solar panels

Submitted: Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 17:31
ThreadID: 38609 Views:2442 Replies:2 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
I know this has probably been done here before - but can someone explain the difference between crystal and amorphous(?) panels? Which is the best?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Jeff H (QLD) - Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 18:30

Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 18:30
G'day Julie.
Briefly, the crystalline panels show 'splashes' of reflected light from interlocked crystal matrix, while amorphous looks a duller,even surface.
Amorphous can be formed like an ordinary panel, or as a flexable form.
Crystalline tend to greater efficiency at lower temperatures.

We have a crystalline, mounted semi-permanently.
Mate has a couple of amorphous, permanently on an Oka.
Both of us are happy.(I don't have the room to mount amorphous ).
I believe amorphous still perform in partial shade, while crystalline need pretty well full sun. Good luck. JH.
AnswerID: 199725

Follow Up By: silkwood - Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 20:44

Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 20:44
Here we go again, have you done a search? You'll hear from everyone who owns a panel telling you why the one they chose is the best (surprise surprise, just like the fridge argument). Then you'll hear from the "experts who'll talk about valence (they've just googled it to become instant experts, the net's full of them).

Here's my $ 2.50 worth (inflation, and it'll get worse with Global Warming)....

I purchased amorphous silicone (so they MUST BE THE BEST!!;-)). After considerable reading I figured they seemed to be the best option for long stays and high temperatures (as you find in somewhere like..eerrrmm.. Australia!). I have not had anything change my mind on this during many trips.

Amorphous crystalline are less efficient than either poly- or mono-crystalline panels (aout half) and they are larger for the same output and more expensive (sounds good so far...). Amorphous lose very little of their efficiency in temperatures above 25 degrees (C), unlike either PC or MC. Amorphous run (albeit at lower efficiency) much more efficiently at both lower light levels (that means they'll be still producing some energy right until sunset) and in partial shade (PC units are much better at this now, with cell group separation but still not as effective as AC in this regard).

What does this mean? I think if you mainly do longer stays (say over 4-5 days) or mainly camp in hotter conditions, amorphous are still the go.

If you mainly go away for long weekends, don't want to pay the (substantial) premium or can't afford the space, by poly's.

On the other hand, I could be wrong (it has happened before... 1976 I think!)

Cheers,

Mark
0
FollowupID: 458714

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 21:19

Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 21:19
>On the other hand, I could be wrong (it has
>happened before... 1976 I think!)

Once... I thought I was wrong... but I was mistaken....

Mike Harding :)
0
FollowupID: 458718

Follow Up By: Member - MUZBRY (VIC) - Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:38

Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:38
I was wrong once in May 1970 and am still living with her......can't complain coss she lets me go out driving in the bush ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Muzbry
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 458807

Reply By: _gmd_pps - Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 21:12

Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 at 21:12
Site Link

Mono-Crystalline are most efficient but expensive
Poly-Crystalline is best in cost/power ratio
Amorphous is cheaper and less efficient

I use poly crystalline and have more surface space to compensate
when you want maximum effciency for limited space mono-crystalline is the
answer but when I made my research these panels where more than double the
price .. I have the space so I went with the cheaper panel but larger ...

then again you have to look at voltage .. smaller panels do 14-17 volts but most
regulators to no take advantage of voltages above 12 and waste the energy so
the higher efficency gets lost when you do not use a boost regulator and they are more expensive too ...

I use the OutBack Max60 as a regulator which takes advantage of the higher voltage (up to 27V) of my panels and steps it down to 12V battery volatage
but utilising max charge current. But this regulator is expensive and only useful
when you utilise larger panels ..

Depends what you want to run the cheaper panels should do .. typical are
60-80W ..

good luck
gmd

AnswerID: 199741

Follow Up By: silkwood - Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:26

Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:26
Amorphous cheaper? Where? (seriously, I want another panel but amorphous has always been more expensive and larger for the same output.)

Cheers,

Mark
0
FollowupID: 458765

Follow Up By: _gmd_pps - Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:19

Thursday, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:19
you are probably talking Amorphous Thin Film (the flexible ones) .. thats another matter .. they are more expensive and less efficient than crystalline but are lighter

regards
gmd
0
FollowupID: 458810

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)