approximate loss wise correct. But… that assumes the panels (if multiple panels are connected) are connected in parallel and not all in series. If connected in series, all the panels would be affected by the 10/20% loss in your example the same way even if a single panel was shaded.
If panels are connected in parallel, only the panel with the shading would be affected. But…(and this but is even a bigger but) you are limited by the amperage input limit to about 1.5 panels (Depending on what sogen you are charging) connected in parallel so they will have to be connected in series.
You will still have better partial shading operations because the entire string is still limited to the % of shading where as as non PV panel string wound cut off a large % of their potential if a small portion of one panel was shaded.
Great video. Demonstrates well the shading issue and difference between the two series. The PV200 is a great panel to use in single configuration with the smaller to mid size sogens for that reason.
I was unable to use all three of my SP200 panels to charge the EB240 because of over voltage on a relatively sunny afternoon. I had to cut back to two, which at the time meant I wouldn’t be likely to get a full charge during available daylight.
My AC200P takes them like a champ.
That said, overall I prefer the form factor, simplicity, significantly extended run time, weight, and portability of the EB240. I’m glad I have ‘em both though.
Thanks. Yes, I know. I was pointing that out for the benefit of jgorran who has three 200W panels and is exploring tradeoffs between AC200P and EB240. While in many ways I prefer the EB240, being only able to use two panels makes charge time prohibitively long. It seems that I need to consider a serial/parallel configuration, perhaps with four panels. I haven’t given it enough thought so far.
