Manning Innovation Award Nomination

of 43
Potential +/- Difference Inc.
Nomination Form.
NOTE: If there is more than one nominee, please complete the nominee information below for each
individual being nominated and indicate which of the nominees will act as the primary contact.
Once the entire form has been filled in, print and have all nominees and nominators sign and date.
Electronic signatures cannot be accepted.
Nominee:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.) Mr.
Surname Heins
First Name and Initial Thane C.
Company Name Potential Difference Inc.
Company Mailing Address
(street, city, province, postal)
2339 Concession 6-D
Almonte ON K0A1A0
Email Address thaneh@potentialdifference.ca
Business Telephone Number 613.256.4684
Cell Phone Number 613.795.1602
Residence Mailing Address Same as company address.
Residence Telephone Number Same as business telephone number.
Have you ever been nominated in the past for a
Manning Award? (Yes/ No)
No
If Yes, which year(s)
How did you learn of the Manning Awards? Television
Nominee’s Signature
I, the above named nominee, hereby certify that I am a Canadian citizen, resident in Canada, and that I
have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________Date: _____________________

of 43
Nominator 1:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.)
Surname
First Name and Initial
Company Name
Email Address
Business Telephone Number
Nominator 1 -- Signature
I, the above-mentioned nominator, hereby certify that I have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Nominator 2:
Salutation (Mr. Mrs. Ms. Dr.)
Surname
First Name and Initial
Company Name
Email Address
Business Telephone Number
Nominator 2 -- Signature
I, the above-mentioned nominator, hereby certify that I have read and agree to be bound by the Rules of the Awards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________________

of 43
Manning Innovation Award
Preface
Who is Thane Heins? Thane Heins is the President, CEO and Founder of Potential Difference Inc. Thane left the
restaurant business and joined the high tech industry in 1999 when he sold his successful Old Towne Hall Tea
Room when he began becoming aware and concerned regarding issues of earth sustainability in the areas of
energy, water and food.
Thane has never considered himself to be an uninvolved “innocent” bystander and was a member of the Green
Party of Ontario and ran in a Provincial Election in his riding of Renfrew, Nippissing, Pembroke in order to make
his growing environmental concerns known and heard. He also ran in a Federal Election as an independent
candidate and was the Vice President of his student council in College.
Thane is married and the father of five children.
What is Thane Heins’ Innovation? Thane Heins’s innovation is called Regenerative Acceleration Generator
Technology and represents a reversal of several currently accepted laws of physics in electricity and magnetism.
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology now allows electric vehicles to continually recharge their
batteries which is something no other non-hybrid – pure electric EV can do. The exact final magnitude of recharge
capability has not yet been determined but 76% recharge capacity has already been established. 100% recharge
capacity would completely eliminate the need for EV grid plug-in recharging.
What is Potential Difference Inc and what is it doing with the innovation? PDI is a Clean-Tech/Energy R&D
intellectual property development company which was founded by Thane Heins and incorporated in 2005. Initial
PDI research began in the area of flywheel energy storage in collaboration with Dr. Paul Allarie at the University
of Virginia's Rotating Machines and Control's Laboratory (ROMAC). PDI was invited to move its research into a
satellite lab at the University of Ottawa in 2008 following a successful Regenerative Acceleration Generator
Technology demonstration at MIT. PDI's technologies were further developed and refined under the supervision
of Dr. Riadh Habash in Ottawa University’s power lab.
PDI is currently licensing or negotiating Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology licenses in India,
Europe, USA, Canada and South America.

of 43
Contents
Resume – 5
Innovation Summary – 8
Complete Innovation Description – 9
Technical Information - 9
Inductor LR Time Constant – 10
Independent Verification – 10
Mathematical Explanation – 12
Critical Minimum Frequency – 13
Creating Generator Acceleration – 13
Intellectual Achievement – 14
Intellectual Process – 14
Experimental Process – 15
Innovation Uniqueness - 20
Chronological Listing of Events & Challenges – 21
Prototype Development Overview – 25
Commercial Success – 27
Broad Acceptance and Recognition – 28
Industry Statements and Colleague Comments - 29
Innovation Funding - 40
Research Facilities &Technical Experts - 40
Acknowledgements – 41
Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits – 42
Epilogue - 43

of 43
Resume of Thane Christopher Heins
2339 Concession 6-D
Almonte, ON. K0A1A0
(613) 256-4684
thaneh@potentialdifference.ca
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
January 1999 to Present President, CEO and Founder
Potential Difference Inc. Almonte, Ontario
· Developed several new “green” technologies.
· Incorporated new IP licensing company.
· Sought investor revenue.
· Initiated worldwide technology commercialization and IP licensing.
May 2003 to 2005 Self Employed Restaurant Consultant
Stay at home dad.
September 2002 to May 2003 Executive Sous Chef
Restaurant Les Fougeres, Chelsea, Quebec
. Monitored evening services
. Liaised with owners, management and staff
June, July 2001 Management Consultant
New Life Retreat, Lanark, Ontario
. Organized the office, improved guest relations, set up guidelines to
help create a more friendly customer environment
. Developed raw food recipes and presentation methods
. Reorganized and optimized the interior design levels
. Educated the owner on hospitality related operational procedures
May 1999 - September 2001 Co-author, and Computer Artist, Ottawa, Ontario
· Health and Diet book to be published in 2012
· Topics included; food and health, nutrition and associated topics.
June 1993 - September 1999 Owner / Executive Chef
The Old Towne Hall Restaurant; Renfrew, Ontario.
· Operated 55 seat fine dining restaurant and personal art gallery.
· Featured on CTV’s Regional Contact for dining excellence.

of 43
May 1990 - October 1992 Executive Chef
The Canadian Museum of Civilization; Hull, Quebec.
· Responsible for approximately 30 staff, 2 separate restaurants, Les
Muse, cafeteria and catering and conference services.
· Managed 2.2 million dollar budget.
· Catered to up to 1000 guests.
· Implemented a cross training/ teaching program in conjunction with
Algonquin College for all kitchen staff to improve staff moral and to
increase staff competence.
June 1988 - May 1990 Executive Catering Chef
Le Jardin Catering & Le Jardin Restaurant; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Oversaw million dollar off premise catering division.
· Entre Metier, Le Jardin Restaurant, Ottawa, Ontario.
May 1987 - June 1988 Executive Chef
Grenville’s on Somerset; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Monitored food preparation and cooking.
· Supervised evening service operations.
· Established operational cooking procedures which allowed the
restaurant to double their seating capacity while at the same time
maintaining optimal food quality levels without increasing the labour
cost.
September 1988 - May 1990 Professor Art Instruction
Algonquin College; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Basic, Advanced and Life Drawing & Portrait courses
· Designed and implemented course curriculums.
April 1985 - May 1987 Executive Sous Chef
L’eau Vive Restaurant; Gatineau, Quebec.
· Developed evening dinner menu selections, preparation and
presentation.
· Trained staff on new menu service procedures.
· Worked with Yanic Vincent, Pierre Trudeau’s former chef.
January 1983 - May 1985 Executive Sous Chef/Executive Catering Chef
The Ritz Restaurant Group; Ottawa, Ontario.
· Set up off premise catering division.
· Developed evening dinner menu selections, preparation and
presentation.
· Trained staff on new menu service procedures.
May 1985 - July 1985 Chef’s Assistant (Part time)
Stonoway; John Turners residence, Ottawa, Ontario
(Leader of the Federal Opposition’s Residence).
· Served John Turner's family and catering functions.

of 43
May 1983 - November 1988 Self Employed
Wildlife Artist; Wakefield, Quebec.
· Produced 15 original wildlife pieces along with prints and
commissions.
· Sold artwork at various shows.
June 1982 - Feb. 1983 Electronic Technologist
University of Ottawa Electrical Engineering
Department; Ottawa, Ontario,
· Assembled and tested Masters thesis’, including the world’s first 64
state modem.
·
Summer 1980 Electronic Technician and Motor Technician
Canadian International Paper Co.; Gatineau, Quebec.
EDUCATION
March 2003 Canadian Institute of Management
Distance Learning Program Certified in Management Course.
1991 - 1992 University of Ottawa - Psychology
Carleton University - Psychology, Industrial Design, Calculus
1990 - 1991 Toronto School of Business - Computer Programming and Systems Analysis
1985 - 1987 Algonquin College - Chef Program
Received award for highest final practical cooking exam mark
1983 - 1984 Ottawa School of Art - Landscape Painting, Life Drawing
1978 - 1982 CEGEP Heritage Campus - Science, Electronics Technology
.

of 43
Innovation Summary
The innovation being presented is a new type of more efficient generator design which does not create “magnetic
friction” when the generator is delivering power to a load (such as a light bulb).
When any electric generator delivers power to a load a magnetic field is produced inside the generator. This
magnetic field creates an electromagnetic form of friction (called counter-electromotive force or counter-
electromotive torque) which is explained by a Law of Physics called Lenz’s Law and Newton’s Third Law which
simply states: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”
This means for every one Watt of energy produced by any conventional generator - more than one Watt of energy
has to be put back in to the prime mover input to keep the generator turning or it will decelerate and the generator
output will decrease and the lights will eventually go out. The input energy can be fossil fuels, wind, water, steam
etc. or anything that makes the generator turn to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. The thing that
turns the generator is called the prime mover. The prime mover input energy making the generator turn always
has to be greater than the output to account for the energy losses in the system and because of the generator
created magnetic friction. If $1.00 worth of energy comes out $1.15 worth of energy (or more) must go in.
This magnetic friction can actually be useful and is currently employed in some electric vehicles’ generators to
recharge the EVs batteries while simultaneously slowing down (braking) the vehicle.
The innovation developed by Potential Difference Inc. reverses this counter-electromotive force/friction
produced inside the electric generator and creates a complimentary-electromotive force or torque in its
place which assists the generator’s rotation and adds to the torque supplied by the prime mover rather
than resisting or diminishing it as per the conventional generator paradigm.
When the Potential Difference Regenerative Acceleration generator delivers power to a load the generator
responds by creating a complimentary force or torque to that supplied by the prime mover and the system
accelerates rather than decelerates. Because the generator and prime mover are working in harmony rather than
opposing each other the input power required by the prime mover must be reduced if a set speed is desired.
In the conventional generator paradigm;
1. As the electrical power delivered by the generator to the load is increased,
2. The input power delivered to the prime mover must also be increased accordingly.
3. The more energy that is produced the more it costs in input energy supplied.
Whereas in the Potential Difference generator paradigm;
1. As the electrical power delivered by the generator to the load is increased,
2. The input power delivered to the prime mover must be reduced accordingly.
3. The more energy that is produced the less it costs in input energy supplied.
“Regenerative Braking” or “Kinetic Energy Recovery System” (KERS) are the terms normally used to describe
the conventional mode of recovering the energy stored in a moving vehicle as inertia. Both of these inertia
recovery systems decelerate the vehicle as a result of their operation. Regenerative braking refers to a generator
converting electric vehicle inertia into electrical energy for the batteries while KERS refers to storing vehicle inertia
in a flywheel (mechanical battery) for later use.
“Regenerative Acceleration” Generator Technology (ReGenX) or “Kinetic Energy Generating System” (KEGS)
are the terms used to describe the mode of generating kinetic energy while simultaneously generating electrical
energy. For electric vehicles this means increased range and less recharging and for fossil fuel vehicles this
means less fuel consumption and less green house gas emissions. For all other forms of electrical energy
production it means a significantly more abundant supply of output power with much less harmful forms of energy
input (fossil fuel, coal, nuclear) required and cheaper energy costs across the entire energy spectrum for
consumers.

of 43
Complete Innovation Description
Technical Information
This innovation description explains to how the Regenerative
Acceleration Generator and now all generators can now be
made to create electricity and system acceleration instead of
electricity and system deceleration.
The quick solution is to employ 1) a high impedance
generator coil and 2) operate the generator at a certain
minimum operational frequency at which point the
generator coil will cease to operate as an inductor and
begin to operate as a capacitor.
This operational paradigm shift is achieved by delaying the
generator coil’s ability to allow current to flow until the right moment.
A conventional generator coil’s ability to produce a repelling magnetic field and perform in accordance
with Lenz’s Law and Newton’s Third Law relies on one critically important ingredient and that ingredient
is electric current flow.
Because of the design properties and operational parameters of a conventional generator inductor coil, current
flow and repelling magnetic field production are virtually synonymous. Current flow in a conventional generator
coil is continuous as is the production of magnetic friction inside the generator. Conventional generator coils
always operate as inductors in conventional generators.
An inductor stores energy in the external magnetic field around the coil and it is this magnetic field that
creates the “magnetic friction” inside the generator because it is equal and opposite in nature to the applied
magnetic field which induces the original voltage and current. Classically this is understood according to the law
of Physics called Lenz’s Law. When a magnet approaches a coil of wire and current flows in the coil, the coil
produces its own (equal and opposite repelling) magnetic field which has the same magnetic polarity as the
approaching magnet. In order to keep the magnet approaching the coil, additional energy must be applied to
overcome the coil’s induced repelling magnetic field that is trying to push back on the magnet as it approaches.
A capacitor on the other hand stores energy internally in the electrostatic field and does not produce the
external magnetic field that is required to create the “magnetic friction”. As the magnet approaches the
Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil above a certain frequency, electric current flow is restricted
by the coil’s frequency dictated impedance (AC resistance).
Zt = 2 pi F L + Rdc
where:
Zt is the total coil impedance,
F is the frequency,
L is the coil inductance,
Rdc is the DC resistance of the coil.
When the operational frequency of a generator coil is increased the AC impedance of the coil also
increases because:

of 43
When a critical operational frequency parameter is reached in the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil the
coil stores energy as a capacitor, internally as voltage in the electrostatic field and no current flows in the
generator coil or the load. When the magnet reaches top dead centre and is neither approaching nor receding the
coil, the coil frequency drops to zero and the coil impedance drops to the coil’s DC resistance - which is low
enough to now allow current to flow. This delayed current flow then produces a maximum magnitude repelling
magnetic field which pushes away on the now already receding magnet with great force while attracting the
opposite magnet on the rotor.
Inductor LR Time Constant and Delaying Current and Reversing Generator Magnetic Friction
This portion of the Technical Discussion pertains to the amount of time it takes to create the time delay mentioned
above for any generator coil allow current to flow and to induce a repelling magnetic field when in the vicinity of a
magnetic field. It is supported by independent empirical evidence as presented in the two Dutch Electrical
Engineer videos below which are included on enclosed DVD.
All generator coils produce an equal and opposite repelling magnetic field the only difference between a
conventional generator coil and a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is:
The conventional generator coil produces a virtually instantaneous and continuous repelling magnetic field
and pushes back on the approaching magnetic field 100% of the time.
The Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil does not produce a repelling magnetic field when the
magnetic field is approaching.
The repelling magnetic field is stored and delayed inside the coil capacitance of the Regenerative
Acceleration Generator coil.
It only produces a repelling magnetic field when the magnetic field is already moving away from the coil so
the result is an acceleration of the magnetic field away from the coil.
Video 1. Independent Regenerative Acceleration Generator Replication by Dutch Electrical Engineer
This video explains how to create a generator which accelerates when a load is applied. It also shows the system
operating in conventional (decelerative) mode and then the Regenerative Acceleration mode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B750RHM9hTc
Explanation of LR Time Constant and how it Contributes to Generator Acceleration
When a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field a voltage is induced in that coil of wire according to
Michael Faraday’s Law of Induction. When the coil is connected to a load and the circuit is closed, current will flow
through the coil and through the load.
As the operational frequency is increased the current flow decreases in direct proportion to the
increase in impedance– if the frequency increase is high enough current flow will completely cease.

of 43
The speed at which the coil passes through the magnetic field dictates the frequency of the voltage and
current induced in the coil but because the generator coil is an inductor – current does not flow instantly and is
delayed for a certain period of time. The amount of time delay is dictated by the LR Time Constant of the coil
where:
L is the coil inductance and
R is the coil resistance.
The Time Constant formula in a RL circuit is:
where R is the resistance (in ohms), L is the inductance (in henries) and the time constant τ (in seconds).
When a magnet is passed by any generator coil there is a delay in the rise/fall time of the coil which is caused by
the back-EMF from the inductor/generator coil. As the current flowing through the coil tries to change the back-
EMF prevents the current from rising or falling. The rise time takes five time-constants to complete.
The graph below shows that for any inductor it takes 1 Time Constant for the current flow in the coil to reach
63.2% of its final value. This also means that the coil is producing 63.2% of its repelling magnetic field.
99.3% is reached at 5 Time Constants.
Diagram 1. Generator Coil Current Rise Time / Time Constant
The mathematical explanation below will show that a conventional generator coil’s Time Constant is very FAST
and therefore the coil’s ability to allow current flow and produce repelling magnetic field production is also very
fast.
Conversely the Time Constant for a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is very SLOW – almost 10 times
greater than a conventional coil.
This means that a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil cannot react fast enough to allow current to flow in
the coil. If current cannot flow then the coil cannot produce a repelling magnetic field either. The only alternative
for the coil is to store the approaching magnetic field energy as voltage inside the coil’s capacitance. Once the
approaching magnetic field is no longer approaching i.e. at top dead centre, this stored voltage can be dissipated
through the low DC resistance of the coil and a large delayed repelling magnetic field can be produced - pushing
away on the already receding magnet and accelerating its departure away from the generator coil.

of 43
Video 2. Mathematical Explanation concerning LR Time Constant which contributes to acceleration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9bCAMWetL8
Time Constant example for a “Fast” conventional generator
If we take the variables from a conventional generator (from the demonstration video above) we can see how the
Time Constant varies dramatically between a “fast” conventional coil and a “slow” Regenerative Acceleration
Generator coil.
Conventional Generator Time Constant & Coil Parameters
L = 106 mH
Rdc = 21.1 ohms
Rload = 200 ohms
___L___ = ________106 mH ______
Rtotal 21.1 ohms + 200 ohms
Time Constant = 0.47 mSec
As we can see from the above time constant of 0.47 mSec the conventional coil has produced 63.2% of the total
magnetic drag possible. This value is very fast and it shows why the conventional generator can easily
create virtually instantaneous magnetic drag.
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil Time Constant & Coil Parameters
L = 2.182 H
Rdc = 384.5 ohms
Rload = 200 ohms
___L___ = ________2.182 H ______
Rtotal 384.5 ohms + 200 ohms
Time Constant = 3.73 mSec
As we can see from the above time constant of 3.73 mSec the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil has
produced 63.2% of the total magnetic drag possible. This value is very slow and it shows why the
Regenerative Acceleration Generator cannot allow current flow or produce magnetic drag or friction.
A Time Constant Comparison between a conventional generator coil (0.47 mSec) and a Regenerative
Acceleration generator coil (3.73 mSec) reveals that the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil’s Time
Constant (or reaction time) is almost 10 times greater. If we continue to add maximum load (more light bulbs etc)
the Regenerative Acceleration Generator the Time Constant continues to increase to 5.68 mSec.

of 43
Coil
Parameters
Inductance
L
(henries)
Resistance
Rdc
(ohms)
Resistance
Rload
(ohms)
Resistanc
e
Rtotal
(ohms)
Frequency
Hz
(hertz)
Time
Constant
τ
(Seconds)
System
Reaction
w/
Loading
Conventional
Generator
Coil
106 mH 21.1 ohms 200 ohms 221.1
ohms
50 Hz 0.46 mSec System
Deceleration
Regenerative
Acceleration
Generator
Coil
2.182 H 384.5 ohms 200 ohms 584.5
ohms
Deceleration
Regenerative
Acceleration
Generator
Coil
2.182 H 384.5 ohms 200 ohms 584.5
ohms
Acceleration
Regenerative
Acceleration
Generator
Coil
2.182 H 384.5 ohms 0.0 ohms
(infinite load)
584.5
ohms
100 Hz 5.68 mSec Maximum
System
Acceleration
Table 1. System Reaction for Conventional Generator Coil VS Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil
The table above shows the coil parameters required to create a generator coil which accelerates on-load (when a
load is applied).
As can be seen from the graph it is not enough to just employ a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil it must
also be employed above the a minimum frequency where the coil impedance really takes effect.
Critical Minimum Frequency
The Critical Minimum Frequency is the coil operating frequency which dictates the coil reaction. The coil reaction
determines whether or not the coil creates on-load acceleration or deceleration.
A Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil that is operating below the critical minimum frequency will decelerate
on-load as per a conventional generator coil.
Creating On-Load Regenerative Acceleration Generator Coil Acceleration
In order to produce generator on-load acceleration, the generator coil must operate above the critical minimum
frequency that is specific to that coil. Changing the physical parameters of the coil will change its critical minimum
frequency by raising or lowering it.
.

of 43
Intellectual Achievement
“Good science is good observation”
It was discovered/observed (purely by accident) that
a high impedance generator coil operating above a
certain frequency will accelerate on-load rather than
decelerate as per a conventional generator coil
and as dictated by Lenz’s Law.
A conventional generator coil is a low impedance,
high current coil and is deliberately designed to
conduct maximum current flow. As a result it also
produces a maximum repelling magnetic field.
A Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil is a
high impedance, high voltage coil and is deliberately
designed to conduct minimum current flow while the
magnet is approaching the coil but maximum
current flow once the magnet is Top Dead Centre
(TDC) to the coil – (neither approaching nor
receding). The high impedance coil when operated
above a certain frequency will produce a maximum
repelling magnetic field albeit delayed until TDC.
Intellectual Process
Original the Regenerative Acceleration
Generator prototypes could only produce system
Acceleration (positive kinetic energy) but
no real useable electrical power.
Because a Regenerative Acceleration coil is a low
current coil it produces high voltage but low current.
High current is required to produce useful electrical
work such as recharging batteries or lighting lights
etc.
Producing positive kinetic energy could only be
useful if it could be married to a conventional
high current generator coil which produces useful
electrical power and if the Regenerative Acceleration
Generator coil was used to reduce or negate the
conventional generator’s decelerative effects.
The Big If
If this could be accomplished it would mean that the
energy and cost that needs to be returned to the
prime mover to keep the conventional generator
going when on-load could be offset some what and
energy savings could be realized.

of 43
Experimental Process & Innovation Evolution
Generator design requirements for the “real
world” dictated that the generator produce
real useable power in a package that closely
resembled the current generator designs as
possible. A convenient retrofit needed to be
developed that did not place too great a burden
on end users.
Prototype # 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5BqEiFK74
Prototype # 1 was a marriage between a pair of conventional generator coils and a pair Regenerative
Acceleration Generator Coils. The best of both world’s was the desired outcome.
Step 1 The idea was to load the conventional generator coils with a regular light bulb and create system
deceleration as expected.
Step 2 Then when the Regenerative Acceleration Coils were engaged the system was supposed to accelerate
under identical load and identical input power conditions as the conventional generator with absolutely no
increase in power to the prime mover. The prime mover in this case was an induction motor and if the current
increased one iota during the test it would denote a failure in the design.
Likewise if the current decreased while the system speed and generator output increased it would mean a
experimental success.
Prototype # 1 Success - 300% More With 43% Less But With One Slight Performance Flaw
As desired Prototype # 1 decelerated in conventional generator mode and accelerated in Regenerative
Acceleration Mode while the current (and power) to the prime mover both decreased.
One IP Performance Flaw is One Too Many
Potential Difference Inc. (PDI) is an intellectual property development and licensing company. PDI’s mandate is
to develop technology IP and then license that technology. As a result it is incumbent on PDI to ensure that the IP
being licensed is the most up to date and current version possible to protect the interests of our developmental
licensing partners and investors.
Ultimately the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil outperformed the
conventional generator coil and produced 300% more usable electrical power to the
load while requiring 43% less power to be delivered to the prime mover.
In real world terms this would mean 300% more power delivered
to the grid with 43% less green house gasses or nuclear waste.

of 43
Prototype # 1 - The Flaw
Because the conventional generator coil and
Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil
were placed on the same core, the
discharging magnetic field/flux from the
Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil
was in the opposite direction to the flux in the
conventional generator coil.
The result was that when the Regenerative
Acceleration Generator coil was engaged
the system accelerated, which was good but
the output power to the load dropped, which
was bad.
Not bad in the sense that the technology
didn’t work but bad in the sense that an IP
improvement could possibly be made by someone else if PDI ceased development there.
The onus was on PDI to make the improvement or risk having the technology usurped by an outside party.
Prototype # 2 – The Solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmFbINO0dCU
Prototype # 2 was ultimately a success but it went through many iterations before its final design destination as
Prototype # 6
Prototype # 3 – Prototype # 2 but with a DC Prime Mover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5FvSVdf58
Prototype # 4 – Further Enhancements and Video Demo for NASA Goddard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKO8r-3xrw
The solution to Prototype # 1’s performance shortcoming was to reconfigure the
physical arrangement of the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil and the
conventional generator coil such that the direction of discharging flux from the
Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil would be in the same direction as the flux
going into the conventional generator coil.
Prototype # 3 was important because we needed to ensure that the on-load acceleration
wasn’t restricted to just an AC induction motor and that is was just some sort of curious
laboratory anomaly that couldn’t be used with other prime mover modes. As it turned out
the technology performs equally well with a DC motor as the prime mover.

of 43
Prototype # 4 – Prototype Design and Performance Explanation for NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obs
Experimental Process & IP Commercialization Genesis
Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology IP commercialization began when California Diesel and Power
requested a prototype to be built so that it could be tested and validated at their own facility in Sacramento CA.
Their plan was to use the generator technology in an electric vehicle entry and to compete in the ten million dollar
Automotive X Prize. PDI built a prototype for CD&P which they validated internally and eventually purchased an
IP license agreement.
Prototype # 5 California Diesel and Power Prototype
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAS5EKsIQM4
Prototype # 6 Upgraded CD&P Prototype with New Rotor Tested by NRC Scientist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARztYvprKkA
Coming Full Circle and Reaching “The Holy Grail for Generators”
While the original Regenerative Acceleration Generator prototype introduced additional kinetic energy into the
system it was unable to produce any useable electric power. By employing both types of coils in one generator
design this problem was solved. When NRC scientist Doug Hartwick independently tested the regenerative
Acceleration Generator prototype at the University of Ottawa he noted a huge gain in output power over the
conventional generator with a significant input power reduction. Doug’s test was performed with both generators
operating at identical speeds to ensure identical prime mover efficiency and to equalize all other test variables
such as bearing friction and wind resistance etc. (Test data attached).
If the prime mover input was not reduced however and both systems were allowed to react naturally with identical
initial operating speeds and prime mover input the conventional system would decelerate down and the generator
output would be reduced to 0.0 Watts while the Regenerative Acceleration Generator output equaled 4 Watts
which led Doug to suggest, “this technology is the holy grail for generators.” Updated prototypes would later
increase the electrical output to 10, 30, 50, 1000 Watts.
Eventually CD&P returned their prototype and it was upgraded with a new rotor with
more powerful magnets and output was increased significantly over Prototype # 2. This
prototype would eventually be independently third party tested by an NRC scientist and
shown to produce over 223% more power to the load over the conventional generator
with 40% less input power required by the prime mover at identical operating speeds.

of 43
Potential Difference Intellectual Property Mandate Revisited (again)
Prototypes # 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all successfully employed an “E” core which as the name implies is shaped like the
capital letter E. Prototype # 1 employed an “I” core with both coils mounted on it which did not produce ideal
results from an IP development standpoint.
Generator coils are wound on top of soft metal ferromagnetic material which attracts the magnetic fields into the
coil which is required to induce electrical power into the coil.
IP Mandate Necessity is the “Mother of all Invention”
PDI’s IP development mandate necessitated that the “I” core coil design be revisited to explore the possibility of
creating an “ideal” I core design solution of one existed at all. The eventual solution was to build a high voltage,
high impedance Regenerative Acceleration generator coil and employ a step down transformer to do the work of
providing usable current and electric power. Prototype # 7 was born.
Prototype # 7 Successful “I” Core Performance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_UXcNMBGTA
Prototype # 8 “I” Core Success in an “E” Core Package
Prototype # 8 involved a return to the “E” core, dual coil design but with the elimination of the high current, low
impedance conventional coil as per the earlier “E” core prototypes. Prototype # 8 proved successful as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPMbWzNuMOg
Prototype # 9 New “I” Core Design VS Conventional Generator Comparison
Experimental test data collected for prototype # 9 showed the conventional generator coil producing 7 Watts at
3100 RPM while creating system deceleration.
The Regenerative Acceleration Generator produced 45 Watts at 3100 RPM which represents a 543%
generator performance increase at identical operating speeds and drive shaft input torque.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3JVjbXOssQ

of 43
Prototype # 9 Torque Paradigms Video for the Quebec Institute for Vehicle Advancement
Prototype # 9 was used to demonstrate the two different torque paradigms between a conventional generator and
a Regenerative Acceleration Generator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC06V8vXUqI
.......
Prototype # 9 Successful BIONX Electric Vehicle Integration Test
Potential Difference Inc’s IP commercialization and licensing efforts included the integration of the technology into
an electric vehicle. Our first attempt was to determine if the Regenerative Acceleration Generator could operate
successfully in an existing electric vehicle design. The BIONX bicycle retrofit provided the first evidence that this
was indeed a good possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGvOBDCh7sA
Prototype # 10 End Game ReGenX Generator Design Fruition
Prototype # 10 represents the culmination of six years of Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology
development. The design goal for this IP iteration was to remove the step down transformer and create a
generator which provided usable electric power with acceleration and also with deceleration if desired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3gVfltiO-E
Prototype # 10 has also been followed up by Prototype # 11 which can be started as a motor and then converted
over to generator mode when required and when opportunity dictates.

of 43
Innovation Uniqueness
All electric generators create torque. A conventional generator creates a counter-electromotive torque when on-
load and works against the torque supplied by the prime mover. As a result the prime mover must provide
additional torque to overcome the generator’s induced counter torque (magnetic friction).
The additional torque that is required to keep a conventional generator running comes at a financial and
environmental cost because more energy must be expended to create the required torque and keep the generator
running and producing electrical power.
The energy required to keep generators running and producing electrical power also comes at a national security
and human cost for some because human lives must be expended directly or indirectly in either recovering the
energy required or expropriating it from those countries that have it. The more energy required by humanity the
higher the costs associated with producing it.
The Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology’s innovation uniqueness lies in the fact that it reverses the
paradigm described above and allows generators to produce energy but it also allows them to produce a
complimentary-electromotive torque which works with the prime mover and in harmony with the prime mover
supplied torque.
The intellectual achievement is a generator that requires less energy and less cost when supplying
energy for humanity’s needs. It results in an energy solution that is viable and sustainable for everyone in the long
term and does not rely on earth or human exploitation to meet its demands.
For the Native Indians living downstream from the Oil Sands it means chemical toxin free water for fishing,
drinking and bathing. For the Middle East it means and end to oil wars and external national destabilization efforts
to control oil resources. For Americans it means a reprieve from the increasing pressure and demand to
overextend its financial resources and military to control dwindling oil reserves in a naive and futile West vs East
oil race that no one can win.

of 43
Chronological Listing of Events, Innovation Evolution & Challenges
1)
The original idea for the innovation came during a college lecture on Lenz’s Law in my motor/generator class
while studying in the CEGEP/Electronics Technology Program in 1980. Lenz’s Law pertains to the production of a
repelling magnetic field in a generator coil and how that magnetic field enters the air gap between the magnet and
the coil and repels the magnet as it tries to approach the coil. My theory was that if said magnetic field could be
diverted or even a small percentage this would make the generator that much more efficient because it would
produce less magnetic drag. My idea was quickly shot down by my professor who said that in order to do this first
I would have to violate Lenz’s Law, Newton’s Third Law and the Law of Conservation of Energy at that it was an
impossible goal.
2)
Twenty years later in 1999 I began working on Flywheel Energy Storage Technology with the University of
Virginia’s flywheel research lab due to the development of a conical magnetic design I had developed. Flywheel
energy storage systems are mechanical batteries which store energy as inertia and operate at very high speeds.
3)
While developing the generator for the flywheel technology project it was discovered that at a certain RPM and
coil frequency a generator coil will accelerate when a load is applied rather than decelerate as is commonly
known. The original prototype accelerated so quickly and so unexpectedly that it began to fly apart with bits and
pieces being shot in every direction which caused me to dive under the test bench for fear of my safety.
4)
When the original generator prototype continually “refused” to decelerate when placed on-load it was seen as a
serious problem that needed to be corrected. The original prototype was completely dismantled right down to the
nuts and bolt in search of the “problem” which was thought to be a short circuit in the prime mover. No electrical
faults were discovered in the troubleshooting “witch hunt.”
5)
Once rebuilt the generator prototype continued to accelerate on-load so the problematic anomaly was determined
to be something other than isolated incident and an investigation ensued to determine it had any beneficial
attributes.
6)
The original theory was that the magnetic fields induced by the generator coils were being magnetically coupled
to the prime mover which was an induction motor due to the fact that all the connection components were
ferromagnetic material and could conduct magnetic fields. If the generator’s induced magnetic fields were being
diverted into the induction motor and strengthening the rotor or the stator’s magnetic field this would create
additional torque and acceleration would result.
7)
A simple experimental prototype was devised which had an induction motor with a moveable permanent magnet
placed near the motor’s drive shaft. The drive shaft was connected internally to the motor’s rotor and stator coil.
When the magnet was moved into the vicinity of the motor’s drive shaft the motor would accelerate and when
moved away it would accelerate.
8)
This gave credence to the original “on-load acceleration theory” and the early prototypes were designed to
encourage and enhance this requirement.

of 43
Enter the “Human Problem” - Lenz’s Law Applies in Humans Also
9)
Provisional patents were filed and the generator performance was confirmed by Dr. Zahn at MIT who is an expert
in electromagnetic systems. Dr. Zahn went on record with the Toronto Star’s Energy Reporter Tyler Hamilton
(who was covering our trip to MIT) and said, “I have seen it and it works. It is not something I would have
expected and now I am just trying to figure it out.”
10)
Our trip to MIT was designed to solicit MIT’s assistance in validating the generator acceleration phenomenon and
to help develop the backing theory so the technology could eventually be turned into a viable commercial product.
11)
Tyler Hamilton and the Toronto Star published a story about our trip to MIT and the byline asked a deliberately
misleading question which was designed for one reason only - to stir up controversy to “sell” the story. The
question was, “Is this Perpetual Motion.”
12)
While conducting his interviews Tyler asked me if the technology was a perpetual motion machine and I said no.
Dr. Zahn asked me the same question as well and I said no. Dr. Zahn and I both concluded the same thing and it
was obvious to anyone with honest intentions because a prime mover was always required and the prime mover
needed to be plugged into an electrical outlet or external power source to make the system function, which
excluded it from meeting the perpetual motion criteria.
13)
Once the Toronto Star “Perpetual Motion” story was published in 2008, the proverbial “you know what” hit the fan
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042. The technology became an overnight sensation and all our
previous legitimate attempts at following rational and accepted scientific investigation protocols were thrown out
the window.
14)
Dr. Zahn’s professional reputation at MIT was damaged and now tainted and he refused to continue the scientific
investigation with us because he assumed that we made the perpetual motion claim to Tyler Hamilton and the
Toronto Star even though the complete opposite was true.
15)
Dr. Habash, our lab supervisor at our Ottawa University dismantled our technology webpage which was being set
up to track the evolution of the technology in a public forum because he wanted to distance himself from the
controversy. As did all Ottawa University professors eventually except for one who’s job security was threatened
and who was eventually fired for supporting the technology.
16)
The Toronto Star’s reader manipulation ruse worked perfectly and in a follow up story Tyler Hamilton boasted to
his readers that it was one of the most read and discussed stories of the entire year
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/306532. What he didn’t tell his readers, even to this day was that the
entire story was predicated on a lie and that it left a trail of disaster in its wake.
17)
Winston Churchill one said that, “a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its
pants on.” As we have since learned (the hard way) when it comes to the media the truth is expendable or at
least temporarily ignored if a lie can be used to sell a story. Recently Richard Syrett produced a story on CBC
radio in which he advertised Thane Heins as the inventor of a perpetual motion machine
http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/.

of 43
18)
The truth was in 2008 when we went to MIT for technology validation we had no real idea what was going on and
only had unproven theories and some empirical evidence that had no backing theory to base any
commercialization efforts or justify soliciting investor funds.
19)
Previous attempts at having the technology validated from at least a performance perspective and not a scientific
one were also met with similar challenges and questions of the availability of scientific credibility or ethics in the
energy research arena.
20)
Potential Difference paid about one hundred thousand dollars from 2005 to 2010 searching for some public
endorsement and validation of the technology so PDI could seek investor funds with some credibility.
Kinetrics Lab: A former Ontario Hydro testing facility spent an entire week evaluating the generator and
provided a written report and a conclusion that stated that, “the starting capacitor in the base of the
motor/prime mover was responsible for the on-load acceleration.” The report could not explain how it was
possible that the starting capacitor “knew” when a load was being applied to the generator in order to
initiate the acceleration or when to initiate deceleration when the load was removed. The evaluators
refused to explain why the on-load acceleration phenomenon persisted when the capacitor was physically
removed since it was only required on start-up. Requests for retesting and a new report were refused as
was a refund which was based on over fifty errors in the report.
Electron Energy Corporation: A Pennsylvania magnetic manufacturing company was contracted to
evaluate the technology and two magnetic PhDs were consulted who performed seven hours of testing
and a finite element analysis. In their written report they concluded that, “they could not evaluate the
technology because the conventional generator which decelerated on-load rotated in the clockwise
direction and the Regenerative Acceleration Generator which accelerated on-load, rotated in the
counter-clockwise direction.” They did not explain why direction is irrelevant and Lenz’s Law does not
differentiate and only states that... “when a magnet approaches a coil of wire...” We noted that during the
testing procedure the evaluators became agitated and frustrated that they were unable to eliminate the on-
load acceleration phenomenon even after their machine shop produced a new machined part meant to
“fix” the acceleration problem.
Filtran Transformers: An Ottawa based transformer manufacturing company was introduced to the
technology because they could manufacture the generator coils required and because their parent
company could potentially invest in the technology’s development. We provided a live demonstration to
their engineers and we were informed that there were irrefutable laws of the universe which prevented our
technology from working.
Magna International: Magna International was introduced to Regenerative Acceleration Generator
Technology while we were at the University of Ottawa and it was our desire that they would sponsor our
lab and our research in return for IP licensing rights. We provided four live technology demonstrations and
allowed them to test one of our prototypes for an entire week. We were asked to provide torque testing
which we did (test data attached). The request was made to ensure that the Regenerative Acceleration
Generator did indeed produce complimentary torque as we claimed. Third party torque testing was
independently performed by TRIAS Innovations at our Ottawa University satellite lab at it was successful
and proved beyond any doubt that the technology did produce complimentary on-load torque which added
to the prime mover torque and resulted in on-load system acceleration. Dave Pascoe, Vice President,
Electric Vehicle Technologies then asked us to build him a perpetual motion machine. The relationship
started to deteriorate and we were then informed that their engineers concluded that the technology didn’t
work.
Electric Mobility Canada: Mike Elwood the Chairman of Electric Mobility Canada visited our lab at
Ottawa University and concluded that the technology was, “a game changer” and we were asked to
present the technology to their members. Dave Pascoe, VP at Magna International and EMC board
member stepped in and vetoed this technology presentation opportunity and claimed that Magna was
conducting evaluations – which was completely untrue.

of 43
Defense Research and Development Canada: Five PhDs from Defense Research and Development
Canada visited our lab at the University of Ottawa and validated the generator performance. When
Richard Syrett of the CBC approached the DRDC and requested to interview the five PhDs they all
received email warnings informing them that their employment would be terminated if they spoke about
what they witnessed.
21)
Many challenges have been encountered during the evolution of the Regenerative Acceleration Generator
Technology including technical development and financial resources issues but by far the most persistent and
recurring problem is the problem of human perception and professionalism and the scientific acceptance of
something new and unknown. While technical development and financial issues were virtually all solved,
worldwide licensing initiated, over 3000 professional connections on LinkedIn, successful generator replications in
Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, USA and Canada and with over two million generator videos viewed on
YouTube the human problem for some still persists to this day:
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Dear Mr Heins,
I have reviewed your YouTube video and can save you a lot of time and money because the device does not
work... You will find that perpetual motion machines still don’t exist.
So thank you for the offer but I have no interest in helping you to develop this technology.
Best Regards,
Jon Hilton FIMechE CEng
Managing Partner
Flybrid Systems LLP
Tel +44 (0)1327 855190
Mob +44 (0)7825 240708
Company Registration No: OC325755
Silverstone Technology Park
Silverstone, Northamptonshire, NN12 8GX
www.flybridsystems.com
Overall Winner - British Engineering Excellence Awards 2009
22)
Many times during the development and refinement of the technology at the University of Ottawa when the
“human problem” would come up and Dr. Habbash would always remind us that, “this is not and engineering
question, it is not even a physics question, it is a human question and it is a question of human acceptance which
is often a very big problem.”
23)
After successfully demonstrating the technology at MIT and enduring the “perpetual motion storm” that ensued we
locked ourselves away in our lab and tried to focus on the tasks at hand while outsiders continually tried to have
us evicted and crucified as scientific heretics who were “creating sins against science”. Eventually they would
even succeed.

of 43
24) Prototype Development Overview
Although this has already been covered somewhat
in the Experimental Process above here it is again
in more detail:
1. Prototype # 0 was the prototype developed
in my basement which was demonstrated
at MIT, Kinectrics, EEC, Filtran
Transformers and the original prototype we
brought to Ottawa University when we
moved in there. It only had the capacity to
generate kinetic energy and no real usable
electric power. It was our first proof of
concept upon which we based our original
provisional patent applications.
2. It didn’t take us very long once at Ottawa U
to discover flaws in the original theory and then to invalidate our own original “generator magnetic flux
migration into the motor acceleration theory” along with our costly patent work.
3. All it took was one piece of plastic pipe that was long enough and voila.
4. A new theory of operation needed to be produced which isolated the acceleration to the coil properties
only. Our new frequency based, high impedance, low current, self induced coil capacitance theory was
developed which still exists to this day and it deals with the differences between the physical properties of
the two coils.
5. Prototype # 1 was our first prototype built at the University of Ottawa in 2008 and it used two microwave
oven step-up transformers as the generator coils. It successfully demonstrated conventional generator on-
load decelerative performance using the high current windings and then showed on-load acceleration
when the high voltage coils were employed to reverse the deceleration effects. An IP improvement
demand was noted.
6. Prototype #2 was developed to satisfy the IP improvement that was required and it was also successful.
7. During the evolution of prototype # 2 and its subsequent iterations it was discovered that the high current
coil could be eliminated altogether and that the high voltage coils could indeed be used to produce usable
electric power and acceleration.
8. The “E” coil was developed with two high voltage coils which both produced electric power and
acceleration so a simplified “I” coil design also needed to be perfected.
9. Prototype # 9 represented the successful “I” core generator design evolution but had its own Achilles’ heel
which needed to be addresses.
10. Prototype # 9 required a step down transformer to enable it to produce useable power. Since the step
down transformer was an energy loss contributor to the system a way to remove it was desired.
11. Prototype # 10 was conceived and it successfully produced usable electrical power with acceleration but it
had one huge crippling problem which threatened to derail the entire Regenerative Acceleration
Generator Technology Development Program.
12. The problem was that if one generator coil was used it would produce X amount of electrical power with Y
amount of acceleration.
13. When a second coil was added however the electrical output of coil # 1 would drop by a certain
percentage.
14. If a third coil was added, coil # 1’s output would drop even more and so on.
15. This problem was identified early on by us while at the University of Ottawa in 2008 but it was not
considered to be a significant problem (to be honest we didn’t know how to solve it so we ignored it since
we really didn’t understand anything at that early stage). It did become a very significant problem in 2010
however when California Diesel and Power also identified the problem with their own prototype they were
building in Sacramento. This problem also threatened to jeopardize our licensing negotiations which were
ongoing at the same time.
16. The onus was on us to solve the problem and this was achieved with prototype # 11.

of 43
17. Prototype # 11’s design solved the performance problem of coil output reduction and even reversed it so
that when a second coil was placed on-load the output of the first coil would actually increase.
18. This turned out to be a very important developmental milestone which would come into play when the
Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil was employed as a motor coil.
19. The Regenerative Acceleration Generator employs a Salient Pole Coil Axial Flux Design or Pancake
Motor Design. What this means is that each individual coil is antonymous and can be: A) individually
switched on or off as a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil or B) on or off as a motor coil and even
C) on or off as a regenerative braking coil.
20. Basically if your generator has three coils for example, one coil can be a motor coil, another can be a
regenerative braking coil and the last one can operate as a Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil or
any other combination for that matter.
21. The really interesting, beneficial and fortunate aspect of having a motor coil and a Regenerative
Acceleration Generator coil operating side by side is that the discharging magnetic flux from the motor coil
will be collected and recycled inside the Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil boosting its output and
increasing the overall system efficiency.
The final development paved the way for electric vehicle motor/generator development and integration
which is currently ongoing.
From the university lab to the real world

of 43
Budding Commercial Success
Potential Difference Inc. started “selling” Regenerative Acceleration
Generator Technology IP licenses in 2010.
Our first developmental licensing partner was California Diesel and
Power. Currently we negotiating EV licensing rights with Hero Electric
of India and we are in the process of integrating the technology into
their scooter line. Hero Electric is affiliated with Honda in India and the
company is called Hero Honda. We anticipate that our work with Hero
Electric will eventually trickle up to Honda motorcycles and then
Honda automobiles.
Because our Regenerative Acceleration Generator licensing
is free our revenues are primarily based on IP royalties
generated from the sale of units which does not exist at this
early stage.
PDI creates Developmental Partnership arrangements
whereby our clients pay for the development and integration
costs associated with their specific application.
Currently we are in the initial negotiating stages of this
process with Hero Electric / Hero Honda.
Our motor/generator coils will be manufactured at Toroid
Tech / Northern Transformers in Toronto, Ontario. Motors will
also be fully assembled at the Northern
Transformers facility.
Motor commutators will be
manufactured and supplied by
Industrial Commutator Company Ltd. of
Barrie Ontario. Motor electronic
components supplied by CanaKit of
North Vancouver, BC.
Scooters will be distributed in India,
Europe and North America by Hero
Electric.
Potential Difference is also currently in
the initial stage of developing portable
generators for homes and businesses.
Large scale generator development is
in the initial communication stage for
hydro electricity production in the Honduras, Africa and for a water purification initiative in India.

of 43
Broad Acceptance and Recognition
CHRYSLER ELECTRIFIED POWERTRAINS
“The technology looks really interesting and is revolutionary. I would like to learn more about the technology. Is it
possible to organize a demo or a lecture in the USA?"
GENERAL MOTORS
"This sounds interesting. I'd like you to connect with our Fuel Economy Learning Program manager, to schedule a
time for you to come in and share the technology with us. We need to know more about the Physics behind it". "I
have talked with my colleagues in GM US about your solution for vehicles. So, we would like more details about
fuel economy and emissions regarding it. Do you have any company that use this approach in vehicles? I am
open for discussion".
MERCEDES-BENZ
"It would be fitting for the inventor of the automobile to be first with your revolutionary technology and for me to
play a role in that would be awesome!"
NISSAN Japan
"Thanks for providing technical information. If the effect of your invention is really true, I am sure there will be
strong needs in the market. How can you prove this on an actual electric vehicle, for example by making a
prototype using our Nissan Leaf? I would like to discuss your business model and financial requirements,
investment needs, business plan."
NEIL YOUNG
"We are really interested in using your generator technology in our LinkVolt project in order to eliminate roadside
refueling.”
EV WORLD
Mike Brace, EV World Tech Editor
"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of
electromagnetism." http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890
NASA
Erik Clark NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
"The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do a colloquium"
US AIR FORCE
Omar Mendoza, Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright
Patterson
"We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements"
CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
Gilles Leclerc, Canadian Space Agency Space Technologies
"I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at
your technologies and to visit your laboratory"

of 43
ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADA
Mike Elwood, Chairman Electric Mobility Canada and Vice President of Azure Dynamics
"This is a freakin game changer!"
ELECTRIC MOBILITY CANADA
Al Cormier, Executive Director Electric Mobility Canada
"I am writing to ask you to submit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative
acceleration technology for circulation to our Committee members"
OTTAWA UNIVERSITY
Dr. Habash, University of Ottawa
"Of course it accelerates... this represents several new chapters in physics, that is why we are consulting MIT"
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Dr. Stanley Townsend, University of Toronto & Former Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics
"Thane, Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist & an engineer.
The level of technical detail was adequate to tell me that you probably have made a very significant
advance in applied physics & in safely & successfully handling a new source of electric power.
Congratulations!"
MIT
Dr. Marcus Zahn
"It works and it is not something I would have expected, now I am just trying to figure it out"
RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
Dr. Evstigneev N.M., Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Science
" A number of your experiments are not lying in the field of Maxwellian electrodynamics"
UNIVERSITY OF CONCORDIA
Professor Joseph Shin, Concordia University
"This is absolutely fascinating stuff you are doing"
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
Mike Simpson, Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute
"You seem to have made an interesting discovery. Our internal physics experts review this information and have
determined that it is very interesting work"
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
Donald Wallace, Executive Director Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy
"Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal for Engineering and Public Policy?"

of 43
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
David Mann, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science
"If possible would like to meet with you to discuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better
feel about the physics behind your invention. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps we can
include some of your material on our website newsletter?"
LINKEDIN SLIDESHARE Date: Fri, November 25, 2011 7:08 am
"Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology " is being talked about on Linkedln more than anything
else on SlideShare right now. So we've put it on the homepage of SlideShare (in the "Hot on Linkedln" section).
Well done!
-The SlideShare Team
Media Press
Canadian Business Magazine
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/17096--the-next-great-canadian-idea-peripiteia-generator
EV World – Electric Automobile Website - USA
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1890
The Tech Journal - Pakistan
http://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/major-breakthrough-in-ev-technology-to-recharge-batteries-conitually-with-
infinite-range.xhtml
USA Radio
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/new-technologies/thane-heins-inventor-of-the-infinity-generator-just-imagine-no-
more-energy-exploitation-september-1-2011/
USA Energy Research Site
http://pesn.com/2011/08/28/9501905_Thane_Heins_Regenerative_Acceleration_Generator/
http://www.mevio.com/episode/293349/fen-110824
CBC Radio - Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/07/26/episode-5---thane-heins/
CBC Radio - Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/outoftheirminds/2011/08/29/episode-10---what-makes-them-tick/
Toronto Star Article
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042
Early Ottawa University Interview
http://keyrecords.com/designers/thanes.html
Ottawa Citizen Article
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=31887883-be00-4d3c-8763-d96564794cae
Physics Website
http://www.physorg.com/news121610315.html

of 43
Industry Statements (small sampling)
Letter # 1 – Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute
From: Mike Simpson <msimpson@rmi.org>
Subject: Re: Students Draft Report and TM4 Video
To: "Thane C. Heins" <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>
Received: Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:12 AM
Mr. Heins,
Thank you for sending these additional details. We've had our internal physics experts review this information and
have determined that it is very interesting work. We are eager to understand the market implications, i.e., the
commercialized cost of the additional efficiency of this type of generator.
All the best,
Mike Simpson Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute
1.303.567.8652 (office)
1.720.236.0295 (cell)
move.rmi.org
Letter # 2 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research Laboratory
From: Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC
[mailto:Omar.Mendoza@WPAFB.AF.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:53 PM
To: Thane Heins Cc: Spicer, Malory E Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC
Subject: RE: RE: Potential Difference Inc Technology Introduction & Invitation
Hi Thane,
I will get authorization to travel within the next day or so. Please stand by. Also, by all the data you are showing, it
seems to me that you are hung up on trying to "convince" college professors of the validity. Our approach is much
different, we look at the perspective of, "how can it be advance to the next level and what are the potential
applications". I look forward to working with you and finding the path for this technology.
Best regards,
Omar Mendoza,
Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Patterson AFB Ohio
45433 (937) 255-2247

of 43
Letter # 3 – US Air Force Energy & Environmental Quality Research Laboratory
--- On Mon, 11/2/09, Mendoza, Omar Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC :
From: Mendoza, Omar
Civ USAF AFMC AFRL/RXSC
Subject: RE: Consulting PhD Request - Regenerative Acceleration Technology
To: "Thane C. Heins" <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>, Dave_Pascoe@magna.on.ca, gregory_kardasz@magna.on.ca
Cc: rhabash@site.uottawa.ca, "Tyler Hamilton" <thamilton@thestar.ca> Received: Monday, November 2, 2009,
11:42 AM
Hi Thane,
We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements rather than
understanding it (We'll leave that to the smarter folks...in general, we still can't explain simple "magnetism", we
just know what it does and we use it. If we had to explain it, we'd still be debating it). I believe my support
contractor CTC is waiting for torque data to determine what the scale up would look like.
Best regards,
Omar Mendoza,
Program Manager Energy & Environmental Quality Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Patterson AFB Ohio
45433 (937) 255-2247 (937) 255-2247
Letter # 4 - Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science
From: “CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE”
David Mann <david.m5561@gmail.com>
Subject: Electric Vehicle Regenerative Acceleration Technology
To: thane_heins@yahoo.ca Cc: "Olga Barrat" <obarrat@telus.net>
Received: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 3:28 PM
Dear Thane,
Thane, I was too late reading this E-mail, my apologies. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps
we can include some of your material on our website newsletter? The following is an E-mail I received from Dr.
Olga Barrat (CAAS). I am the Ontario representative of CAAS and if possible would like to meet with you to
discuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics behind your
invention. I live in Ottawa and you can call me on 613-741-5063 or 613-741-5063 .
David Mann
Ontario Representative, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science

of 43
Letter # 5 – Canadian Space Agency
From: Gilles.Leclerc@asc-csa.gc.ca [mailto:Gilles.Leclerc@asc-csa.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:19 PM
To: chris.hadfield-1@nasa.gov; napior@rogers.com
Cc: Chris.Hadfield@asc-csa.gc.ca; Gilles.Brassard@asc-csa.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Potential Difference Inc - Lab Data etc.
Dear Mr. Heins,
I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at
your technologies and to visit your laboratory.
Best, -GL Gilles Leclerc
DG Space Technologies - Technologies spatiales Canadian Space Agency - Agence spatiale canadienne
Letter # 6 NASA –Goddard Space Flight Center Invitation
Subject: re: previous phone call
From: "Erik Clark" <eclark@cne-mail.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 8:48 am
To: “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 with
Thane Heins. The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do a
colloquium, but would like to get an abstract on the work done so far before moving ahead. Let me know when
you could provide this, so we can look at possibilities moving forward.
–
Erik Clark
NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
Bldg 18 Room 200 Mailstop 730.0
Greenbelt , MD 20771
alt email: eclark@cne-mail.gsfc.nasa.gov

of 43
Letter # 7 Electric Mobility Canada Letter
From: Al Cormier <al.cormier@emc-mec.ca>
Subject: RE: Mike Elwood Regenerative Acceleration Demonstration and Comments
To: "'Thane C. Heins'" <thane_heins@yahoo.ca> Cc: melwood@azuredynamics.com,
sdallas@torontoelectric.com, tsmolinski@hydro.mb.ca
Received: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:15 AM
Good morning Mr. Heins,
I am pleased to advise that our Board of Directors has asked our Technology and Energy Development
Committee to be the vehicle to comment on emerging technologies. The Chair of the Committee is agreeable to
this mandate change. How this new process will evolve is yet to be determined but I am writing to ask you to
submit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration technology for
circulation to our Committee members.
Regards
Al Cormier, CAE/c.a.é.
Executive Director / Directeur général
Electric Mobility Canada – Mobilité électrique Canada
Suite 309, 9-6975 Meadowvale Town Centre Circle
Mississauga, ON L5N 2V7, Canada
Tel: 416 970 9242
Fax: 905 858 9291
Email/Courriel: al.cormier@emc-mec.ca
Web site/site web: www.emc-mec.ca
Letter # 8 Professional Engineers of Ontario - Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Donald Wallace (OCEPP) <dwallace@ocepp.ca> wrote:
From: Donald Wallace (OCEPP) <dwallace@ocepp.ca>
Subject: Video Data - DND-NRC/DEW Engineering Lab Demo October 6th, 2009
Received: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 1:53 PM
Thanks, Thane.
Both videos are very interesting. Are you familiar with the Centre’s Journal of Policy Engagement? (If not, you can
check it out on our website.) Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal?
Cheers, Donald.
Donald Wallace
Executive Director
Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy
25 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 1000
Toronto, Ontario M2N 6S9
416-840-1078
www.ocepp.ca

of 43
Letter # 9 & 10 Dr. Stanley Townsend U of T
From: "Stan Townsend" <s.townsend@utoronto.ca>
To: <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Technology
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:23:32 -0400
Thane:
Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist & an engineer. The level of technical detail was
adequate to tell me that you probably have made a very significant advance in applied physics & in safely &
successfully handling a new source of electric power. Congratulations! You have almost certainly already applied
to the USPTO for a patent application, and you will probably have had your patent application security classified.
C'est la vie. :-)
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a blind copy of this e-mail to you on to a physicist friend who might contact
you further. You will find him to be highly technically knowledgeable in what you are doing, but you will also find
him highly ethical in advising you & helping you to move forward within this newly developing technical
community. Stay out of the limelight, and ignore any critical skeptics - don't let your energy get tied up in
responding.
Develop the new technology - it will market itself - you do not have to persuade skeptics. I am in Ottawa on June
22 P.M. & the 23rd, visiting my son at www.c3i.ca , and may arrange to visit you if possible.
All best wishes for technical & business success - I agree with your leadership approach.
Stanley J. Townsend, Ph.D., P.Eng.
--- Stan Townsend <s.townsend@utoronto.ca> wrote:
From: "Stan Townsend" <s.townsend@utoronto.ca>
To: "TCH.PotentialDifference" <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Technology.
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:29:43 -0400
Dear Thane:
Thank you for your kind reply. My words will have been well deserved by you as the inventor (I'm equating
Founder to Inventor - right?) It is not easy trying to do what you seem to have done. If you run into problems trying
to "square your results" with the Conservation of Energy Rule, Let us talk about that, because I might be able to
help you with that. I think that you have accomplished what you seem to have accomplished, but your
"reconciliation" with present day physics "might not be taking everything into account." There is something that
you might not yet be able to explain in simple physics/EE knowing. One of my past tasks (enjoyable, even at
that!!) was to spend 8 years as Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics whilst it was on the campus
of York University, under the leadership of Dr. Ralph Nicholls, Editor, one of Canada's pre-eminent physicists.
I am well versed in the range of variation in the way that various physicists choose their perspective of how to
support or disagree with apparently-debatable experimental physics. AND, if you have multiples greater than
100%, You ARE in the realm of physics, and not of electrical engineering – and there is a big difference. DO NOT
STUMBLE ON THE PHYSICS OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!! Do Not explain the physics - stay with explaining
ONLY the electrical POWER measurements - it will keep you out of a lot of media trouble.
As a general rule, I would caution you to stay with the general approach of describing your experimental
measurements on the functionality of what you have discovered, developed, and are currently experimental
witnesses to. As for me, I would always retreat to the reality of what you are experiencing in the functional

of 43
operation of the three variants of your discovery. Be very careful indeed of whether or not you want to equate
conservation of energy to your input-output measurements - go with your measurements as they are, and stick to
their explanation of energy out divided by energy in - and let the percentage efficiency results and the
observations fall where they may.
My hunch is that you might yet not be able to measure the source of the"extra energy" being entrained into your
output - DO NOT ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE WHY OF "WHERE" "THE-GREATER-
THAN-100%-EFFICIENCY" COMES FROM ----- EXPLAIN ONLY THE RESULTS OF THE MEASUREMENTS
THAT YOU DO OF THE COMPOUND OUTPUT!! DEFER ANY DEFENSE OF THE SOURCE OF THE EXTRA
ENERGY "ENTRAINED" BY THE INPUT - YOU "MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AT THIS
POINT IN TIME!!" DO NOT SAY EVEN THIS - SAY ONLY THAT YOU ARE WORKING TO IDENTIFY THE NEW
SOURCE --- END OF STORY!!
Regards, Stan
Stanley J. Townsend, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Letter # 11 Russian Academy of Science Letter
From: Евстигнеев Николай <EvstigneevNM@yandex.ru>
Subject: Some questions about your great work in electrodynamics
To: thane_heins@yahoo.ca
Received: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 2:08 PM
Hello dear Thane!
My name is Nick; I’m doctor in mathematics working in the field of partial differential equations and chaotic
dynamics. I’m very interested in what you are doing with your experiments, because from the mathematical point
of view what’s going on in your experiments is the break of SO3 symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Mills
equations that makes it obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics. There are some questions about you
great experimental work. I would be delighted if you take some time to answer those. These questions might be
lame for I’m not too good in electro techniques and a very poor engineer, so please don’t judge me too hard.
The questions are:
1. In your experimental work with Multi Coil Stators that are self-accelerating is the acceleration constant
(a=constant) or does it stops when a certain rotation speed is achieved?
In our observations so far the acceleration stops when a certain rotational speed is reached. However if the
parameters of the coil are changed (i.e. increasing the wire gauge) the acceleration can be made to continue.
Each coil has an ideal operating range or window of operation.
2. Is there a correlation between frequency (rotation velocity) and the number of turns in your accelerating high
voltage coils, core material or it’s impedance?
The acceleration is based on frequency dependant impedance. Coil impedance is a function of frequency
where:
XL = 2pifL
ZL = 2pifL + RDC
As the frequency increases (rotor RPM) the impedance of the coil also increases so its current carrying capacity
decreases accordingly. As the coil’s ability to carry current decreases the coil’s (Lenz induced) repelling magnetic
field also decreases while at the same time the coil’s induced voltage is increasing.

of 43
When the magnet is TDC (top dead centre) to the coil (neither approaching nor receding) the coil impedance
drops to the DC resistance of the coil and the self induced voltage is maximum. The high voltage is then able to
be dissipated through the small DC resistance of the coil – producing a delayed magnetic field which pushes
away on the now receding magnet while at the same time attracting the next opposite magnet pole on the rotor.
If the Self Accelerating coil is engaged at a rotor speed where current can flow in the coil (because the
frequency is low) – then the coil acts like any conventional coil and produces a repelling magnetic field as
per Lenz’s Law.
In bi-toroid transformer you have a central coil on a high reluctance flux core and two bifilar coils with serial
connection on low reluctance flux cores (low resistance), right? Can you make these coils of a thick wire or those
coils are supposed to be made of a thing wire with high impedance (Z)?
The Primary Coil of the Bi-Toroid Transformer is set on a variable “high reluctance” flux path core. By variable we
mean that the reluctance of the primary core leg is a function of primary coil impedance and the magnitude of flux
flowing in the primary coil core. The physical size of the primary core leg is also much smaller that the secondary
core legs to ensure that the primary core with its large flux in a small area produces the maximum reluctance –
operating at very close to saturation – therefore inhibiting secondary induced flux from entering the primary core
and encouraging secondary induced flux to stay in the lower reluctance outer flux path route.
The primary coil impedance plays a role in disallowing secondary induced flux from coupling back through the
primary core – while at the same time the higher gauge (low impedance) wire employed in the secondary
windings represents a lower reluctance flux path route for secondary induced flux once again encouraging the
secondary flux to stay away from the primary and follow the path of least reluctance in the outer flux path ring.
Is there a resistance on a rotating ferromagnetic disk with spaces in your project with stationary magnets and coils
when the load on the coils is on? Are those coils made of thick wire or of thing like the high voltage coils in your
Multi Coil project?
There is some initial resistance due to the eddy current losses and hysteresis losses associated with the disk but
the coil induced magnetic field has no declarative impact on the speed of rotation of the disk in fact it even
accelerates a little when the coils are loaded probably because we are increasing the induction motor’s rotor flux
magnitude. The coils employed are low gauge high current carrying wire which produce a maximum induced
magnetic field.
Thank you very much in advance!
Yours truly,
Nick. Dr. Evstigneev N.M.,
leading sc., dep. of chaotic dynamics,
Institute for System analysis, Russian Academy of Science.
I hope this answers your questions.
Best wishes
Thane.

of 43
Part 2 Letter #12 Russian Academy of Science
--- On Fri, 1/29/10, Евстигнеев Николай <EvstigneevNM@yandex.ru> wrote:
From: Евстигнеев Николай <EvstigneevNM@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Questions Answered
Received: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:42 AM
Dear Thane!
Thank you very much for the detailed answers you provided! Number of your experiments (Multi Coil Stators and
bi-toroid transformer) are not lying in the field fo Maxwellian electrodynamics. Today I made a numerical
simulation of a model problem – simulation of the Ampere’s force on the coil from the moving permanent magnet
using Maxwell set of equations with bias currents in conductors. I changed number of terns in the “coil” and varied
magnetic and electric properties of coil material to get the equivalent of high R and Z. In the simulation there are
no effects that you have in experiments – in the simulation there’s a direct Lenz law as its stated by the physics.
That is fascinating! I will inform you on any progress that i’ll make along with reports.
Thank you once again!
Yours truly,
Nick
--- On Fri, 1/29/10, Thane C. Heins <thane_heins@yahoo.ca> wrote:
From: Thane C. Heins <thane_heins@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Russian Academy of Science - Part 2
To: "Евстигнеев Николай" <EvstigneevNM@yandex.ru>
Received: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:17 PM
Dear Nick,
The R (DC resistance) should be low (50 ohms) but the Z (frequency dependent impedance) should be high. You
have to create a scenario where the inductor acts like a capacitor (storing energy in electrostatic field NOT the
electromagnetic field).
The accelerating coils in this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/RC06V8vXUqI employ
bifilar windings because the bifilar coil in this configuration has increased self-capacitance, which is a key
component for acceleration. The frequency is about 400 Hz.
See Bifilar coil here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil
Cheers
Thane
Thane C. Heins President
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." ~ Max Planck

of 43
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 AM
Subject: Regenerative Acceleration Generator Licensing Request
Hi Thane,
I am interested in possibly licensing your generator technology in our large overseas venture of a 50 megawatt
project. I am heading up all the new technologies. I thought you would be a great fit to this project if you are
interested. It is already fully funded. Please send me the licensing papers to have reviewed by my business
partners...
E = MC 2 or ?
Live, Dream, Create
Regards, Mark
Power-Hub KW series
Global Energy Group P744 Worldwide Inc.
Web site:: http://www.gegworldofenergy.com/

of 43
Funding
Research and development funding for the Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology was provided
through private investment. To date a total of $550,000.00 has been invested over 11 years.
Investor List
Kevin Thistle
JC Cunningham
Kim Cunningham
Jim Hutcheson
Deryck Allen
Owen Charles
Joseph Neulight
Dan Gormley
Stewart Brown
Toroid Technologies Inc. / Saverio Panneta
California Diesel and Power
Orion Project
Robert Clark
Ellen & Bill Constantino
Stephen John Schwanebeck
Eli Dumitru
Natalia Reznik Rocha Ura & Alex Rocha Ura
Jason Putman
Janet Radebaugh
Ian Rooney
Paul Sucholl
Thane Heins
Dale Heins
John Heins
Jay Heins
Sarah Coulber
Roger Coulber
Kornelia Fedirchuck
Don Anderson
Blake Carruthers
Chris Napier
Randy Whitcroft
Don Munro
Research Facilities & Technical Experts
University of Virginia – Dr. Paul Allaire
MIT – Dr. Markus Zahn
University of Ottawa – Dr. Riahd Habbash
Dr. Nikolai Billaniuk
Luc Choquette
Saverio Panneta – Toroid Technologies Inc.
Don Mann
Pierre Guillimette – TRIAS Innovations
James Gastle – Gastle and Associates

of 43
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to:
My wife and business partner Kim Cunningham for the first communication strategy, introduction to Kevin
Thistle, financial support and for allowing me to do my thing.
Dale Heins for providing the first research facilities.
Sarah Coulber and Kornelia Fedirchuck for the first research funds.
Dr. Paul Allaire for the first technical assistance.
Kevin Thistle for the first real investor funds, company incorporation and unwavering support.
JC Cunningham for advice, encouragement and support.
Major Jim Hutcheson for advice and invaluable friendship and support.
Jeffrey Dale of the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation for introducing us to Ottawa University’s
Dean of Engineering.
Dean Lague at Ottawa U for helping provide us with lab free space.
Dr. Habbash for ongoing technical support and the use of the U of O Power Lab for 2.5 years.
Luc Choquette for his Ottawa U lab support, friendship, assistance and educational help.
John Heins for video and computer work.
Saverio Panneta of Toroid Tech for free materials and technical advice.
James Gastle for genius level patent advice.
Debbie Weinstein at Lebarge and Weinstein for their legal services
Owen Charles for his friendship, facilitating the first IP licensing deal and for research funding support.
Bill and Ellen Constantino for financial support and friendship.
Scott Limestone at SolarNetOne for the introduction to Dr. Cerf at GOOGLE.
Neil Young for his support and allowing us to leverage his name.
Dr. Giovanni Fusina for doing independent testing and for providing test data.
Doug Hartwich for his independent test data.
Jay Heins for video work and advice.
Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star for introducing the technology to the world.
Richard Syrett for doing the CBC story.
Richard Lancalette
Lubo Morhac
Pierre Guillimette for his bottomless wealth if knowledge and his help at Ottawa U.
Randy Whitcroft
Don Mann
Chris Napier
Reverend Don Anderson
My parents David and Elaine Heins for their support and encouragement.
My children Kiya, Dayna, Robin, Daelyn and Callum for providing the reason to do this in the first place
and to keep doing this.

of 43
Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits
The following is a business plan questionnaire presented to Potential Difference Inc by Jim Roche, CEO
of Stratford Managers. Stratford works with fast-growing businesses around the world involved in service
delivery, high technology, clean technology and manufacturing as well as non-profit companies.
The Business Problem You're Solving
What is the business (not technical) problem? How is it solved now? Who is affected?
At the present time electric vehicle acceptance and integration into the marketplace is hampered by poor range,
long recharge times not to mention nonexistent EV recharge infrastructures. These issues are addressed and
eliminated with the employment of EV Regenerative Acceleration Technology because now “plug in recharging”
can be made virtually obsolete.
Car manufacturers – struggling with battery weight and range limitations, governments – footing the bill for
recharge stations, consumer inconvenience and the environment will all be positively affected by the integration of
Regenerative Acceleration Technology.
The Business Solution
What is your business solution (not technical) and how/why is it a better solution?
Currently electric vehicles have only two modes of recharging their mass of up to 1000 lb batteries; 1) plugging
them into the grid, 2) regenerative braking (which recharges the batteries while slowing down, “breaking” the EV
at the same time). As the name implies – Regenerative Acceleration is the exact opposite of regenerative braking
in that the generator now recharges the batteries while accelerating the vehicle. Now EV batteries can be
recharged during both braking, acceleration and coasting.
Regenerative Acceleration Technology has the capacity to dramatically increase EV range and performance while
at the same time reducing battery size and weight and completely eliminating grid “plug ins” because battery
recharging can occur during more than 100% of the EV operation if an additional flywheel is employed while the
EV is stationary.
Market Opportunity / Strategy
How many people/companies are affected by this problem, what are they spending today to overcome it, how
much will they spend for your solution?
Regenerative Acceleration Technology has viable solution applications in every single energy sector worldwide –
basically anywhere energy is produced and used from Nuclear power, hydroelectric plants to home emergency
generators and everything and everywhere in between.
Power generation based on Regenerative Acceleration Technology would result in virtually none of the
environmental damage currently caused by traditional power sources, and could ultimately replace these
traditional sources in many contexts. Therefore, there is virtually unlimited financial potential for the application of
Regenerative Acceleration Technology.
Products / Technology
What is your technology solution, what is your unfair technical advantage - your "secret sauce"?
Generator technologies which ACCELERATE under load in rather than decelerate and outperform current
generator technology at this early stage by over 4000%

of 43
Epilogue
It is no secret that the world is starving for energy and the energy and environmental futures look very bleak
for humanity’s next generation. Wind and solar power solutions are not enough to meet the growing demands.
Electric vehicles are not the solution either because they will only increase the burden and increase the supply
demands for fossil fuel and coal power generation that create more problems that they solve and are not
sustainable in the long term.
Even the so called “green” technologies can hardly be called green when the mining processes required
to deliver the raw materials is factored into the equation. California banned rare earth metal mining due to the
toxicity of the process. Rare earth metals are the primary building blocks for magnets used in many EVs.
According to William Tahil, “the world has become enamored with the Lithium Ion battery. While this may be
sustainable for portable electronics goods, it is not sustainable for EV applications. A balanced scientific and
economic analysis concerning the sustainability of LiIon technology for EV applications has not been performed.”
Some Sort of Real Energy Breakthrough is Now Here
It is called Regenerative Acceleration Generator Technology and it removes the magnetic friction produced inside
generators and allows generators to produce much more with way less. When compared directly to a
conventional generator which decelerates and eventually produces zero output power there is really no
comparison.
Thank You!
Thane Heins
President and CEO
"The Transition of Power"
“Without some sort of real energy breakthrough…
we can see that future mobility is likely to become much more constrained than it is today…
meeting the urgent need to reduce the consumption of oil immediately at all costs or face the
consequences of a meltdown in civilization”
~ William Tahil
Research Director
Meridian International Research

Manning Innovation Award Nomination

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Manning Innovation Award Nomination

Similar to Manning Innovation Award Nomination (20)

More from Potential Difference Inc.

More from Potential Difference Inc. (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Manning Innovation Award Nomination