I suspect the walls in between the "separate entrances" force the wind moving semi-perpendicular to those walls into the entrance as well. Removing them would lose wind.

Without the compartments/channels/separate entrances, wind blowing in from one direction would mostly just go around the central pillar, rather than down into the funnel.

> Much more visually pleasing than a traditional wind turbine.

But also much larger. It's an inescapable fact that wind energy is proportional to the area captured. So these would have to be as tall and wide as turbine blades.

Except it would be a massive structure, not just a small thin blade on a pole.

And don't think they could get away with flimsy walls either - the pressure of the wind on this thing is the same as the pressure on a regular turbine.

I suspect this last point will sink this project except perhaps in zones with very light wind that can benefit from it's ability to generate with low wind speed (and low pressure, so a weaker structure).

I doubt that the aesthetics are the prime design consideration. This is to generate electricity, not to stick in a gallery. Power generation isn't generally pretty, but it keeps people alive in the winter.

> I doubt that the aesthetics are the prime design consideration. This is to generate electricity, not to stick in a gallery. Power generation isn't generally pretty, but it keeps people alive in the winter.

They are a design consideration though. You can't just stick things where you want: there are political and community issues to consider. Many rural communities might object to functional-but-ugly wind turbines littered about "their countryside".

What if you think windmills are already visually pleasing?