Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #08512
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:00:38 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: silicon VS SunCeram
adam-m wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Suncerams do perform better in lower light levels than monocrystalline, i've
> done tests.
Can you show me the results? My testing shows the opposite to be true, but
I can easily see from the V/I curves that this is a load-dependant question.
>
> Nasa uses monocrystalline because of their higher output under bright
> conditions - it never rains in space... Its a matter of hourses for
> courses, the environment i place my bots in is rarely outside - or in
> space - so the amorphous ones are a better fit.
Actually, the light on Mars is much dimmer than on Earth. Full sun on Mars
falls within the range of some room lighting. If SunCerams were more efficient
under these conditions, why does NASA use silicon cells there?
> If you are so taken by monocrystalline PV cells, make a bot with them and
> tell us how it works.
I have built several bots with both types of cells. I have told you how mine
work.
> PS - Voyager, NASA's most distant explorer uses a reactor for it's power,
> not PV cells.
True. But all PV powered NASA craft use silicon cells rather than SunCeram type
cells.
Simply show me a SunCeram that delivers the same wattage as a silicon cell of
the same
surface area.
Home