I am having a structure erected for my 10 x 600W Canadian solar panels connecting to a Sunsynk 8Kw.

Facing NNW approx.

Panels specs VoC 41.3 , IsC 18.47

MPPT specs 125V - 425V

Unfortunately at this time of the year the panels 1,2,3 in my diagram will be shaded for about 45 minutes at midday.

Would it be better to put panels 1 to 4 on one string to MPPT 2 and 6 on MPPT 1 or just put all 10 on one string? Or maybe 5 on each MPPT?

What would be the better solution?

 

Go with 5 on each MPPT as the shading will reduce that strings' performance. So if only 1of the MPPT is compromised the other can carry on 

7 hours ago, Thunderdolt said:

Panels specs VoC 41.3 , IsC 18.47

I also don’t think 10 on one string would be advisable as you’re going to exceed the MPPT max voltage and margin. 10 panels give a Voc of around 500V (I think the spec you quote is the Vmp, not the Voc…). That would effectively limit you to 9 panels on a string unless you split them into the two MPPTs. 

These larger Wattage panels do have a lower Voc, and a high  Isc, so 10 on a string will be OK, and the 8.8 kW SunSynk can handle the current.

As @mzezman suggests try 5 per MPPT, and see how that works for a bit. If you are a DIY, after a week try all 10 on 1 MPPT. Compare the difference and then decide.

Another option is to cut down the offending shade. 😂

Ah right, I did a cursory google and found various sites saying the Voc for that panel is 49.9V ( online vendors as well as solardesigntool.com).

But just read the specs off the C Solar website product sheet and indeed, the Voc is quite low and 10 panels in series no problem. 👍🏻

10 hours ago, TimCam said:

Another option is to cut down the offending shade. 😂

I wish I could, it has taken me an age to determine the best position to build a structure due to ideal roofs (3 of) being shaded extensively by huge trees on the surrounding properties which will cost an arm and a leg to fell and neighbours are not co-operative, wanting to retain the trees for which I am actually in sympathy with as the trees are mainly indigenous and magnificent.

Property buying tip No.1 ...Look at the shading before wasting time looking at the house.....LOL

13 minutes ago, Thunderdolt said:

Property buying tip No.1 ...Look at the shading before wasting time looking at the house.....LOL

Tip no 2: Trees grow.

6 minutes ago, GreenFields said:

Tip no 2: Trees grow.

I am cutting branches nearly every week. Trees just grow faster than suits me. Problem children on 3 sides. 😊

9 minutes ago, Scorp007 said:

I am cutting branches nearly every week. Trees just grow faster than suits me. Problem children on 3 sides. 😊

You know then! 🤣

3 hours ago, Thunderdolt said:

I wish I could, it has taken me an age to determine the best position to build a structure due to ideal roofs (3 of) being shaded extensively by huge trees on the surrounding properties which will cost an arm and a leg to fell and neighbours are not co-operative, wanting to retain the trees for which I am actually in sympathy with as the trees are mainly indigenous and magnificent.

Property buying tip No.1 ...Look at the shading before wasting time looking at the house.....LOL

I have always taken the point of view that if anything overgrows my property, I can cut it back for any reason I like. Neatness of appearance, making a mess on my lawn, shade, whatever. But the law says that I have any sort of plant on my property, it is incumbent on me to address any reasonable complaints from neighbours about a nuisance that results.

There are papers you will find via a google that record court cases between neighbours. As a bare minimum the court will require that the request be on reasonable grounds, that the plaintiff approached the other party and tried to have a civil discussion, and that the plaintiff can prove on balance of probability (as it will be a civil case) that the trees/shrubs are the cause of the problem.

30 minutes ago, Bobster. said:

I have always taken the point of view that if anything overgrows my property, I can cut it back for any reason I like. Neatness of appearance, making a mess on my lawn, shade, whatever. But the law says that I have any sort of plant on my property, it is incumbent on me to address any reasonable complaints from neighbours about a nuisance that results.

There are papers you will find via a google that record court cases between neighbours. As a bare minimum the court will require that the request be on reasonable grounds, that the plaintiff approached the other party and tried to have a civil discussion, and that the plaintiff can prove on balance of probability (as it will be a civil case) that the trees/shrubs are the cause of the problem.

I doubt that spoiling one's view is a valid reason but having a financial loss due to shade would that be a valid reason obvious within reason without cutting the tree down but just trimming?