing to ask you tosubmit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration technology forcirculation to our Committee members.RegardsAl Cormier, CAE/c.a.é.Executive Director / Directeur généralElectric Mobility Canada – Mobilité électrique CanadaSuite 309, 9-6975 Meadowvale Town Centre CircleMississauga, ON L5N 2V7, CanadaTel: 416 970 9242Fax: 905 858 9291Email/Courriel: al.cormier@emc-mec.caWeb site/site web: www.emc-mec.caLetter # 8 Professional Engineers of Ontario - Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Donald Wallace (OCEPP) dwallace@ocepp.ca wrote:From: Donald Wallace (OCEPP) dwallace@ocepp.caSubject: Video Data - DND-NRC/DEW Engineering Lab Demo October 6th, 2009To: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.caReceived: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 1:53 PMThanks, Thane.Both videos are very interesting. Are you familiar with the Centre’s Journal of Policy Engagement? (If not, you cancheck it out on our website.) Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal?Cheers, Donald.Donald WallaceExecutive DirectorOntario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy25 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 1000Toronto, Ontario M2N 6S9416-840-1078www.ocepp.ca Page 30 of 45

Letter # 9 & 10 Dr. Stanley Townsend U of TFrom: "Stan Townsend" s.townsend@utoronto.caTo: thane_heins@yahoo.caSubject: Regenerative Acceleration TechnologyDate: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:23:32 -0400Thane:Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist & an engineer. The level of technical detail wasadequate 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 appliedto the USPTO for a patent application, and you will probably have had your patent application security classified.Cest 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 contactyou further. You will find him to be highly technically knowledgeable in what you are doing, but you will also findhim highly ethical in advising you & helping you to move forward within this newly developing technicalcommunity. Stay out of the limelight, and ignore any critical skeptics - dont let your energy get tied up inresponding.Develop the new technology - it will market itself - you do not have to persuade skeptics. I am in Ottawa on June22 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 s.townsend@utoronto.ca wrote:From: "Stan Townsend" s.townsend@utoronto.caTo: "TCH.PotentialDifference" thane_heins@yahoo.caSubject: Regenerative Acceleration Technology.Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:29:43 -0400Dear Thane:Thank you for your kind reply. My words will have been well deserved by you as the inventor (Im equatingFounder to Inventor - right?) It is not easy trying to do what you seem to have done. If you run into problems tryingto "square your results" with the Conservation of Energy Rule, Let us talk about that, because I might be able tohelp 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 thatyou might not yet be able to explain in simple physics/EE knowing. One of my past tasks (enjoyable, even atthat!!) was to spend 8 years as Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics whilst it was on the campusof York University, under the leadership of Dr. Ralph Nicholls, Editor, one of Canadas pre-eminent physicists.I am well versed in the range of variation in the way that various physicists choose their perspective of how tosupport or disagree with apparently-debatable experimental physics. AND, if you have multiples greater than100%, You ARE in the realm of physics, and not of electrical engineering – and there is a big difference. DO NOTSTUMBLE ON THE PHYSICS OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!! Do Not explain the physics - stay with explainingONLY 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 experimentalmeasurements on the functionality of what you have discovered, developed, and are currently experimentalwitnesses to. As for me, I would always retreat to the reality of what you are experiencing in the functional Page 31 of 45

operation of the three variants of your discovery. Be very careful indeed of whether or not you want to equateconservation of energy to your input-output measurements - go with your measurements as they are, and stick totheir explanation of energy out divided by energy in - and let the percentage efficiency results and theobservations 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 youroutput - 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 MEASUREMENTSTHAT YOU DO OF THE COMPOUND OUTPUT!! DEFER ANY DEFENSE OF THE SOURCE OF THE EXTRAENERGY "ENTRAINED" BY THE INPUT - YOU "MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AT THISPOINT IN TIME!!" DO NOT SAY EVEN THIS - SAY ONLY THAT YOU ARE WORKING TO IDENTIFY THE NEWSOURCE --- END OF STORY!!Regards, StanStanley J. Townsend, Ph.D., P.Eng.Letter # 11 Russian Academy of Science LetterFrom: Евстигнеев Николай EvstigneevNM@yandex.ruSubject: Some questions about your great work in electrodynamicsTo: thane_heins@yahoo.caReceived: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 2:08 PMHello dear Thane!My name is Nick; I’m doctor in mathematics working in the field of partial differential equations and chaoticdynamics. I’m very interested in what you are doing with your experiments, because from the mathematical pointof view what’s going on in your experiments is the break of SO3 symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Millsequations that makes it obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics. There are some questions about yougreat experimental work. I would be delighted if you take some time to answer those. These questions might belame 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 theparameters 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 highvoltage coils, core material or it’s impedance?The acceleration is based on frequency dependant impedance. Coil impedance is a function of frequencywhere:XL = 2pifLZL = 2pifL + RDCAs the frequency increases (rotor RPM) the impedance of the coil also increases so its current carrying capacitydecreases accordingly. As the coil’s ability to carry current decreases the coil’s (Lenz induced) repelling magneticfield also decreases while at the same time the coil’s induced voltage is increasing. Page 32 of 45

When the magnet is TDC (top dead centre) to the coil (neither approaching nor receding) the coil impedancedrops to the DC resistance of the coil and the self induced voltage is maximum. The high voltage is then able tobe dissipated through the small DC resistance of the coil – producing a delayed magnetic field which pushesaway 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 thefrequency is low) – then the coil acts like any conventional coil and produces a repelling magnetic field asper Lenz’s Law.In bi-toroid transformer you have a central coil on a high reluctance flux core and two bifilar coils with serialconnection on low reluctance flux cores (low resistance), right? Can you make these coils of a thick wire or thosecoils 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 wemean that the reluctance of the primary core leg is a function of primary coil impedance and the magnitude of fluxflowing in the primary coil core. The physical size of the primary core leg is also much smaller that the secondarycore 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 coreand 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 theprimary core – while at the same time the higher gauge (low impedance) wire employed in the secondarywindings represents a lower reluctance flux path route for secondary induced flux once again encouraging thesecondary 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 coilswhen the load on the coils is on? Are those coils made of thick wire or of thing like the high voltage coils in yourMulti Coil project?There is some initial resistance due to the eddy current losses and hysteresis losses associated with the disk butthe coil induced magnetic field has no declarative impact on the speed of rotation of the disk in fact it evenaccelerates a little when the coils are loaded probably because we are increasing the induction motor’s rotor fluxmagnitude. The coils employed are low gauge high current carrying wire which produce a maximum inducedmagnetic 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 wishesThane. Page 33 of 45

Part 2 Letter #12 Russian Academy of Science--- On Fri, 1/29/10, Евстигнеев Николай EvstigneevNM@yandex.ru wrote:From: Евстигнеев Николай EvstigneevNM@yandex.ruSubject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Questions AnsweredTo: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.caReceived: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:42 AMDear Thane!Thank you very much for the detailed answers you provided! Number of your experiments (Multi Coil Stators andbi-toroid transformer) are not lying in the field fo Maxwellian electrodynamics. Today I made a numericalsimulation of a model problem – simulation of the Ampere’s force on the coil from the moving permanent magnetusing Maxwell set of equations with bias currents in conductors. I changed number of terns in the “coil” and variedmagnetic and electric properties of coil material to get the equivalent of high R and Z. In the simulation there areno 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 thane_heins@yahoo.ca wrote:From: Thane C. Heins thane_heins@yahoo.caSubject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Part 2To: "Евстигнеев Николай" EvstigneevNM@yandex.ruReceived: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:17 PMDear Nick,The R (DC resistance) should be low (50 ohms) but the Z (frequency dependent impedance) should be high. Youhave to create a scenario where the inductor acts like a capacitor (storing energy in electrostatic field NOT theelectromagnetic field).The accelerating coils in this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/RC06V8vXUqI employbifilar windings because the bifilar coil in this configuration has increased self-capacitance, which is a keycomponent for acceleration. The frequency is about 400 Hz.See Bifilar coil here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coilCheersThaneThane C. Heins PresidentPotential +/- Difference Inc."An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting itsopponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." ~ Max Planck Page 34 of 45

Letter # 13 Global Energy Group----- Forwarded Message -----From: Mark Turner <globalenergygroup744@gmail.com>To: Thane C. Heins <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:27:44 AMSubject: Regenerative Acceleration Generator Licensing RequestHi Thane,I am interested in possibly licensing your generator technology in our large overseas venture of a 50 megawattproject. I am heading up all the new technologies. I thought you would be a great fit to this project if you areinterested. It is already fully funded. Please send me the licensing papers to have reviewed by my businesspartners...E = MC 2 or ?Live, Dream, CreateRegards, MarkPower-Hub KW seriesGlobal Energy Group P744 Worldwide Inc.Web site:: http://www.gegworldofenergy.com/ Page 35 of 45

Letter # 14 Magna International Perpetual Motion Machine RequestDave Pascoe VP Electric Vehicle ProgramFrom: Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.ca Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.caSubject: Re: New Primary, Secondary and Test DataTo: "Thane C. Heins" thane_heins@yahoo.caReceived: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 11:09 AMWow.We need to meet.Ill be in Asia next week.Please call me on the 20th.905-726-7229Thanks,Dave PascoeMagna International office:905-726-7229 Mobile: 289-221-2340e-mail: dave_pascoe@magna.on.caFrom: Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.ca Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.caSubject: Re: Complete MAGNA International Transformer TestsTo: thane_heins@yahoo.ca Received:Friday, July 17, 2009, 11:06 PMHi Thane,Im not really super interested in transformers, alone, but am interested in your efficiencynumbers.Please consider putting a motor on the output and a generator on the input. Since the efficiencyis so high, there should be excess energy at the motor.Then make the motor drive the generator and unplug the whole apparatus from thewall.....does it still run?(If yes, then Ill be there in 10 minutes. If no, then Im probably not your customer)I think that you know what I am asking.Please let me know.Kind regards,Dave PascoeMagna International375 Magna Drive, Aurora,ON, L4G 7L6Telephone: 905-726-7229 Fax: 905-726-7286e-mail: dave_pascoe@magna.on.ca Page 36 of 45

From: "Thane C. Heins" [thane_heins@yahoo.ca]Sent: 07/18/2009 06:05 AM MSTTo: Dave Pascoe Cc: Saverio Panetta Saverio@Toroidtech.comSubject: Re: Complete MAGNA International Transformer TestsDear Dave,No kidding, and the whole world will be there in 10 minutes as well [if we built you a [PERPETUAL MOTIONMACHINE]… Anyway, the efficiency numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because we are not usingthe best meters nor are they calibrated and university meters tend to be beaten to within an inch of their life.The prototype is not build for efficiency anyway but for proof of concept.I am forwarding this email to Saverio Panetta - President of Toroid Tech who has been sponsoring thistechnology since day one. Please feel free to contact him at your convenience to ensure that you have all theinformation you require on an ongoing basis to serve Magnas interests fully.CheersThaneThane C. HeinsPresident - Potential +/- Difference Inc.“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”- Arthur SchopenhaurLetter # 15 India Water Purification Project & Electricity Generation Project-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: Regarding grants for renewable energy projectFrom: Vijay Sampath vijay@aquasphere.co.inDate: Fri, November 04, 2011 8:48 pmTo: <thaneh@potentialdifference.ca> thaneh@potentialdifference.caDear Thane,Was this link any useful?. Did it move any further?.Moving to another business opportunity, I have a situation where there is a need to provide continuous(almost continuous) 2 KwH power supply. This is to run a water purification plant in rural India wherepower is a challenge.I was wondering how we can accomplish this through your technology.Warm Regards,Vijay SampathManaging Directorwww.aquasphere.co.in+91-9731174200 Page 37 of 45

Letter # 16 GOOGLE VP and GOOGLE Power Experts Technology Introduction----- Forwarded Message ----From: Vint Cerf GOOGLETo: Thane C. Heins <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>Cc: scott@solarnetone.org; pdixon@magnet.fsu.eduSent: Tue, September 28, 2010 5:24:20 AMSubject: Re: Test Data for Pending GOOGLE Technology DemonstrationDear Thane,before you go to the trouble of arranging a demonstration, I need to discuss your ideas with our power experts atGoogle. Please do not go to great trouble until I can confirm interest here (in Mountain View). I am based inWashington, DC, just FYI.items 15, 18 and 19 overstate the current situation and looks like an attempt to imbue your work with the patina ofGoogle. I would prefer that you drop items 18 and 19 and simply say in item 15 that I have expressed interest.vint cerfOn Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 8:37 AM, <thaneh@potentialdifference.ca> wrote:Dear Dr. Cerf,Please find enclosed an updated DRAFT Commercialization Progress Report prepared for our investors andpartners. Please let me know if I have conveyed the information concerning yourself correctly or if you wouldprefer that it be omitted altogether.CheersThanePDI Commercialization Progress Report September 28th, 2010 1. PDI RM and BITT Developmental Licensing has commenced. 2. The Regenerative Acceleration Generator/Motor (RM) has been presented to Electron Energy Corporation (EEC) http://www.electronenergy.com/ in Pennsylvania. 3. EEC manufactures magnets and magnetic assemblies and also has the capacity to supply coils for the RM if required. 4. EEC also has the capacity to quantify the Coil/Core relationships for manufacturing scalability. 5. EEC has expressed interest in designing PM rotors for PDI licensees. 6. Currently a 3 KW unit is being considered for construction. 7. Orange County Choppers (OCC) http://www.orangecountychoppers.com/ has been approached to implement a 3 KW “in the wheel” motor/generator application for EVs using rotors and coils supplied by EEC. 8. PDI is currently negotiating with OCC to design and build a chopper for Neil Young which includes a side car for the disabled children at the Bridge School - and to provide a real world RM proof of concept platform. 9. The Neil Young LincVolt http://www.lincvolt.com/ trailer application is being revisited from a practicality standpoint. 10. OCC will be working toward solving the “in the wheel” problems that plagued Tesla Motors http://www.teslamotors.com/ and PDI will present the solution to Elon Musk at Tesla when appropriate (Kim Cunningham and Elon Musk grew up together in Richmond Hill, Ontario). Page 38 of 45

11. Cross-Chasm Technologies http://www.crosschasm.com/ has been invited to provide the controller required to manage the RM technology in either motor or generator mode or a combination thereof. 12. At their convenience Motive Industries http://www.motiveind.com/ will introduce the RM technology to an Electric Mobility Canada http://www.emc-mec.ca/en/home.php initiative called EVE. 13. EVE is a collaborative effort whereby the participants license their individual technologies to EVE and work together with the intent to develop a commercialized vehicle. 14. Mag-Num Consulting Services (http://magnumfea.com) has been commissioned to provide a Finite Element Analysis on the Bi-Toroid Technology (BITT) for feasibility and commercialization scalability. 15. A technology demonstration to be held at EEC or elsewhere (TBD) is being prepared for the Vice President of Google, Dr. Vint Cert http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html and other interested Google executives and investors. 16. Miniaturization of the BITT is being explored for computer laptop applications where a minimum 30% performance increase of a battery life extension is desired. 17. Currently the BITT shows performance increase in the 80% range and it is hoped that the FEA data will provide further performance increases once core material enhancements are made. 18. Dr. Vint of Google is preparing the technologies for a Google demonstration either in California or Washington DC. 19. A Google ready BITT prototype has been built and tested and is ready for presentation. 20. The RM technology has been introduced to Lawless Industries http://www.paradefloats.com/ who manufacture EV high efficiency electric drive systems, http://www.paradefloats.com/vehicles.html with the possible intent to collaborate on the Neil Young Trailer and motorcycle project. 21. Lawless Industries Worlds Fastest EV; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_6bVHuBBDU 22. Electric Truck LLC is setting up a technology demonstration for the US Army towards the end of October (location and date TBD). 23. Scada Engineering http://www.eitechnology.com.au/scada_engineering.html has requested an opportunity to develop and present the BITT and RM technologies to Vestas Wind Systems http://www.vestas.com/ .Thane C. HeinsPresident - Potential +/- Difference Inc.613.795.1602"Integrity is the essence of everythingsuccessful"~ R. Buckminster Fuller Page 39 of 45

FundingResearch and development funding for the Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology was providedthrough private investment. To date a total of $550,000.00 has been invested over 11 years.Investor ListKevin ThistleJC CunninghamKim CunninghamJim HutchesonDeryck AllenOwen CharlesJoseph NeulightDan GormleyStewart BrownToroid Technologies Inc. / Saverio PannetaCalifornia Diesel and PowerOrion ProjectRobert ClarkEllen & Bill ConstantinoStephen John SchwanebeckEli DumitruNatalia Reznik Rocha Ura & Alex Rocha UraJason PutmanJanet RadebaughIan RooneyPaul SuchollThane HeinsDale HeinsJohn HeinsJay HeinsSarah CoulberRoger CoulberKornelia FedirchuckDon AndersonBlake CarruthersChris NapierRandy WhitcroftDon MunroResearch Facilities & Technical Experts University of Virginia – Dr. Paul Allaire MIT – Dr. Markus Zahn University of Ottawa – Dr. Riahd Habash Luc Choquette Saverio Panneta – Toroid Technologies Inc. Don Mann Pierre Guillimette – TRIAS Innovations James Gastle – Gastle and Associates Page 40 of 45

AcknowledgementsSpecial 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. Habash 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 41 of 45

Social, Economic and Environmental BenefitsThe following is a business plan questionnaire presented to Potential Difference Inc by Jim Roche, CEOof Stratford Managers. Stratford works with fast-growing businesses around the world involved in servicedelivery, high technology, clean technology and manufacturing as well as non-profit companies.The Business Problem Youre SolvingWhat 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 andeliminated 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 forrecharge stations, consumer inconvenience and the environment will all be positively affected by the integration ofRegenerative Acceleration Technology.The Business SolutionWhat 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) pluggingthem into the grid, 2) regenerative braking (which recharges the batteries while slowing down, “breaking” the EVat the same time). As the name implies – Regenerative Acceleration is the exact opposite of regenerative brakingin that the generator now recharges the batteries while accelerating the vehicle. Now EV batteries can berecharged during both braking, acceleration and coasting.Regenerative Acceleration Technology has the capacity to dramatically increase EV range and performance whileat the same time reducing battery size and weight and completely eliminating grid “plug ins” because batteryrecharging can occur during more than 100% of the EV operation if an additional flywheel is employed while theEV is stationary.Market Opportunity / StrategyHow many people/companies are affected by this problem, what are they spending today to overcome it, howmuch 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 emergencygenerators and everything and everywhere in between.Power generation based on Regenerative Acceleration Technology would result in virtually none of theenvironmental damage currently caused by traditional power sources, and could ultimately replace thesetraditional sources in many contexts. Therefore, there is virtually unlimited financial potential for the application ofRegenerative Acceleration Technology.Products / TechnologyWhat 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 currentgenerator technology at this early stage by over 4000% Page 42 of 45

Epilogue “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 ResearchIt is no secret that the world is starving for energy and the energy and environmental futures look very bleakfor 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 supplydemands for fossil fuel and coal power generation that create more problems that they solve and are notsustainable in the long term.Even the so called “green” technologies can hardly be called green when the mining processes requiredto deliver the raw materials is factored into the equation. California banned rare earth metal mining due to thetoxicity 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 besustainable for portable electronics goods, it is not sustainable for EV applications. A balanced scientific andeconomic analysis concerning the sustainability of LiIon technology for EV applications has not been performed.”ENERGY UNPLUGGED“Some Sort of Real Energy Breakthrough” is here now… and it is called Regenerative Acceleration GeneratorTechnology and it removes the magnetic friction produced inside generators and allows generators to producemuch more with much less. It also allows EVs to continually recharge their batteries and when it is eventuallycombined other conventional electricity generation technologies such as regenerative braking, regenerative shockabsorbers, flywheel KERS technology and photovoltaic paint - it may even provide humanity with electric vehicleswhich never need to be plugged in, providing us with unparalleled mobility while also avoiding “a meltdown of ourcivilization.”Thank You!Thane HeinsPresident and CEOPotential +/- Difference Inc."The Transition of Power" Page 43 of 45

Supplemental Supporting Material 1. Professional Engineers of Ontario Article Ontario Centre Journal of Policy Engagement Draft article as requested for publication in their magazine. 2. Test Data File Doug Hartwick NRC Scientist – Independent Generator Test Data Magna International Torque Tests 3. Magna International Power Point Presentation Part of our ongoing efforts to woo Magna International’s Electric Vehicle Division. 4. India Water Project Draft Joint venture project with India water delivery company. 5. Potential Difference IP Licensing Model Developmental Licensing based on co-operation and free licensing 6. Neil Young MOU Follow up efforts to a live technology demonstration we made to Neil’s advisors. 7. Infinite Range EV Blueprint Non plug-in EV recharge template. 8. Ottawa University Student Newspaper Article9. Ottawa University Third Year EE Student Regenerative Acceleration Generator Report (Draft) 10. EV World Article by Technical Editor Mike Brace 11. Trouble with Lithium Article - Meridian International Research 12. Original Regenerative Acceleration Provisional Patent Application 13. Media Press The double edge sword. 14. Electron Energy Corporation, US Army, Electric Truck Demo in Pennsylvania Small photo essay of a typical live demo with data collection. 15. Generator Demo Videos Special Note to reviewer: A PDF version of this presentation has been included. The intention is that it links to our YouTube Channel videos which provide valuable video text and critical additional information. The entire developmental evolution of the technology can be viewed on the Potential +/- Difference Inc. Technology Evolution Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins?feature=mhee . Page 44 of 45

Thane Heins Manning Innovation Nomination

by Thane Heins on Jan 07, 2012

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Thane Heins Manning Innovation Nomination — Document Transcript