Ebay solar

Hi Graham,

Here are the panel specs.

# Technical Data
# Nominal Power 80w
# Nominal maxium output voltage 17.6v
# Nominal maxium output current 5.01amp
# Open circuit Voltage 21.8v
# Short circuit current 5.83amp
# Diamentions (tolerance +4/-1mm) 1210 x 540
# Thickness (tolerance +1/-1mm) 28mm
# Weight 19kgs
# Packing 2pcs/ctn
# Size 125 x 11.7 x 62.5cm
# Type of Solar cells Monocrystalline 125mm x 125mm
# Connection box with bypass diodes 90cm leading cable
# Temperature
# Power -0.47% c
# Open circuit voltage -0.38% c
# Short circuit current +0.10% c
# Limits
# Max System voltage 1000Voc
# Opening module Temp -40 ...... +90 c
# Max Load 5400N/M2
# Tolearance +5% - 5%

The main thing to look for is the MANUFACTURER'S name !!!

After all the manufacturer nominates the warranty and conditions, not the supplier.


I notice the "Nominal maxium output current 5.01 amp" is rated much higher than a 'BP 80 watt' panel which from memory is only ~4.8 Amps by comparison, the person who buys on untested (technical) information would say it must be a much better Solar panel than the BP panel ??

Maîneÿ . . .

Mainey
Less than 5% is bugga all for a comparison.
A light cloud cover would give a bigger difference than that !!

Yes, I agree with what you have posted !!!

However, the information states the 'unknown' panel is rated even higher than a BP Solar panel.
This indicates the 'unknown' panel is superior to a BP panel - doesn't it ?

As to "light cloud cover" I can't agree with you here, "light cloud cover" will very often, if not most often, INCREASE the Amps available not decrease Amps, with the better quality Solar panels that opperate very well in low light conditions.

Maîneÿ . . .

Best I can make out is the manufacturer might be KLT. Have done a bit of searching but can't come up with a manufacturer's site only reference to them.

Mandrake you have the choice to not respond to posts where you have a conflict of interest so if you don't want to be moderated please don't promote your business interests. If however you become a Business Member you are more than welcome to respond in the manner in which you have done in this and in other posts.

Cheers David and Michelle - I shall from henceforth be silent in regards to all things Solar Powered .. I cannot afford the Business Membership and am not sure if the benefit outweighs the cost anyway - A silent member I shall be ..

Rgds

Mandrake aka Steve ..

Include a few dobs of pelican poop smeared across them or a couple of 10cm x 10cm pieces of card to see how well they go in partial shade.

Is difficult to obtain fresh poop, so should be a simple test of "low light" performance, not 'nil' light performance, because we all know (don't we) Solar panels won't work when not exposed to the sun.

Maîneÿ . . .

Reed wot i rit.

A *couple* of small pieces of card, or a *few* dobs of excrement.

To simulate the effects of partial shading that completely interrupts the current from some panels.

We all know about that problem, don't we ???

Rolly,
that's why I made the point of stating:
"Have 3 or 4 panels laying flat, all tested simultaneously in *ALL* light conditions not just for maximum Amps available"

I don't see any real or even perceived benefit in testing a Solar panel under conditions where we are already aware there will be no realistic current delivered by some elcheapo panels.

After all, I did post the test is for the amount of current produced in "low light conditions" being early morning and late afternoon (not the peak Solar performance times)

Maybe a shade test could also be organized at the same time, using a tree to give realistic results that could truly be expected when camping, as I'm sure some would be pretty 'upset' if they found "a *couple* of small pieces of card" sitting on the surface of there Solar panel in the middle of nowhere, that would be unrealistic.

Yes, obviously some may know the problem of 'shading' more than others !!

Maîneÿ . . .