## 4 Results and Discussion
### Effect of Hot Water Setting Temperature
The flow rate of generator hot water  
The effect of generator setting temperature with 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C collector set point temperature is displayed in Figure 12. It was seen that the rise of generator set point temperature decreased the solar heat, i.e., useful heat of the collector went down by 11.8% as the setting temperature of the generators went up by 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This was attributed to the enhanced generator set point temperature increasing the bottom layer temperature of the storage tanks. Thereby, the rise of collector inlet temperature lowered the amount of solar heat. However, the COP of absorption subsystem grew with the enhancement of generator setting temperature except when the set point temperature of the generator exceeded 85 \({}^{\circ}\)C. It was shown that the COP of the absorption subsystem rose by 10.1% as the generator setting temperature went up from 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 85 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The above-mentioned phenomenon was attributed to the influence of increased generator hot water temperature surpassing the one of decreased flow rate. Accordingly, there was an optimal setting temperature of the generator that maximized the cooling power of absorption subsystems. It was derived that the optimal generator set point temperature was 75 \({}^{\circ}\)C when the setting temperature of the collector outlet was 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Additionally, the cooling output of absorption subsystems with 75 \({}^{\circ}\)C generator setting temperature was 13.6% more than that in the 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C one. In general, appropriate improvement of generator set point temperature was beneficial for the solar cooling though the amount of solar heat went down slightly. Figure 11: Impact of setting temperature of collector outlet. The monthly energy savings of SASCHCS for different setting temperatures of the collector outlet are shown in Figure 13. It was noted that the set point temperature of the generator was 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C. As expected, it was observed that the higher the cooling capacity of absorption subsystems was, the higher the energy saving of hybrid systems became from the August data. It was demonstrated that qualitative trends of energy saving with collector set point temperature based on different monthly data were similar. Furthermore, the energy saving trends were independent from the set point temperature of the collector as the collector setting temperature was higher than 85 \({}^{\circ}\)C for April, May, and June (months with low and moderate solar irradiance). This was illustrated by the fact that the hot water could not be heated to such excessively high temperatures by the weak solar irradiance, and even its flow rate was reduced to the minimal one. This also implied that the set point temperature of the collector outlet below 85 \({}^{\circ}\)C was effective for the hot water control from April to June. Moreover, the excessive enhancement of the collector setting temperature lowered the performance of SASCHCS, i.e., the monthly energy savings of May and June only fell by 7.6% and 7.9%, respectively. The above-mentioned effect became notable for the months with strong solar irradiance. For example, the monthly energy savings of July, August, September, and October came down by 15%, 10.7%, 10.1%, and 11%, respectively, if the collector setting temperature grew from 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 105 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
Figure 12: Impact of set point temperature of generator inlet. Figure 13: Energy saving for different collector setting temperatures. The monthly energy savings of SASCHCS for different setting temperatures of the generator inlet are exhibited in Figure 14. It is noteworthy that the collector set point temperature was 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The energy savings with set point temperature of the generator were quadratic in the entire period.