What you are not taking into consideration is the way that an MPPT CC works. Rather than appearing to the panels as a constant resistance load, instead each CC will try changing its effective resistance until it finds the point where it *alone*, since it has no information about the other CC, is getting the most power from the panels.
When two CCs are in parallel and one CC tries to draw more current, letting the voltage drop correspondingly, to see if it gets more power from the panels, it will see that it is getting more, since it is stealing power from the second CC. When both battery banks need charging, the two CCs must share what is a constant, limited amount of power from the panels. So if one CC tries to draw more, by dropping its input voltage, the other will fight back by dropping its own input voltage. The result of this will either be the voltage and current point of the panel output bouncing up and down and the power draw bouncing back and forth between the two CCs.
In the worst case, both CCs will go to the lowest possible voltage in their MPPT range, and will therefore be wasting half or more of the available panel power.
When two CCs are in parallel and one CC tries to draw more current, letting the voltage drop correspondingly, to see if it gets more power from the panels, it will see that it is getting more, since it is stealing power from the second CC. When both battery banks need charging, the two CCs must share what is a constant, limited amount of power from the panels. So if one CC tries to draw more, by dropping its input voltage, the other will fight back by dropping its own input voltage. The result of this will either be the voltage and current point of the panel output bouncing up and down and the power draw bouncing back and forth between the two CCs.
In the worst case, both CCs will go to the lowest possible voltage in their MPPT range, and will therefore be wasting half or more of the available panel power.
Comment