Pulse Amplitude Modulation Constant Current, its given name, describes it pretty well. The key to the invention is the conversion of Pulse Width Modulation to Pulse Amplitude Modulation by a psudo resonate filter we called a reconstruction filter.

This allowed the DCM output of the internal single stage differential boost to be converted into band limited PAM in one step.

As conceived, each PAMCC outputs a series of band limited pulses at a carrier frequency of about 30kHz modulated and synchronized with the baseband grid signal.

The individual PAMCC “Array Converters” are connected in parallel with their pulses offset in time to create a distributed multiphase inverter.

An important distinction from all other approaches that I know of is the carrier + modulation output which classifies each Array Converter as a modulator, a simpler thing than an inverter.

Since the reconstruction filters of each modulator were band limited to about 60kHz and had a bipolar half sine shape, The carrier was effectively canceled without a filter due to the out of phase current summation from multiple PAMCCs on the grid. The inspiration for this part came from multi path and beam forming techniques from my earlier background in RF.

So theoretically, no EMI for a large set because carriers of the same frequency summed out of phase cancel while the in-phase modulation builds. The grid itself actually demodulates a very clean ac waveform.

The idea behind three phase was to make the theoretical energy storage requirement close to zero because the power sum of three phase AC is constant.

So far, so good.

Now the mystery, I filed this patent in 2008 (it later issued with no prior art found), got the company funded in 2009 with a prototype.

Now it is 2012. I can find no evidence that it is listed with FCC, VDE, UL or any other agency. The TR article refers to 7 months of trials and I can find no data of performance ratios, third party verifications or reliability.

The photographs show a case that is maybe twice the size of enphase, however, the design should be a fraction of the part count.

Westinghouse said that dec power was more efficient to distribute.

Edison claimed that ac would be safer and less expensive. Think about an on off switch, when the current alternates 60 times a second, the arcing is minimized. A dc switch required more sophisticated mechanics to eliminate arcing.

Also, imagine you grabbed a live electric wire with your hand. Your muscles would contract when electrified. Ac wire would be easier to let go of the wire because it changes polarity 60 times a second. Dc does not change polarity, so it would be harder to remove your hand from the wire.

I agree with you.. if we’re going to be moving to more localized power generation, it makes sense to have devices that use DC power from the “grid”/outlet. I’m sure there are lots of pros and cons to discuss (beyond my knowledge), but at first glance, shifting our electric world to DC (at the appliance level) seems to make sense. … well, intellectually.. the problem will be that people won’t want to change over all their devices.. cost and convenience dictate the course. Even if it means killing the planet and our species.