What do you guys think about this turbine? I'm interested in all your thoughts! Also, check out the incredible AMD Threadripper Pro 7000 WX-Series Processors here: amd.chrd.ly/Ziroth #ad
Maybe in 20 years we will deploy them in the open ocean. If fusion doesn't take of, this will be the most abundant energy form we can get decades later.
I'm not convinced that this design is all that great. Maybe it is more cost effective than the existing offshore turbine but it's not really impressive. If stronger winds can be harnessed at higher elevation, it may be better to focus on bringing the windmill up, using a wing/kite holding an array of turbines? As an added bonus it would automatically lift the turbines out of harm's way when stronger winds bring rough waters. If only I had a Threadripper CPU to run some simulations ;-)
2:16 - if this video is meant to be watched by the average viewer use please use the units the average people are familiar with. Ask you grandma what a speed of 10 m/s would mean and if 32 m/s is fast or not, ask for their impression and not a recalculation. I have a feeling what 100 km / h means cause you can open a cars window and put you hand in the air flow. But I would need to do the math to get behind m/s which would mean 27 m/s If you would have use 115 km / h instead of 32 m/s I would have had a better feeling and even better for the 259 km / h instead of 72 m/s If the turbine is any good the first investor who had bought the product will buy thousands more if the costs are lower, maintenance and investments are lower and the equation of production is better than the current ones. I would not invest in any of shore thing soon which is that different cause it tooks us ages to get where we are right now and none of those are floating. And the floating topic adds another point of complexity like the cable tied connection to the under sea grid. Just one of the differences where difference means a potential risk or challenge compared to the current ones. Many have lost fortunes to get where we are. And you might now german engineering quite well, so maybe it is time for you to take a lesson in history or engineering history if you are able to unsolve the shattered dreams of scientist who had gotten a government funding by germany to build one of the first big wind turbines for commercial use, even though for todays scale it might feel like a tiny one. Fully funded it went into a complete desaster within weeks rather than months. Search for "GROWIAN" or "GRO WI AN" an acronym for "Groß Windkraft Anlage" or big scale wind turbine. This was the biggest failure and desaster for german wind turbine production cause the turbine never achieved any of the designed goals and was only good as an example how to not develope such product. Therefore the float one has to proof a lot more than just 1 rotor running under ideal circumstances close to shore (for easy repairs) for just months or a couple of years cause the investments needed are so big that these have to last 2 decades and more to be profitable. And that is the real challenge for any new tech to outperform the previous financially and reliable over a full product life cycle and even beyond considering how easy it could be to repower such site after 20 years of usage.
Yeah thats a fact but if they do manage to make it work. It seems to be less comples than traditional turbines. If its generates similar amount of energy per investment dollar its worth it. And it possibly can do more as it suppose to have more uptime.
One of the most exciting aspects of this design is ease of assembly and maintenance. Being able to attach and assemble the entire rotor and generator near the surface of the water is huge. And then being able to just pull it down again to work on it. But now you say they are looking at more conventional flotation platforms. It would be a pity to lose disability to rotate it up and down for service.
The new base seems to be more about housing a rotation axis for the tilt than removing the variable tilt (it is the main feature after all) while being more stable in waves.
Define "one"! As a non-engineer, I'd say that design is an asymmetrical duel-blade rotor Plus, everything looks great in CGI - do we have a real-life model?
I think its referring to the single unit that it is formed from, which they say helps reduce manufacturing costs. Lots of footage of their prototypes in the video! I agree though - CGI always looks easier than reality!
Really appreciate that you reached out to an expert! These sort of videos become way more interesting when there's a bit of qualified discussion and not just promo material
as someone who did math/homework estimating wind turbine prodution on my location, i want to correct some stuff i noticed on wind frequency it's not that majority of power is produced on slow winds, it's the wind speed frequency, low winds could be just junk energy and won't give much, anything below 10~5m/s range is junk energy production, definitly high winds are better for energy production, but because they have less frequency then they can't rely on them for constant energy production, but some wind farms definity will disconnect some percentage of the wind farm to keep the energy stable, but above a certain speed most wind turbines that are optimized to spin at certain high frequency mid-range speeds won't be efficient and could spin out of control, so they are disabled so this wind turbine design looks promising in theory, but as pointed out, it's yet have to be seen if the design can handle sea water, swells and waves.
I didn't understood that chart, it seemed like a probability distribution of the different speeds but the Y axis has values up to 0.09 are all those values supposed to add up to one? as in 100%
Floating wind has so much potential and there's so much work to be done. A stormy sea is tremendous at smashing stuff up and this was the end of wave power snakes.
There is 1000 of these companies making CGI videos and harvesting government money and then they run, away with the money... Until they have demonstrated it works with actual full scale windmill consider it to be a scam, because the chance is 99% that it is.
Only needs one of the 999 to shape the world. Without all the experiments there would be less innovation... kudos to the people who dream big and are prepared to dedicate their lives to their dreams.
The sea is a harsh mistress. Weather conditions can be extreme and need not be frequent to be destructive. What would happen if a spinning rotor were knocked down and hit the water? I suspect the rotors would need to be cheap enough to be considered occasionally disposable.
Just happened in New England. Project on hold. Doing environmental studies on microplastics. The environmentalist are the ones shutting down the green project.
I think it's actually symmetrical, it just looks that way in some of the images. I think the shape is straight rotor with the tips bent back from the direction of rotation.
I think it actually points into the wind. This is what causes it to lift itself up as the wind speed increases. If it was pointing away from the wind, then increasing wind strength would knock it over rather than up. The idea has appeal, but as with all modern technology the devil is in the detail. I see stability as the major issue. At high wind speed the rotor is acting like an auto gyro. The “lift” this produces will be acting downwards along the pylon. Balancing this, while still allowing the freedom of movement needed for the device to track the wind, will be a hard nut to crack, IMO. I’ll be interested to see if this concept progresses further. Fingers crossed!
As long as it could swivel to face the wind if on land, where there is that weight beneath the rotor on water, on land, it could be a variable tether, producing electricity in the same way as a kite generator does.
@@q.e.d.9112Yeah it definitely looks like it is supposed to point towards the main direction of the wind. Yet how they going to manage that when ocean wind is so chaotic? I get the appeal. Cheaper, even if it isn't even ideal design. The great thing about green energy is that the sun and earth over produce! Effiency doesn't really matter if you can make a ton more.
I'm dubious about the claim that reducing the wind wake can "suck in" fast air from above the wind farm. The slow air still has to go somewhere, contrary to what the graphic at 8:58 suggests. At best you can spread it out to 5 times as wide and 1/5th as high as the blade disk of the wind turbine or so. Yes, it will help in the case where the next turbine downwind is _exactly_ in the path of another turbine, but now it will actually reduce wind speeds when the next turbine is within that 5 blade disk wide wake, making wake problems 5 times as likely to happen. And after 5 consecutive turbines have sucked in and spread out the wake, you're back to about the same wake height as before. But maybe this is just a cost saving measure as well. 5 times as likely wake effects of 1/5th the strength will reduce the _maximum_ dynamic load from wake turbulence to 1/5th. I just wonder if wake turbulence adds that much of a load compared to natural air turbulence in rough seas.
Since the used wind has been slowed (energy extracted) by the rotor, that slowed wake flow takes up a larger downwind volume than you suggest, further reducing any wake avoidance on downwind rotors
Complicated but the rotor will have sucked energy out of the air so will affect surrounding turbines to some extent. Needs a lot of modelling and real world testing. A way to go with this. Similar to perovskites and solar. It takes a lot to unseat the king
Being able to handle high winds without using brakes or computer pitch control would eliminate most of the catastrophic failures we've seen on 3 blade turbines and all of the downtime we see when these systems need to be serviced.
I think a Brake mechanism will still be needed to safe servicing, though It might need to be less beefy if it's only used in that context rather then in response to high wind.
@@kennethferland5579 I think you mean a spindle lock. Brakes are for slowing things down but a spindle lock is just for stopping things turning and is infinitely cheaper.
blades on large turbines already get pretty high mach at the tips. I wonder if at high wind speeds this could have issues with the advancing rotor breaking the sound barrier when the winds are high, it's at its max rpm, and the blade is near horizontal.
Thanks.. great idea. another advantage is no thub thub from the blades passing the tower. I like that it bows to the sea and wind. I am wondering if you put this on top of a boat mast and drove an underwater propeller, how fast would it go in various wind directions and speeds. would recommend a more pinnate prop to reduce drag where there no torque produced. I would also consider using sail cloth for the wing to reduce cost, weight and ease of replacement. Keep up the good work.
Any generation of LIFT will direct air downward, this is simple Newtonian physics. If it dose that ENOUGH to be of any impact is the questions, I am doubtful. But the clearly strongest selling point of the system is the simplicity and lack of pitch control. Also it seems obvious to me that the generator should be placed in or near the float with a strait shaft running down the mast or even being the mast as this will lighten the structure hugely. The biggest issue will be at what MINIMUM windspeed the system can operate in, this is where modern turbines are trying to operate at to get higher capacity factors.
One big reason of why rotors usually have three blades is the constant inertia to rotate around the vertical axis. With two blade it rotates easier when they are vertical as when they are horizontal. That causes some issues. Also making a 200 m blade is more complex than 100m ones to have the same diameter. I think it is just paper ware.
Precisely ! Side Load on the shaft will be on again , off again due to wind gradient . Much fatigue going to happen . Also gyroscopic load of a large spinning mass trying to bob about . Not going to work .
1. Power of wind is the cube of wind speed, so the maximal output comes not from maximal speeds, but 1.5-2 times higher speeds in the Weibull distribution. 2. I’d advise putting the turbines in alternating order with each adjacent one operating at different altitude, and the turbines being able to change its rotor tilt not only by tilting the tower, but also only its upper segment. In this way some of turbines will lower themselves to the ground at higher winds, while others will elevate themselves, as a way to diminish interference.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Does the wake effect offer an added benefit of cooling the ocean surface? Would be easy to test. Put some thermometers' in the water where the downdraft is most intense. As the angle of attack changes the thermometers could be spooled in or out on a tether keeping them in the sweet spot. Also, encouraging corals and sea life to congregate on the submerged components is a huge bonus.
Fascinating concept. The two challenges that I see are dynamic effects of wave motion on the rotating joint. None of the simulations are looking at 5m waves inputs. Second is the challenge of laying lines further out to sea. Admittedly this is a smaller challenge
Brilliantly done! Your ability to simplify and highlight the key aspects of the Mono turbine’s design makes this video a valuable resource for anyone interested in renewable energy.
If you can use this to pump water then you can use the water pressure to generate electricity and the cool water can be used to cool a house as in hydro cooling. Then the water can be used to aerate aquaponics and provide irrigation for standard agriculture the water can also be filtered for getting off the grid.
I was recently near a wind farm in Vermont and surprised as to how loud they are. Like distant rumbling trains and swooshing of the blades. I wouldn't want to live near one and I'm sure the wildlife isn't happy about it either.
I have to wonder if we are about to see a transition from vertical-mast, 3-bladed turbines to variable-angle tilted masts with a 2-blade turbine - akin to how aviation shifted away from biplanes to monoplanes once the technology allowed monoplanes to be strong and light enough. Though I do wonder if using the mast tilting instead of variable-pitch blades is more efficient? The "downwind" traveling blade will generate less (or no) lift depending upon wind and turbine wing speeds.
I've built barrel ships, barrels float good, I feel like these should be rings, not because I think it'll make more power, but I think it will be safer, in the case they tip too low. That way they don't slap and smack, they slide and roll, and should for the same tipping reason, have floatation in the ring.
m/s is for someone working in the industry. In layman's terms put the value in km/h so the rest of us can understand it without pausing the video to translate it.
Could you please refer to: the twisting of the electric cable, effect on the life time of the cable, restrictions on the activity sector of the entire facility, total operating cost?
I feel this work but it can change weather effect. Air flow but on large scale it can effect how the wind move below. I might be over thinking. One reason desert can turn into forest. Which reduce heat level.
Instead of a barrel float, why not a spherical shaped float? It seems it would provide more stability as well as survivability in cross-wave situations.
With simplicity come so many different kinds of advantages. Even if less efficient at lower elevations, the savings in the overall cost should more than make up for it.
you do not need a gondol - that is an advantage. Two blade turbines rotate faster than three blades - so that is also an advantage. There will be an invisible air pillow. And this 'pillow' will be shaped uneven squeezed between the sea and the rotating blades. This 'air pillow' is not evenly distributed (as with standing three-blade turbines), This will also make the power uneven that can cause a bending in the hub. (but it is not easy to estimate how large the difference is between the lower and the higher part of the blade.
The inevitable encounter with the legendary 'rogue wave' will test this device. Rogue waves are simply the random concurrence of all the wave and swell components at a given point, and are far more common than freakish. And, of course, a three-bladed arrangement enjoys fundamental balance advantages, which grow exponentially as speed increases.
You've done a good job of hitting the highlights but would need a deeper dive into the engineering to formulate an opinion. As for the possibility of a mitigated wake, this would have value for onshore windfarms but the ocean is so vast, it's difficult to see the benefit. For the record, a general rule of thumb is to separate turbines by at least 1.5X rotor diameter so the wind has time to heal before hitting the downwind machine. Something I kept waiting to hear was the coefficient of power for the monoblade and how the Cp degrades with changes in the angle of attack. At the end of the day, there's no way this system will have equivalent efficiency of a traditional horizontal axis offshore turbine, so the benefits have to come from the lower CapEx amortized over time. The ocean is also a very harsh environment, so creating a machine that can withstand these conditions and reliably transfer the generated energy to shore is a challenge not to be underestimated.
Mono's monoblade is a radical idea, and the tilt-up to reduce effects of high winds is genius. No movable blade elements to harvest and prevent destruction during high winds alone is a strong economic incentive to try this out at scale. If I knew where to sent it, I'd send money to this project-if I had money. 🤒
200 meters sounds huge, for a single turbine blade. The larger blades right now are around 80-90 meters, for a single blade. They want to more than double that?
Sounds like a brilliant idea, However, A huge part of the cost of offshore wind turbines is the infrastructure needed to get the electricity back on shore. If these turbines are going to be situated much further off shore then the cables will be much longer so more likely to suffer damage
I appreciate all new designs that utilize Nature's clean infinite energies. If only everyone had sufficient amounts of constant wind. But where it exists, the power of intermittent wind must be paired with sufficient storage and distribution, which will add costs. I can see some possible problems with stability/longevity with this design which can only be properly addressed with several linked working demonstration models out on the real waves.
Okay, but how are you getting the energy on shore from far off shore, thats the biggest cost in offshore and moving it further out would increase that cost.
and you now have deal with a turbine that is rising and falling with the tide while the whole unit is rotating significantly more with the wind. Typically the more moving parts the more ware and tear. The further out the more expensive to maintain.
@@Finderskeepers. I really hope Quaise Energy's plan works out, which is basically using a fricking 10MW laser to drill down 10 - 20km to get geothermal anywhere in the world. It would solves so many problems with net 0 at least on the electricity side. 24/7 365 energy with relative easy integration with thermal energy storage to increase output within peek hours. We will just have to see if it's economically viable though, basically if each well costs much more than $100 million no one is going to invest in it even though in the long term it's a boon still, because that still is over a 10 year ROI the cost of a natural gas power plant assuming each well is 30MW thermal. The wells will apparently last 100 years so in the long term it's still a great long term investment so if governments step in to reduce the cost to be competitive with natural gas over a 5 year period and making that money back over a longer period of time say 20 - 30 years it could be popular with private involvement.
@@Etheoma Geothermal already exists and only need to go 400m not 10km. The deeper the larger the temp. variance = more energy. Its sounds great using lasers but I see a lot of unknown issues. I will never knock advancement or triers so I wish them well. Tidal is what I am hoping to see a breakthrough with. The moon isnt going anywhere and the tide goes in and out twice a day every day. Solar and wind would be even more viable if we could find a way to store the energy. Jeep have a very interesting water powered engine that ICE engines could easily be converted to. The pressurised water system is a viable was to store energy. Already I see shenanigans in the carbon credits market. Corporate influence at a political level is to high around the world put particularly in the States. Because of the method to calculate Value there will always be a bias for quick income and shortermism with the lowest income risk which is what ultimately underpins your valid point about ROI.
@@Finderskeepers. Erm I think your talking about superficial geothermal where your only looking for temps of 25C or so for which you only need to go to 50 - 400m mostly for heat pumps or there are other ways you can use such water directly. Even in places close to fault lines 400m is not going to get you far unless you are literally right ontop of a pocket of magma when we are talking about electrical generation. Even in Iceland the variance is massive between borehole depth between 100 - 2,200 meters where those 100 meter ones are where there are natural water aquifers which go much deeper and Island is the best place in the world to do geothermal and even they have to go down as far as 2,200m to reliably get geothermal. 3km elsewhere is not rare and to get lower heat wells, and Quaise wants to do supercritical geothermal, which requires well temps in excess of 370C anywhere in the world hence the reason for such depths. Personally I don't see any issues arising that will be show stoppers, if they give up on supercritical steam it will be pretty plain sailing considering even here in the UK which is one of the worst places in the world to do geothermal you can get 130C temps at 5.5km although at that point you are talking about like 1 or 2MW per well and you would need 100s of wells to get anywhere close to a real power plant. Where as if your getting super critical steam 30MW is easy and 10's of wells will add up to a real power plants output.
@@Etheoma Im more concerned about the unexpected effects. No one expected carbon emissions to be an issue yet here we are. Im thinking along the lines of how dams have had unexpected outcomes and thats far easier to predict and much better understood than lava flows 10km down. The North Atlantic drift is what keeps the UK's climate so mild and its slowing down due the glacier melt from Greenland and Arctic ice sheets and not because its cold water but because its fresh water . The effects of global warming could be having a significant impact much sooner than we think. We keep messing with nature thinking we know better, mad cow disease is another example. Probability told us we were overdue a pandemic yet there was minimal preparation. We got off lightly, what would ebola of done and thats what really scared the scientists at 1st, Covid had a very similar cell structure but we dont hear that in the news even now. Huge extraction of energy from basically the earths core concern me. I acknowledge I am being very cautious but I think we have to be. One threat that concerns me that it could easily impact and that is slowly happening as we speak is a flipping of the magnetic poles. Its already effecting satellites in orbit. A mass extraction of energy I assume would have a cooling effect, that would slow down thermal currents and without knowing exactly how and what the core is made off its hard to predict and thats against a background of not predicting what damming a river will do.
reminds me a bit of the really efficient asymmetrical rotorblades for drones that reduce noise by a lot. anyways, im just a sucker for passive functionality, that thing can turn into the wind and manage its blades pitch without any motors or computers and sensors and crap. its a winner in my book. on land you could even put the generator at the bottom and just have an axle running up to the top, meaning you would have hardly any weight at the top.(relatively speaking) honestly... im pretty sure i could build something like that behind my house. just a steel frame, rotor on top, generator on the bottom, having it articulate and rotate at the bottom is the hard part, but hardly impossible. man, i cant wait for retirement, there are so many concepts i want to play around with.
There's no any info about self -start speed, time to rotate by the wind, tower negative effects and so on. Where are numbers the lowest and the highest working speed? So many questions...
i wonder if it works for them to be mixed in existing parks, since if thats the case its easier to pull off a small test park using the same power cables already available there.
It seems that the clever tilt system will become considerably more complicated when the barrel base is replaced by the square base. Did they comment on that?
200m rotor, on something floating in the North Atlantic, which sometimes gets 80'/24m waves ( "rogue" waves, from constructive-interference between combined waves ), strikes me as .. "optimistic". To me it seems that sticking the things *away* from rogue waves would be saner? but that negates the whole point of the things.. ESA mapped rogue-waves, by satellite, iirc.. I wonder if there is some areas of the ocean which just have less of them, or less of the big ones?
Had never heard of this concept before. Very interesting. Thank you. (Dear Govts. While we're working on floating turbines, please change planning laws to build more, well understood, cheap as chips, onshore wind farms.)
Cheap as chips on shore wind farms are nice, if you have space for it. Here in the Netherlands, we unfortunately don't really have space for it. The whole country is cultivated and unfortunately nobody wants a turbine it its backyard..
They have doubled utility rates everywhere they are used, so they're not cheap. And that's before they fail, years before their projected lifespan is up.
Poor birds! :( I love the design, and was fascinated with the video until a few minutes in when my mind started to wander. Then it hit me. If conventional turbines are hazardous to wildlife, these will be devastating. We should be concentrating on wave energy regarding offshore power harvesting.
I dont know how offshore winds work but I wonder what happens when a strong gust of wind hits it. Like I experienced huge changes in wind speed on land. If that happens there I dont think it can adjust. It would just ripapart. But off shore winds migth not do such a thing.
6:33 You need to multiply the probability magnitude of each bin by the cube of the velocity to get annual available bin energy. (Assuming constant turbine efficiency)
So using the magnitudes in your graph, for example, a turbine in that location will make more annual energy from 20m/s wind than from 10m/s wind. 0.013 * 20^3 > 0.080 * 10^3
@@suunraze Locations don't have just one wind speed. That skew distribution of speeds is going to be replicated almost everywhere but just stretched or compressed if the location is more/less windy. The point is that the all wind turbines have minimum and maximum wind speeds they operate in so summing the bars that it operates in can predict both the capacity factor and total energy production.
@kennethferland5579 summing the bars' magnitudes times the cubes of their velocities, yes. The statement, "most wind energy comes from the slower speeds" is incorrect; in the weibull distribution shown, most of the available energy was in the 20 m/s range, not the range the cursor was indicating. This is why it's valuable for a turbine to be operational at high wind speeds, even though they occur rarely.
If Darius VAWTs are mostly held back by bearing challenges with one blade passing through the tower shadow, surely this has that issue? …and gyro loads from adjusting for gusts and from waves! 200m blade seems unlikely to me. However, small scale deployment might be cheap enough even with ruggedised bearings if the higher winds and reduced wake claims are valid. Certainly a fresh idea anyway…
A Japanese engineer drilled 3 equidistant holes in a bearing race, removed 3 ball bearings, and it reduced friction by 15%. Might be useful if you wanted to use larger, more rugged, bearings in a wet environment.
These turbines will be mincers for sea birds, that'll solve the problem of too many wandering albatross taking the bait on fishermen's longlines I'm sure. Other costs, such as the cost to bird life has to be taken into consideration, not just financial.
He have a degrees in Aerodynamics, Engineering and Philosophy? Taking an average of 5 years of graduation per subject, this genius took 15 years to complete his education. Something doesn't calculate, I guess just another garage mechanic with what he imagines is a great idea. We have seen such characters hundreds of times and nothing comes of the revolutionary projects they have initiated.
It would be nice to see the rotors created in place on a barge or a ship so that they don't have to be transported from land like all turbines traditionally do.
Puff-piece! You have shares mayhap? Floating rotating devices will have a lifespan in minutes in a rough sea and gale. Now deep-water tethered semi-submerged towers at least 20 metres of which are under water are stable, but can still rock, so they need a symmetrical rotating weight with more, not fewer blades to minimise the forces when they wallow (even if only a few cm) while rotating. It is basic mechanics.
Ocean-based windmills are much more expensive than land-based. And they set up vibrations in the water that are very disruptive to wildlife. Nuclear power is infinitely better.
"Energy much cheaper". Yes, for the energy companies. NOT for the consumer. As always. Anyway, this turbine reminds me of a helicopter auto-rotating. Quite clever idea.
Windmills are never cheap. Their connection to the grid and any sort of backup are never calculated in. Also they ware out in only ten~20y and need lots of maintenance.
Innovation always needs the blinkers to be removed. How many have been built to date? If none why, if this design has been on the table since 2018? R and D is fine, as the pressures are on the table for results NOW.
Two variables that can be reduced to one. Air direction and wave/water turbulence and direction. Why not try the blades in water at different depths. No air/wind involved. Reduce wave turbulence, depending upon depth. If the blade design is better than 3 blade propellers, if may work in water also.
4:35 you can't just assume they are all going to be in a straight line down-wind from one another.. the air goes somewhere, and it's hardly getting compressed, it's getting blown down then flattened out, so all adjacent ones behind it and to the sides are getting that turbulence. You can't just magic it away and show it stopping at each turbine, lmao.. Why model the normal ones in 3D, then show these in simplified 2D. Also I have serious reservations about a turbine that has to pitch-up to save itself, if the stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down.. less surface area, yes, but also higher wind speeds and front-surface exposure into those winds.. forcing it back down then the wind catches the prop again, then pulled down even harder?
>he stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down.. No - the stronger the wind is, the more it will pitch up: the same force that's pulling the air downwards to the surface of the sea is trying to pitch up the turbine. That's why you need that weight. Without the weight it would pitch up too much even in calm wind.
7:20 this is not accurate representation of air flow, the while point was that there's no wind tunnel its an open sea and there can be some cross winds too probably.
have not watch whole video, so this might be where this is going, slap a series of these on a very long bowspirit , assuming your sailing with the wind at your tail. Propulsion and power
