The reasoning is multifold.
For one I am worried that once the load on the alternator (battery bank directly or cheap charge controller) will slow down the turbine to a crawl and hence also the voltage the PMA can produce.
(but on the other hand I am not dismayed by that at all. It then signals me that the PMA has got the potential I am looking for)
I can then change the drive ratio to something else in an effort to match the PMA to the load.
Another reason is that although I no longer see the turbine column flex what so ever (after upgrading it to alu 100mmx5mm) I am still worried that because it actually still is flexing or will eventually become worse then we get to the point of Adraain's remark in where he warned about the potential issues with a flexing column in a direct drive scenario.
Now I know one of you posted a suggestion here in another thread earlier with an image of how to deal with that. My best guess it was MattM but given he does not remember I must be mistaken.
Another reason is so that I can consider going 100% serpentine. No more modularity. This is only an advantage if the PMA can still be taken for service without having to dismantle the whole turbine. Thus having the PMA detached is beneficial in that regard.
Now of course I am aiming for the least amount of possible points of failure, so if it turns out that a 1:1 ratio works then gone be pullies and timing belts. Then the direct drive is back in town and here to stay.
I am printing pullies as we speak for a 1 to 1 ratio timing belt driven PMA so it can be detached from the turbine.
Is there a reason why you want to detach the PMA from the turbine?
Bruce S