best low light performance

HiTech wrote:

harold1946 wrote:

HiTech wrote:

harold1946 wrote:

HiTech wrote:

harold1946 wrote:

HiTech wrote:
Mine do the same.

Harold what do you have to back up your claim about efficiency beyond the standard test conditions of strong light? If we are talking efficiency, the relative efficiency from full sun to 50% or less light strength is what is interesting when discussing low light situations. Efficiency in full sunlight is interesting, but moot in low light discussions.

Jim

I have nothing other than the industry standard Tier rating, of which thin film is rated the lowest.
Do you have information to the contraty?

I saw nothing in there other than under standard lab test conditions, not low light.

Do you believe that efficiency would increase under low light or remain the same?

I believe it is not linear. There are junction thresholds to overcome. But what I believe is not relevant. What does the data show?

All data shows thin film (amorphous) is the least efficient of the four types of panels, and has the lowest power output per square foot of all, in all light conditions.

Output per square foot is not what we have discussed. Output in low light vs. nominal wattage is the topic of posts about amorphous panels being good in low light.

Jim

You are playing the semantics game. No one has said they were not good in low light, just not the "best" as was claimed.

All data showes the hybrids to be the best in low light, with mono
being second, poly third, and amorphous fourth.
Thin film technology was another step in the developmemt of PV's but has fallen by the wayside because of production cost, less power produced per square foot, and vulnerability to the elements, ie. UV and hail.
Its claim to fame was the ease of installation, even on surfaces with compound curves. Direct adhesion to a substrate without the need of framework. Power output is also less affected by heat than conventional panels,