PowerFilm 20 Watt Foldable vs. FTL/Ascent Solar 20 Watt Foldable

We tested our 20 watt foldable against the new FTL foldable 20 watt (using Ascent Solar CIGS technology) to see how they match up - same day, same conditions.

Interesting results, especially comparing the panel we shot full of holes in a previous video.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• PowerFilm
• Solar
• CIGS
• technology
• environment
• electronics

[platinum243125]

@Fadsmashers Can it charge a gaming laptop or a smart phone?

[Fadsmashers]

@amyandjusty Its twice as big, not three times no need to exaggerate...

[Fadsmashers]

For those saying the powerfilm is bigger you have no idea what youre talking about, it can be folded down to a convenient carrying size. Unlike that big bulky 4 panel design which would be hard to get in a pack without damaging the powerfilm models fit everywhere, I just got mine in the mail and it kicks immense ass. Super light weight and very versatile as for its functionality its straight pro.

[MrSequimmy]

@amyandjusty

Clearly you did not read what I wrote below.I measured the relative sizes of the modules using the mounting mesh.To produce the same power, the Asc. module would need 1.46 times larger area.Using the squares of the mounting mesh to measure rel.& approx. aperture+true border area (no flap),the PF is 306 squares,and the Asc. is 180 sqrs.,so an Asc. with the same 19.26W would be 1.46x180=263 sqrs.Hence the Asc. is only 1.16 times (16%) more efficient. Do the meas'ts from the video!

[amyandjusty]

This video clearly shows that ascent's module is superior to the powerfilm module. In this video the powerfilm module is roughly 3X as large as the ascent module so it's not surprising to anyone that it would produce more watts (which the video doesn't address). Ascent's module is clearly more efficient in terms of size and output. In other words, if the video had depicted an ascent module of the same size as the powerfilm module it would have been more efficient. Also, keep in mind that ascent

[MrSequimmy]

Re:efficiency comparison.The nom. 20W PF module is larger. But in this test here it delivers 19.26W, while the nom. 20W Asc.module delivers 13.20W. To produce the same power as the PF module, the Asc. module would have to be 19.26/13.20=1.46 times larger area.Using the squares of the mounting mesh to measure rel.& approx. aperture+true border area, the PF is 17x18=306 squares, and the Asc. is 20x9=180 squares,so an Asc. with the same 19.26W would be 263 squares. 306/263=1.16 Asc./PF Eff.Ratio.

[n0hr]

PowerFilm clearly wins this test. The PowerFilm unit is more efficient and has a far better design - which is why the US military chooses it (not Ascent) for many field applications.

Keep putting out great products PowerFilm.

[MrJAF619]

ascent has a much better efficiency look at how much bigger the powerfilm Ascents efficiency is clearly better