Now in my meager understandings in this area, I thought the 1000watts per square meter is defined as a narrow "1 nm bandwith" of sunlight and is "a measuring standard" not the full power falling on the surface of the Earth. (The bands defined from below 400nm to 1700nm.)
The test measurement is partially described as; "The ASTM G173 spectra represent terrestrial solar spectral irradiance on a surface of specified orientation under one and only one set of specifed atmospheric conditions. These distributions of power (watts per square meter per nanometer of bandwidth) as a function of wavelength provide a single common reference for evaluating spectrally selective PV materials with respect to performance measured under varying natural and artifical sources of light with various spectral distributions..." " So, if a panel absorbs multiple bands and is more efficient, as DBK seem to have resolved thru engineering, then there is more power. I also saw mentioned they work well in low light? (might be poor rcall on my part.) Now I am not an expert here, but the wiki says the power per square centimeter is 230 watts: "One sun" is a measurement equal to the solar power incident at noon on a clear summer day. I.e. in a 2300 sun system, approximately 230 watts per square centimeter are concentrated onto the cell system.[14] Does the Additional multiple junction solar technology not tend to be far higher in production that the normal 15%? DBK claims Five levels. I will ask DBK this directly... FYI -here is a chart of all current peak outputs for various technologies for solar cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PVeff%28rev110707%29d.jpg Brian Prothro -----Original Message----- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Re: 70% solar panels 1/ Making use of 70% of wavelengths doesn't mean 70% efficient! 2/ From the details you provide it seems that the panel has an embarked battery, which is fed by the ~200 W solar cells, and which is feeding a 3kW inverter. This allows them to claim 3kW for the panel, which indeed it can provide, but of course not more than 200/3000 = 7% of the full insolation time as they conveniently forget to specify. They probably hope some people will be gullible enough to believe it can provide 3kW full time, while receiving only 1.3kW solar irradiation! I see no reason why the product can't be a good one BTW, apart from the misleading way in which they present it. Michel
