August 28, 2012 Helical Turbine Test Results Analysis, comparison to existing test data, observations and recommendations.

Test results source: University of Calgary Schulich School of Engineering Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Relative Blade Pitch Test Results for an Archimedean Screw-Turbine Model Prepared by: Marcel Wright Supervised by: Dr. David Rival Date: August 22, 2012. Information compiled by Robert Knight, August 27, 2012 Forward: This memorandum assumes the reader will make reference to the appendices, particularly the University of Calgary tests. The results from the Relative Blade Pitch tests are referenced to the field tests described herein. Field tests were conducted using steel turbine in September 2011 in open water where observations were made as to generator output vs towing speed both in forward and reverse and in two configurations (30 to horizontal plane and 30 to the vertical plane). See figures 1 & 2 for test configuration photos. These tests were based on the use of 2 5,000 watt variable speed generators, one per turbine linked to a load bank capable of maximum loads of 5,500 watts. These tests form the baseline efficiency for a helical turbine with a pitch of 75% of diameter presented to the fluid flow at 30. Comparisons to the relative performance of different configurations test in the University of Calgary (one of which is a 75% of diameter pitch ratio) provide correlation of relative performance to efficiency as field measured in Vancouver. A summary of the results is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Adjust for generator efficiency (8% loss) 9.77% 11.86% 11.23% 13.01% 11.47% 11.17% 11.88% 12.10% 13.46% 11.80% 12.57% 13.92% 12.02%

Knots 6.80 6.30 6.40 6.60 7.40 7.10 6.50 6.60 6.90 6.90 7.30 7.10

M/s 3.50 3.24 3.29 3.40 3.81 3.65 3.34 3.40 3.55 3.55 3.76 3.65

Output (w) 3,685 3,555 3,529 4,485 5,576 4,796 3,912 4,173 5,302 4,650 5,866 5,974

Load (w) 4,500 4,500 4,000 4,000 5,500 5,500 5,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 5,500 5,500 Average

Efficiency 9.05% 10.98% 10.39% 12.05% 10.62% 10.35% 11.00% 11.21% 12.46% 10.93% 11.64% 12.89% 11.13%

Figure 1: Open water test configuration 1: 30 to horizontal plane (shown prior to deployment to full 30 angle)

Figure 2: Open water test configuration 2: 30 to vertical plane

Observations: The University of Calgary tests are described in detail in Appendix A. These particular tests serve two functions in the development path for our technology. Firstly, they validate the claims made in our patent which, among other things, claim that certain blade pitches and angles of presentation are more efficient (and protected pursuant to the patent); and, Secondly, they provide a basis for optimizing the design of the helical turbine for inclusion into a production prototype to be deployed in the Bay of Fundy. The tests utilized scale model turbines as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Test turbines

The double flight turbine showed to be very ineffective, and we substituted a cupped 60% pitch screw for some of the tests. The test configuration utilized a belt and pulley power transfer system which proved to have too much resistance for the scale of the models for fully accurate power output readings, but which provided us with very good comparative data.

Figure 4 Test configuration (U of C)

The test data collected indicated that: 60% of diameter pitch turbines had the best efficiency; 100% submergence provided the best efficiency; When compared to the 75% pitch turbine, the 60% turbine is significantly more efficient.

Figure 5 Power under load from report

The Results, when compared to the field test results would indicate more than an order of magnitude higher efficiency between the 75% pitch turbine and the 60% pitch turbine under load. No load, RPM with and without load were also consistently better for the 60% pitch turbine. As the field tests were conducted under load (which represents the characteristics of a turbine producing power at its maximum design rate) comparison to the performance of the test turbines under load provides the most valid information in respect to performance while producing power, which is the key measurement from an economic perspective. As the 75% pitch turbine produced 0.4X10-10 watts at 30 angle, and the 60% pitch turbine produced 1.1X10-10 watts at the same angle we can generally conclude that: The 60% turbine may be, at the referenced angle, up to 175% more efficient than the 75% pitch turbine. Using a baseline efficiency of 11.13% as the worst case and 19.78% (175% of 11.3%) as a best case, the turbine is between 11.13% and 19.78% efficient in converting the fluid flow to electrical power. Current engineering design is based on an efficiency rating of 15.54% being the median between the high and low efficiency. This means that our Bay of Fundy design, which incorporates 18 diameter X 54 long 60% turbines power output would be calculated as:

Variables: Diameter of turbine (ft) Pitch (% of Diameter) Pitch (ft) Number of turns Turn direction Central shaft diameter (ft) Efficiency (%) Design max flow rate (M/S) Angle of presentation to flow Optimum submergence (ft) Freeboard (ft) Characteristics: Diameter (M) Pitch (M) Number of turns Length of turbine (M) Sine of angle L1 Effective turbine length (M)

18.00 60.00% 10.80 5 Clockwise 3.00 15.54% 5.50 30.00 deg (L1) 6.00 12.00

5.49 3.29 5 16.46 0.50 8.23

Power output: Formula: watts=1/2(fluid density) X (area of turbine) X (velocity)^3 X (efficiency of turbine) Fluid density (Kg/M3) 1,024.00 Therefore: 1/2 fluid density 512.00 X Area of turbine 45.14647104 X Velocity cubed 166.375 X Efficiency of turbine 15.54% X Watts 597,630.64 = Accordingly, a twin turbine system as illustrated in design Study 24 (DS 24) would produce just under 1.2 MW of power. Limited testing of a twin turbine configuration with counter rotating turbines set in a frame with side frames to create a boundary effect was conducted. It appeared from RPM observations that the boundary effect increased RPM which is indicative, but not conclusive of increased efficiency.

Figure 6 - twin turbine and boundary effect barriers

Test scaling relative to DS 24: The scale of the models tested is 1/54th of the DS 24 size. We believe that a more accurate prediction of efficiency can be made using a larger model (see recommendations). Conclusion: The field testing had previously proved under close to operating conditions that the device works, produces power at a rate which we believe to be commercially competitive with traditional power sources. The new round of testing confirmed our hypothesis that the 60% pitch configuration would increase conversion efficiency. A 15.54% efficiency rating should be used as an interim calculation figure until more detailed results can be obtained. Recommendations: The university has advised that they now have a torque meter which could be utilized to accurately record power readings under load. In order to mate to the drive end of the torque meter a configuration using a 0.5 shaft would be required.

We recommend that a turbine model be prepared that is representative of DS 24s configuration, and that it be tested with two configurations. First an open turbine, with a diameter of between 8 and 10, a 60% pitch and no bracing or other flow impediments; second, the same turbine with a set of side enclosures to measure the effect of creating a boundary condition beside turbine. Testing should be limited to about 6 degrees of presentation with 32 as the median position.

Jupiter Hydro Inc.

Appendixes: A - Relative Blade Pitch Test Results for an Archimedean Screw-Turbine Model <attached, blade pitch Comparison report.pdf> B - Design study 24 <attached DS24 FULL ASSEMBLY.pdf>