On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:32:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:52:47 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:39:11 PM UTC-8, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Here's a link that works.

http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk


Exactly. In the early 90's there were several experimental Buick's running around for testing. They neither had a starter or alternator on them. The idea of no starter was that the crank position sensor would know which piston had just gone over TDC and when you hit the key would inject bit of fuel and spark turning the engine over then typical ignition would occur.

You still need compression.

Now how they got away from a standard belt driven alternator was they took lessons off of Ford at the turn of the last century, (or a common Briggs engine) and they mounted magnets on the transmissions torque converter which swung by a high energy rectifier, regulator pac. putting out approx 140 amp at 15 volts.

We outboard folks are familiar with that. It is how outboard charging
systems generally work.

From what I understand, or don't was that it was a fairly fool proof idea but was too costly to promote, and there was a concern of safety of the engine running in high or flood waters causing high ac voltage to turn loose on the occupants so it was tabled.

Any more than a regular alternator?

Greg I believe so. There was a fear of leaks in the high energy coil. The thing was to put out some kind of extremely high AC in which the rectifier would DC it. I really think being designed properly it would have been alright but they didn't ask my opinion.

But removing the standard alternator, would have freed up more space and been one less wheel to turn which would also increase fuel efficiency for the application..

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:39:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Here's a link that works.

http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk

This is far more complex than a starter motor with little added value.

That's irrelevant. You asked how it could be done. That's one way.
The OHC and fuel injection were once thought of as "too complex."
There are many "improvements" to modern cars that are of questionable
value. I don't need power seats or windows, for instance.

On 1/17/2015 8:30 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:39:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Here's a link that works.

http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk

This is far more complex than a starter motor with little added value.

That's irrelevant. You asked how it could be done. That's one way.
The OHC and fuel injection were once thought of as "too complex."
There are many "improvements" to modern cars that are of questionable
value. I don't need power seats or windows, for instance.



In the case of power windows, they are reported to be cheaper for the
manufacturer to use than the old fashioned crank type.

On 1/17/2015 7:09 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:55:55 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:

Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago.

But Richard, the ever arrogant asswipe, wont appologise.


It's not his fault.. I think he looks at my posts, like a bull looks at
a matador... When you let your emotion cloud your understanding...
um, forget it

On 1/17/2015 9:37 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/17/2015 7:09 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:55:55 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:

Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of
several years ago.

But Richard, the ever arrogant asswipe, wont appologise.


It's not his fault.. I think he looks at my posts, like a bull looks at
a matador... When you let your emotion cloud your understanding...
um, forget it


Thanks. That *was* funny.

On 1/17/2015 7:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:42:37 -0500, KC wrote:

On 1/17/2015 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:06:02 -0500, KC wrote:

Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there
would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder
in line is how we thought it would work...

How would that work? To start an engine you need fuel, air, spark and
compression. If the car had sat more than a minute, there would be no
compression and most injected engines cut the fuel off before the
engine stops spinning these days to mitigate "making oil" so the "next
cylinder" would be dry.


We weren't sure how it was gonna' work, that's why we are not rich I
am just telling you where the industry was back then in the beginning of
computer controlled cars..

If you could get a properly mixed and compressed charge in a cylinder
or two, it would work. Some old airplanes (maybe even newer ones) used
to use a shotgun shell like charge to kick them over..


Maybe only one cylinder is fitted with a seperate injector and when the
engine stops a small electric motor turns it to that cylinder just
slightly past TDC. Inject pressurized mix, and fire it?

I think the biggest problem though with that might be building that
pressure in the cylinder without compressing it with the cylinder itself.

Then I think of the problem of getting enough out of that one boom to
move the next cylinder compressed when you consider the opposing force
of the fly wheel, etc...

So then I think of our Suzuki 250 which has a centrifugal compression
release. There is a part in the exhaust cam that holds the exhaust port
open till the rpms come up enough to close it off. That makes it so a
105 pound girl can consistently start a 250 cc, one cylinder, 4 stroke.

Yeah, I am sure all of these have been considered but all in all,
personally I think the old starter, solenoid, alternator and battery do
a great job and are a lot simpler to work on that any of the other
setups we may be considering here....

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:32:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:52:47 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:39:11 PM UTC-8, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Here's a link that works.

http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk


Exactly. In the early 90's there were several experimental Buick's running around for testing. They neither had a starter or alternator on them. The idea of no starter was that the crank position sensor would know which piston had just gone over TDC and when you hit the key would inject bit of fuel and spark turning the engine over then typical ignition would occur.

You still need compression.


true, but not really much. even with a low compression it was thought that there would be enough 'blow' to roll the engine over to catch another - like you were saying about the shotgun shell rolling over a large radial .

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/17/2015 8:30 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:39:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Here's a link that works.

http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk

This is far more complex than a starter motor with little added value.

That's irrelevant. You asked how it could be done. That's one way.
The OHC and fuel injection were once thought of as "too complex."
There are many "improvements" to modern cars that are of questionable
value. I don't need power seats or windows, for instance.



In the case of power windows, they are reported to be cheaper for the
manufacturer to use than the old fashioned crank type.

I like power windows. So you can open the other sides windows easily. 2
years ago, talking to a,game warden in Utah at Flaming Gorge, they had
crank windows. Seemed unsafe for a LEO to not be able to roll down the
passenger side window in their pickup.

Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, KC wrote:

On 1/17/2015 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2015 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:06:02 -0500, KC wrote:

Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there
would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder
in line is how we thought it would work...

How would that work? To start an engine you need fuel, air, spark and
compression. If the car had sat more than a minute, there would be no
compression and most injected engines cut the fuel off before the
engine stops spinning these days to mitigate "making oil" so the "next
cylinder" would be dry.



I don't think Scott understands what "start-stop" is.



Is there a particular dictionary definition, or do I have to join a
secret club to know? I think of start stop as the engine cutting at stop
signs or even down hills.. then starting back up when it's needed again.
Am I close professor?


When you write ....

"Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there
would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder
in line is how we thought it would work... "

... who knows what the hell you are talking about?

Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago.

But like the Saturn Hybrid. The generator was also a driving motor from
what I remember. May have been able to be used as a starter.

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:18:33 PM UTC-8, Califbill wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, KC wrote:

On 1/17/2015 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2015 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:06:02 -0500, KC wrote:

Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there
would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder
in line is how we thought it would work...

How would that work? To start an engine you need fuel, air, spark and
compression. If the car had sat more than a minute, there would be no
compression and most injected engines cut the fuel off before the
engine stops spinning these days to mitigate "making oil" so the "next
cylinder" would be dry.



I don't think Scott understands what "start-stop" is.



Is there a particular dictionary definition, or do I have to join a
secret club to know? I think of start stop as the engine cutting at stop
signs or even down hills.. then starting back up when it's needed again.
Am I close professor?


When you write ....

"Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there
would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder
in line is how we thought it would work... "

... who knows what the hell you are talking about?

Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago.

But like the Saturn Hybrid. The generator was also a driving motor from
what I remember. May have been able to be used as a starter.

Bill, I don't think the Toyota Prius has a starter. The generator back flushes to start the engine.

But these Buicks I mentioned weren't hybrids. just a conventional looking car with a single lead//acid battery. I imagine that if you had trouble on the road, the HQ boys were all over it.