Version 9 adds bidirectional fan regeneration to Technical Addendum 7: relief gills, feathering EC blades and the channel's own diffuser effect let the existing fans generate from wind at approximately 8 m/s, down from the ~12 m/s threshold of a fan fixed in the channel. This improves upon, and does not correct, the electromagnetic-braking regeneration of Section 3, which remains valid for a fan fixed in the channel with no relief path. The Power-Inlet Cowling is retained in its correct role as a pressure-recovery inlet that also feeds the diffuser effect; only the physically impossible passive-concentrator claim of versions 4 and 6 remains withdrawn. Effective specific energy is now stated as a per-site range — installed 2. 0–4. 95 kWh/m³ depending on production, and 1. 8–4. 0 kWh/m³ with wind assist — replacing the single 4. 95 figure, which was the lowest-production case. At productive sites the plant is at or below reverse osmosis on installed power alone; the comparison notes that RO's specific energy is temperature-dependent mechanical pumping work whose best figures assume warm feed, and that this plant returns oxygenated water to the sea rather than brine. Nine combinations plus four new ones (relief-gill regeneration, feathering blades, channel-as-diffuser regeneration, multi-role backup units) are disclosed as prior art. The explicit three-efficiency regeneration chain P = ½ρAv³·Cₚ·ηₘotor is stated, with the aerodynamic capture coefficient Cₚ taken as 0. 35 nominal (range 0. 30–0. 45), a research-grounded estimate treated as nominal pending measurement. Every water-production figure is unchanged from prior versions and reproducible from the stated method. Published as open prior art. Patent pending: SE 2530864-4 · SE 2530806-5 · SE 2530843-8 · SE 2530868-5. Supersedes Addendum 7 versions 1–8.
Lius et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: