Anyway, this whole idea that no description or discussion of the flettner/magnus sails has ever mentioned something as basic as the need to reverse the direction of spin in response to the wind direction, is one more example of why we see so many whacky concepts funded and pursued, making great promises, only to fizzle out and disappear without ever achieving any of what was promised:
To me, it comes down to:
Single Factor Analysis
We are presented with a single factor, such as âA spinning cylinder can act as an airfoil, and thereby be used as a sail, a wing, or even a wind turbine bladeâ.
Based on such a single factor, promises are made, money is raised, people are hired, office space is rented, projects are announced, then⌠nothing.
In the case of the spinning cylinder sails, Iâve just flagged two (2) major points that have been âhiddenâ (by not being mentioned by the promoters). One may say they arenât so important, but why arenât they mentioned? Why don;t the âexplanationsâ and explanatory videos mention the necessary change in spin direction?
When you look at the info presented by the promoters, they try to say their rotors are ten times as efficient as sails. I already explained how this was dishonest, using words to make something that might be unworkable in the long run, seem like some amazing breakthrough. Again, taking just the projected area rather than the total circumferential area of the sail, then ignoring the power required to run it, results in an âeasy-to-understandâ deception. You are presented with a single factor that is merely a strained interpretation based on word-abuse, and yet most people will just take it unquestioningly.
One might wonder, on the one hand, how experienced wind energy people like me and say, a Paul Gipe, could so easily and confidently declare an entire movement to revolutionize wind energy as bogus, with the thousands of people involved actually thinking they are âmaking a differenceâ or âcreating the futureâ, while we laugh and point out how they don;t know what they are doing.
Well, itâs because we were already a decade or more into debunking wannabe-wind-energy-revolutionizing-concepts. It was a case of âbeen there, done thatâ. âSeen this movie before.â
But the question remains, how could so many people be so wrong? And I believe the answer is:
Single Factor Analysis.
Like with the kites puilling ships. Really, all one needs to know is someone is promoting an attempted improvement in the basic idea of wind energy, and you already know you;re looking at a 999/1000 failure rate.
Itâs like looking at the crowd walking into a casino and asking what are the chances any of them will make a steady profit. Probably none. The house always wins. in wind energy, the wind always wins.
Anyway, I kept wondering what was holding back the kites-pulling-ships idea. What was the problem? For years I could not see why it was not working out, just that, as one more effort that always seemed to fizzle out, it âfit the patternâ. Then, the other day, I read or heard somewhere, that the ship had to travel 30% slower for the sail to be effective (If I even have that right). Apparently, reading between the lines, since we are seldom given the relevant information, if the ship is going too fast, it prevents a sail flying a pattern from having enough pull to make a difference. That is something I had never heard before. Another âhidden factorâ, never mentioned in polite circles. We were never told that the ship ends up pulling the kite. We were presented with a single factor: A kite CAN pull a ship - without all the details of why it isnât working out so well.
You can go on from one project to the next. Magenn - a single factor: This thing can fly and produce wind energy. But the other factors were itâs the least effective form of wind turbine, made a hundred times as expensive.
Altaeros: A tubular balloon can lift a wind turbine that can make some power. A single factor. nevermind that itâs too fragile to withstand a decent wind, or that the tube eliminates most of lifting volume.
Makani: A single factor: A wing can move a wind turbine through the air faster than the wind speed. But the fact that it could barely fly a pattern at all was not mentioned. The real story is they must have been glad when they lost their single overpriced large prototype so they finally had an excuse to âjust give upâ. If it had been promising, no single crash would have discouraged them. meanwhile, why was the whole world thinking they were about to revolutionize wind energy? They only got a single factor to examine (a wing can push a turbine faster than the wind), not all the nitty-gritty details that suggested it might not be so great.
Anyway, the funny thing is, you canât tell people they are idiots, because if they could understand they were idiots, they wouldnât be idiots. And by hiding all the relevant facts, presenting only a single factor, idiots can find other idiots to fund them, and magazines and websited to repeat their single-factor presentations, and so the whole thing goes on - laughable for a few, puzzling for the many.
Iâve noticed this in life in general - every time you are presented with some supposedly urgent issue or problem, ask yourself if you are being shown only a single factor. Ask about all the othr factors they are not addressing. Ask questions and look at the situation from every angle, and maybe you can debunk something yourself.