smkettner wrote:
ken white wrote:
In order to test the various panel theories within this post, the test condition should have the panels connected to a fixed load and not to the controller.
As I stated earlier, the controller changes how the panel behaves so the data is skewed.
Example, if the batteries only need 100 watts and the controller consumes 10 watts of energy transferring this energy, then it will make sure the panel will only deliver 110 watts rather than its rated hypothetical 220 watts even though the panel could produce this value due to its direct sun exposure.
If it was a grid tie system I agree. Better IMO is to charge a battery(s) that are down 50% and compare the time to float with #16 through #10 wire from panel to controller. This will test the practicality in actual use. Trouble is getting consistant full sun four days in a row. May need to repete to verify.
Copper resistance is a known data point. The test is to discover the real effect while in use.
JMHO
Your test increases variability, within the system parameters, but if that is what you want to do, its your system.
The real effect depends upon so many variables, it will be hard to pin down, since operating conditions vary throughout the day.
Worst case is lower panel light level, small diameter panel to controller wiring, fairly low discharged batteries, and lots of loads turned on.
How much time is the system operating under these conditions?
Is it worth testing?
Not to me, but YMMV...