On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:32:54 +0000, Ian Malcolm
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:45:41 +0000, Ian Malcolm
wrote:


Geoff Schultz wrote:

You can't produce more power
than the panels are generating.


Larry wrote:

Ok, here's a little electricity for everyone....

Geoff Schultz wrote:

Thank you Professor Larry for the edification. I always enjoy it when
this forum is used to exchange information instead of throwing barbs at
one another.

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Unfortunately the information is wrong.

Well without any references or explanation and as an anonymous poster,
your word isnt worth anything near as much as if it was printed out on
used toilet paper . .



You mean you would like me to post references to the equivalent
circuit AGAIN?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...13bf8612?hl=en

If people did some homework instead of making wrong assumptions before
posting them as fact, there would be less BS.

Didnt show up here, first I saw was you saying 'assume what you like'.
Obviously Google has it so I suspect its a USENET propagation issue at
the european end. Anyway the problem with quoting Wikis is some @sshole
usually vandelises them mid discussion, Its always advisable to go back
to original sources or Wikipedia gets further damaged :-(

Never mind the "problem with Wikis" or that my "word isnt worth
anything near as much as if it was printed out on used toilet paper"
or that I am a Goofball, Wikipedia® and I are correct and the rest of
you were wrong. Does it matter? No, although anybody in The World(tm)
can read Usenet, nobody does.. Just fun to observe people twist and
turn.


I do see where you are coming from, as both myself and Larry made the
obvious but incorrect assumption that a PV panel could be modelled
adequately as a controlled voltage source. It was labelled as an
assumption and an approximation, i.e. a simplification, NOT A FACT.

Yes but it is not an approximation, it was totally wrong and useless
not "useful" at all.


As
it happens, the only effect that correcting that has is to move the
modelled MPP for the better panels above the charging voltage of a Lead
acid battery. This means a small simplification in the topology of the
switching converter. A closed loop converter based on the simplistic
analysis would soon settle within a few percent of the MPP anyway so the
results would be almost identical.

The MPP is light and temperature sensitive. The quoted patent states
that they sample the open circuit volage and apply an offset to arrive
at the (instantaneous MPP)

You get what you pay for on USENET,
and neither of us were being offered any beer coupons :-) Now what
point were you trying to make?

"Shut up if you don't know the answer" ?

Tying to stomp BS offseason just gets you covered in sh!t and sprays it
all over the place. ;-) Lighten up. At least this isnt a political thread.

Here is a new link for you:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...391&RS=6111391
or http://tinyurl.com/yobfz3

And of what use is that link?

Well the OP wrote:
"I am considering purchasing a Blue Sky Energy Solar Boost 2000E
controller (regulator) to use with my solar panels. The manufacturer
claims an increase in current power of 30%"

Larry inferred that the claims were close to perpetual motion.

Oh, the link is a link to a patent for that particular product which
explains its operation and shows it is not pure snake oil or perpetual
motion.

See: http://www.blueskyenergyinc.com/pdf/...Ldatasheet.pdf


If you can muster the patience to wade
through their claims, you find there is nothing new under the sun there.
They've tried to claim a unique application to gasoline powered
motorhomes. The Saudis were installing MPPT panel arrays on a large
scale back in the early 80's (lots of cash, lots of sun) so there is a
hell of a lot of 'prior art'
That patent *might* be usefull as toilet paper . . .

The link I found has usable Spice models so if one grabs a copy of
SwitcherCad (google it) the rest is just tedious engeneering . . .

A diode is a diode.