Comparison of Two Different (Quasi-) Dynamic Testing Methods for the Performance Evaluation of a Linear Fresnel Process Heat Collector

Both methods are briefly described in their conceptual design and theirbasic requirements, revealing their similarities and differences. Each method is then applied to real measurement datafrom an LFC, assessing practicability and identification accuracy. For both methods, the mean absolutedifferencebetween identifiedIAM values and results from ray tracing fell in a range of 0.013-0.017, leading toa similar accuracy inLFC performance evaluation. Differences in optical efficiency between the two methodsare smaller,with anaverage absolutedifferencebelow 0.0098, even whenusing different measurement data and simulation models. Thus the dynamic methodrepresents a good starting point for the further development of an alternative dynamic testing and evaluation method with more flexibility than the current testing standard. This will be significantwhenevaluating large-scale concentrating collectors and collectors with direct steam generation.