This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
opinion:frater_secessus:solar_harvest [2023/02/11 18:49] frater_secessus [observations] |
opinion:frater_secessus:solar_harvest [2023/02/17 20:20] (current) frater_secessus [correlation with available direct light] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| * thunderstorms, | * thunderstorms, | ||
| + | ===== correlation with available direct light ===== | ||
| - | ===== ununsual scenarios ===== | + | This is harder to grasp and compute, but increases accuracy by factoring in location, time, etc.((It cannot account for // |
| + | - find solar zenith angle with app or calculator | ||
| + | - derive cosine of the above; this is the percentage of direct sunlight landing on a flat surface | ||
| + | - multiply this value by panel wattage | ||
| + | - the result is the theoretical direct light available at that time/place under clear skies.((since MPPT-based system losses typically are -15% and indirect lighting is +15%, an MPPT-based system might make this direct-light power level under clear skies.)) | ||
| + | I have observed the following cosine-based direct light percentages: | ||
| + | * clear skies: | ||
| + | * bright overcast skies (shadows thrown): | ||
| + | * overcast: 58% of theoretical direct sun | ||
| - | * exceptionally high yield, 90% of rated | ||
| - | * [[http:// | ||
| - | | + | |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== ununsual scenarios ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * exceptionally high yield, 90% of rated | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | | ||