I am uncertain if this is just me, but I am reading multiple conflicting paragraphs. Can someone enlighten me where I am misunderstanding? Examples: > only a

I am uncertain if this is just me, but I am reading multiple conflicting paragraphs. Can someone enlighten me where I am misunderstanding? Examples: > only a small number of these ocean wave buoys have been deployed. That’s because they’re expensive and require complex calculations to process the data A quick search shows that just by the NOAA of USA there are 1,331 buoys in the ocean. My assumption is that other Ocean going countries have their own buoys. https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ There are multiple open source projects to create open srouce ocean buoy electronics platforms (e.g., opensourceoceanweatherbuoy.wordpress.com and www.ocean-ops.org) The pricing is indeed several in thousands of dollars for commercial solution, but there are open source solutions in sum $100. Data processing can and is off loaded in various ways from the bouys. > instead of gathering dual-frequency satellite data—the current standard—their technology achieves lower costs, better accuracy, and real-time computation with single-frequency analysis. then immediately followed by > Dual-frequency satellite data collects data in two separate frequency bands. It is typically used to achieve more accurate measurements than data using a single frequency band This makes no sense to me. This reads like dual-frequency satellites produce more accurate data. The innovation is to use single-frequency satellite, which produces less accurate data? > dual-frequency approach involves additional computation that can inadvertently amplify measurement errors The explanation why the single-frequency solution reads very hand-wavy. > methods require post-processing that can take several days-sometimes up to a week This reads reasonable only if the processing is on the buoy, but the previous notes are about that the dual-frequency buoys off-load the processing. Confused again. Finally, recovery of the buoys at end of life so they do not become more trash in the oceans. The old adage "two is one, one is none" would make sense. Sure, we can reduce the buoys cost to $100, for the during the life of the buoy. Is there a recovery impact with cheap solutions?