|
Cam-
"HS...well actually STC test conditions call for 1000 watts/meter squared of solar irradiance and 1300 w/m2 or so is what is available at the top of the atmosphere in space so I don't see any way to do what you are suggesting ..."
I don't understand, what do you think I'm suggesting? I'm saying that the ratings are based on the maximum amount of sunlight that's to be had at sea level, under this thick atmosphere. I know that won't get any brighter...unless they're going to install SolarStiks on Mt. Everest?
"Rather the claim is that with the rotating of the panels about 4x a day and with the use of the blue sky controller the input amps into your bateries will be the quivilent of 250 watts of fixed panels using a conventional regulator."
Yeah, but we can remove the BS controller from the equation completely, because all IT does is ensure that the wattage from the panel is optimized for amps-vs-volts. The BS controller has no effect on the wattage that is available from the panel, at all.
Which leaves only the question abouti rotating the panels. And since the rated power output is based on perfect alignment of the panel--pointing it directly at the sun--there is no way that aligning the panel from time to time is going to exceed the output from a perfectly aligned panel. Yes, you will get more effective power by aligning the panels from time to time, than you would from a flat panel. But you still won't exceed the panel's ratings, you can only meet them.
And once the sunlight weakens--you won't meet the ratings for the panel at all. Something just doesn't add up, perhaps SolarStik just needs to hire "Bill Nye The Science Guy" to do a show-and-tell for those of us who are mathematically impaired.
|