Section 1:
So, for perturb and observe algorithm the temperature sensor is not required.
Not required but always desired. It's a good health check and can be used for feed-forward setpoints to help the feedback start near the correct point.
If you turn the switch off in the converter, then the panel is disconnected. The coil will discharge and the battery will not have a load on it from the panel or the converter.Do you think that we need to turn off the mppt charge controller unit and also disconnect the panel? Wouldn't turning off the controller be enough? I think the panel needs to be disconnected so that for some reason battery doesn't get discharged through the panel at night.
The controller should monitor the battery to determine if it is fully charged. The simple thing to do is to disable the converter when the battery is charged. Eventually the load will bring the battery down to a voltage that can tell you to turn the converter back on.First I didn't know that we also need to program the microcontroller to regulate the battery charging. I had thought we only need to track the maximum power point. Now it's clear that mppt charge controller needs two kinds of coding - one to track maximum power point and the other to track the charging of the battery. By the way, I do think that for a school project we can omit battery charge controlling part from the mppt controller and perhaps use some separate IC to protect the battery.
Of course, there are many other ways, but in a school project simple is better. Actually, even in the real world, sometimes simple is better.
It is important to know the battery type and general requirements for charging. A lead acid charging scheme is relatively simple, while a Li-ion would be more involved.I think the only way, at least a simple one, to track charging of a battery is to already know the pattern of battery charging and it's only possible if manufacturer has provided some kind of data like this one.
That is a reasonable thing to say. The cap is needed by the panel, otherwise it can never operate at it's optimum point given that a buck converter has a discontinuous current input with no coil directly on the input, as would be the case for a boost converter (or SEPIC, or Cuk). Also, the Cin helps the converter see a more stable input voltage, which is basically a good thing.I think the capacitor C_in in Figure 2 plays the role of input voltage source for the buck converter and at the same time also functions as dummy load or resistance to the panel.
Remember that temperature can change also, which would change the optimum voltage. A simple feedforward controller could measure temperature and map temperature to voltage setpoint, and then a controller could do feedback to maintain the voltage. But, then you have no project and it might not perform as well as an MPPT controller. Then again, it might, so you could test both methods if you want to (and have the time to) do a better study. I think generally MPPT is thought to be better, but that assumes a good implementation, so testing would verify that your implementation is good, and better than the other way.An mppt charge controller is only programmed to find the maximum power point (ignoring the battery charging algorithm). An mppt only varies the rate of pulse width modulation to the switch such as MOSFET of buck converter to find maximum power point. In Figure 1, it is shown that maximum power point occurs at the same voltage for several curves. Perhaps, in reality this is not really true and maximum power point occurs at slightly different voltage values. But I would say the difference between those real voltage values won't be too much because if it were then the output voltage will vary. But as it is evident from the linked video above, the output voltage doesn't change. So, what do we conclude from this? My first conclusion would be that maximum power point occurs at roughly same voltage. My second observation would be that during search for maximum power point output voltage continuously varies because the rate of pulse width modulation is constantly changed.
Section 3:
When P_new is less than P_old then according to the flowchart the duty cycle is decreased. To me decreasing the duty cycle would mean that the charge on capacitor would increase and hence more voltage on it. Let's say P_new is the green point "A" in the power figure. To get back to maximum power point, the capacitor needs to lose some of its charge and hence voltage on it, and for this duty cycle needs to be increased and not decreased, so that the charge can get more time to flow toward the output load. Where do I have it wrong?
When P_new is greater than P_old then according to the flowchart P_old is updated with P_new and duty cycle is increased. Again, it seems kinda contradictory to me. Let's say P_new is red point "C" in the power figure and P_old is the blue point "B". Clearly P_old should be updated with P_new but I don't see why duty cycle should be increased. In my view duty cycle should either be held constant or decreased so that more charge can accumulate in capacitor which will raise it voltage. Where am I going wrong?
I think that if the new power is greater, you want to keep the duty cycle at it's new value and not continue on in the same direction yet. On the next step, the controller can figure out if continuing is a good idea. If the new power is less, then go back to the old duty cycle. This is a nice simple method, but obviously there are many other methods, including fuzzy logic control.
So basically, you can step one way and then the other if power is not improving. If power is improving you will move in the correct direction.