This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
electrical:solar:charge_controller [2023/09/06 12:05] frater_secessus [MPPT] |
electrical:solar:charge_controller [2023/09/10 13:50] frater_secessus [present use] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
[[https:// | [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | === panel selection for PWM === | ||
+ | |||
+ | PWM makes the most power when coupled with panels whose operating [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Examples: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 16.28v Vmp panel spec would be optimal for 14.8v Absorption, as we might use for flooded lead acid. 14.8v x 1.1 = 16.28v. | ||
+ | * 15.62v Vmp panel spec would be optimal for 14.2v Absorption, as we might use for Gel or LiFePO4. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Some [[electrical: | ||
==== MPPT ==== | ==== MPPT ==== | ||
[[http:// | [[http:// | ||
Line 86: | Line 98: | ||
There are some considerations when [[electrical: | There are some considerations when [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
+ | == panel selection for MPPT == | ||
+ | |||
+ | MPPT thrives on voltage. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
== when PWM beats MPPT == | == when PWM beats MPPT == | ||
Line 95: | Line 114: | ||
- | |||
- | * | ||
- | |||
- | The PWM advantage is | ||
Line 229: | Line 244: | ||
==== present use ==== | ==== present use ==== | ||
- | In practice the LOAD terminals typically are either ignored((some well-respected controllers don't have them anymore)) or used as [[electrical: | + | In practice the LOAD terminals typically are either ignored((some well-respected controllers don't have them anymore)) or used as [[electrical: |
- | + | ||
- | One benefit to doing this is you can define | + | |
==== why loads aren't powered from LOAD terminals ==== | ==== why loads aren't powered from LOAD terminals ==== |