Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.17.177.65; envelope-from=fosborn@infowest.com
Message-ID: <469263F6.50803@infowest.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:36:06 -0600
From: Fred Osborn <fosborn@infowest.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Subject: Rotary Engine Electrical Power
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ernest Christley wrote 7/6/07, Message #38256, Re: Ford EDIS:

4.7lbs isn't a great weight saver compared to some of the lightweight 
alternators out there, but I don't think they're usually weighed with 
the mounting brackets and pulleys from the engine side of the belt. We 
can get more weight savings if we let the flywheel that we already have 
double as a rotor.

I agree, the thought of the rear counter weight whirling around just 
stirring air while doing it's balancing function really bugs me. A 
non-magnetic replacement carrying permanent magnets and surrounded by a 
set of coils would just cost the added weight of the coils. How much 
power and reliability do you want? Those coils together with a set of 
power switching electronics and a position sensor could become a 
starter/generator.

I'm not all that excited by the use of permanent magnets for various 
reasons. They do have the big advantage of simplicity. Eventually, the 
goal should be the use of an Integrated Starter/Generators (IGS) such as 
those being introduced in automotive applications. The power switching 
devices required are now state-of-the-art and in volume production for a 
wide variety of switched reluctance motor applications.

I have given serious consideration to working this area myself but the 
recent installation of 3 more stents added to my previous 3 have caused 
some equally serious consideration to "slowing down".

Fred O.