John, this is not a physics thought experiment, it is what actually happens in actual open-sided buildings of various shapes and configurations, something which I have a fair bit of personal experience with.
As far as Woods' book goes, you should KNOW I've read it, as I have previously directed you (on your other big thread) to my *review and commentary* on it
Woods TELLS YOU repeatedly in the book that it is crucial to have long narrow houses in order for it to be sufficiently breeze-free. That is precisely why his designs are built that way no matter what the overall square footage, and the only one of other peoples' houses that *isn't* much deeper than wide is the one used with a full curtain and housing only Wyandottes (pea-combed).
I suppose you are going to want citations. Let me page through for a while and I will edit this post with quotations, k? (edited to add them, all page numbers refer to the Norton Creek Press edition:
p.68- "The Tolman house is an excellent fresh-air house suitable for colony houses of varying dimensions to suit the poultryman's requirements, always keeping the proportions about the same; the house being considerably deeper from back to front than it is wide, except in the [lone] case of the square pattern of this house" [though note that that square plan is only 20' on a side and has a solid partition running up the middle of the house about halfway forwards from the back wall, so it is not entirely one open square chamber; all but one of the relatively-few 20x20' open-air houses he cites in his book have this half-wall, and the one that doesn't is closed by curtains in bad weather and not all the width of the front is open anyhow]
pp. 92 and following, he discusses construction of long-houses out using his plans. He does not even consider the option of making the units run the full length of the house or in fact *any* wider than in his individual houses; the entire section is about using his houses as repeated sections. Figure 41 on p. 95 shows his 10x16' house in repeating units, and he comments in the text "Fig 42 gives detail partitions in this long house. There is a solid partition every 20 ft. which prevents wind from getting a long sweep thru house such as would occur if wire partitions were used thru whole length". What he is saying is that the front of the long house is partitioned at 10' intervals; every alternate partition is a totally solid wall, while the intervening ones are half-solid, half-wire (see his diagram for which parts are solid vs mesh)
p. 96, he quotes some wyandotte breeder talking about an older closed-house design that he disliked, consisting of pens with an alley running the length of the building just inside the back wall for human access to the pens, "we never liked this house <snip> the alleyway was the cause of making it drafty, and drafts in a poultry house are the cause of much sickness". He's saying that when you have a long open alley down the back of the house, you can't simply open the front side, b/c the wind gets inside.
p. 116-117: "There are three essential features of the Woods house besides the open front: (a) a high rear section and low front section with unobstructed floor space from back wall to open front; (b) a deep house from front to back, square in the case of 20x20 house, much deeper than wide in case of 10x16 and smaller sizes"
There may be other references, my speed-reading eyes pooped out at about that point
Basically it boils down to, you only get the favorable vertical-dimension circulation he describes IF you have the roofline not-too-weirdly shaped AND the front opening not very high AND no serious obstructions within the house; and you still have to worry about unfavorable (windy) circulation in the horizontal plane, which can only be avoided by making the chamber (or chambers) significantly deeper than wide. And this cannot be scaled-up indefinitely. As the open side of the building gets wider, more and more wind-swirls get in even if the building is quite deep and thus still deeper-than-wide. 20' is pushing it. Narrower is a lot better. And if you're using 20' wide, you really ought (esp. in Maine) to have other means of damping air currents.
That happy little "air cushion" figure in Woods' book that you have pasted into your post above is pretty seriously bogus, btw. I have a hard time believing that it was drawn from actual data-taking as opposed to "this is how it seems to me and I know I'm right"; and even insofar as it may have derived from experience, its fatal flaw is that the wet finger method only tells you about one-sided directional air flow. Random swirly turbulent airflow penetrates MUCH further into open-sided buildings than that figure gives you any clue of (exact details depending on building shape and how high the open front, and the rest of the ceiling, are). Most of the air in that house beyond his 'wet finger line' isn't *still*. Again, this is not theory, this is actual experience/observation. Not just from me, from the livestock industry as a whole.
This is why I said on the other thread that you gotta be reeeaaaalll careful in making apparently-harmless modifications to this type house. Things you might not, without lots of experience in the field, *expect* to change the dynamics of airflow in the house, sometimes DO.
A 20' deep, 24' wide single chamber is really not a smart bet for an open-front coop in Maine. In my opinion, which is derived from more than just Woods' books but I suspect that if you could hold a seance you would find Woods agreeing
Pat