# Solar generation under reporting **URL:** \ **Category:** Emoncms\ **Tags:** emoncms\ **Created:** [16 May 2018 06:21 UTC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/solar-generation-under-reporting/7426 "2018-05-16T06:21:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![Robert.Wall](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/user_avatar/community.openenergymonitor.org/robert.wall/32/38246_2.png) [@Robert.Wall](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/u/Robert.Wall)\ **Post date:** [18 May 2018 00:30 UTC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/solar-generation-under-reporting/7426/3 "2018-05-18T00:30:57Z")
> [@ebf](#): > > Is this within the realms of acceptable accuracy? What are you asking? If it’s acceptable to you, then obviously the answer is ‘yes’. There’s an article in ‘Learn’ that gives the worst-case accuracy that you can expect, and what you’re seeing is a lot better than that. I recently tried to do a ‘Monte Carlo’ analysis of the input circuitry, reported here: [OpenEnergyMonitor 9th of March 2018 meeting summary](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/openenergymonitor-9th-of-march-2018-meeting-summary/6847) which seems to indicate that your particular set of parts have conspired against the rules of probability. 😁 If you’re using an emonPi/emonBase, you can tweak the `scales = ` coefficients in emonHub to adjust the recorded data to agree with your inverter. But bear in mind that c.t.'s are inherently inaccurate at low currents. --- _[View the full topic](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/solar-generation-under-reporting/7426)._