## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Before Lamination**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**After Lamination**} \\ \hline
**Spacing** **[cm]** & **Isc** **[A]** & **Voc** **[V]** & **FF** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** & **Pm** **[A]** & **Isc** **[V]** & **Vc** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** & **Pm** **[W]** \\ \hline
0.2 & 1.83 & 11.12 & 77.41 & 19.68 & 15.75 & 1.79 & 11.11 & 77.4 & 19.23 & 15.39 \\ \hline
0.5 & 1.83 & 11.12 & 77.48 & 19.70 & 15.76 & 1.81 & 11.11 & 77.51 & 19.48 & 15.59 \\ \hline
1 & 1.83 & 11.12 & 77.51 & 19.71 & 15.77 & 1.82 & 11.12 & 77.41 & 19.56 & 15.66 \\ \hline
2 & 1.87 & 11.13 & 77.64 & 20.12 & 16.10 & 1.83 & 11.12 & 77.48 & 19.70 & 15.77 \\ \hline
4 & 1.90 & 11.14 & 77.72 & 20.55 & 16.45 & 1.83 & 11.12 & 77.57 & 19.73 & 15.79 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Definition: Isc: Short-circuit current, Voc: Open-circuit voltage, FF: Fill factor, Eff: Efficiency, Pm: Maximum output.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulated results for strings with different spacings. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Before Lamination**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**After Lamination**} \\ \hline
**Spacing** **[cm]** & **String No.** & **Isc** **[A]** & **Voc** **[V]** & **FF** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** & **String No.** & **Isc** **[A]** & **Voc** **[V]** & **FF** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** \\ \hline  & 1 & 1.882 & 11.132 & 75.3 & 19.703 & 1 & 1.838 & 11.027 & 74.8 & 18.947 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 2 & 1.880 & 11.138 & 75.5 & 19.747 & 2 & 1.849 & 11.036 & 75.0 & 19.138 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 3 & 1.862 & 11.127 & 75.9 & 19.647 & 3 & 1.845 & 11.016 & 75.0 & 19.045 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 4 & 1.873 & 11.117 & 75.7 & 19.707 & 4 & 1.851 & 11.012 & 75.5 & 19.222 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Output characteristics of fabricated module based on the spacing between shingled strings (spacing 0.2 cm). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Before Lamination**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**After Lamination**} \\ \hline
**Spacing** **[cm]** & **String No.** & **Isc** **[A]** & **Voc** **[V]** & **FF** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** & **String No.** & **Isc** **[A]** & **Voc** **[V]** & **FF** **[\%]** & **Eff** **[\%]** \\ \hline  & 5 & 1.872 & 11.140 & 75.6 & 19.704 & 5 & 1.873 & 11.034 & 74.7 & 19.294 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 6 & 1.873 & 11.117 & 75.5 & 19.65 & 6 & 1.864 & 10.999 & 74.9 & 19.188 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 7 & 1.878 & 11.124 & 75.6 & 19.739 & 7 & 1.869 & 10.994 & 74.8 & 19.215 \\ \cline{2-11}  & 8 & 1.873 & 11.133 & 75.8 & 19.745 & 8 & 1.875 & 11.009 & 75.0 & 19.347 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Output characteristics of fabricated module based on the spacing between shingled strings (spacing 0.5 cm). Table 4 shows the output characteristics of the string. At spacing of 1 cm, the shunt current showed higher values than before lamination. The shunt current increased by 0.3% compared with before lamination. The efficiency decreased by an average of 0.28%. At a spacing of 2 cm, the efficiency of the laminated string increased compared with that of the non-laminated string, as shown in Table 5. After lamination, the string exhibited a 0.29% efficiency increase. On average, the shunt current of each string increased by 2.9%, and the open-circuit voltage exhibited characteristics similar to those of the previous string spacing. In the case of 4 cm spacing, Table 6, the highest efficiency increase was observed. The efficiency increased by 0.58%, and the shunt current increased by approximately 5%. Overall, as the string spacing increased, the short-circuit current increased accordingly. The change in average power output before and after lamination decreased by \(-\)0.485 W at a 0.2 cm string spacing, \(-\)0.323 W at 0.5 cm, and \(-\)0.257 W at 1 cm, but increased by 0.185 W at 2 cm and 0.453 W at 4 cm. Typically, due to cell-to-module (CTM) losses that occur when solar cells are modularized, the output should decrease.