## 5 System Simulation and Results Analysis
### Experimental Data and Analysis  
An impedance matching experimental platform based on the above analysis is shown in Figure 13, demonstrating the scientific narrative. Figure 12: Impedance matching under different K inputs. Table 1 presents experimental data obtained under different coupling coefficient K values, where Ib* and \(\eta\)* represent the experimental data, and Ib and \(\eta\) represent the simulation data. Ib represents the tracked current through the output resistance and \(\eta\) represents the transmission efficiency. These results are shown in the table below. After consolidating the data, the current error graph and efficiency error graph for the seven coupling coefficient K values are shown in Figure 14.  
A comparison of experimental and theoretical results reveals a certain degree of deviation. Among the reasons for this are the neglect of high-frequency radiation losses in theoretical calculations, the fact that the system's self-resonant frequency is not always equal to the coil's inherent frequency, and the precision with which distances are controlled between transmitting and receiving coils. However, both the tracked current and transmission efficiency have offsets within a range of 92-95%, indicating the system's good tracking optimization. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**K** & **I\({}_{\text{b}}\)*/A** & **I\({}_{\text{b}}\)/A** & **\(\eta\)*** & \(\eta\) \\ \hline
0.30 & 0.391 & 0.402 & 0.811 & 0.841 \\
0.32 & 0.396 & 0.406 & 0.806 & 0.837 \\
0.34 & 0.401 & 0.411 & 0.801 & 0.832 \\
0.36 & 0.407 & 0.418 & 0.797 & 0.827 \\
0.38 & 0.412 & 0.422 & 0.791 & 0.822 \\
0.40 & 0.418 & 0.429 & 0.786 & 0.818 \\
0.42 & 0.421 & 0.436 & 0.782 & 0.815 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Experimental results. Figure 13: Impedance matching experimental platform. To comprehensively assess the optimal efficiency tracking performance of the proposed system in this study, a comparative analysis was conducted with three relevant literature sources. Key areas of focus included impedance matching circuits, optimal efficiency tracking control methodologies, load response time, variations in coupling coefficients, changes in load resistance, and power levels. Our comparative findings are summarized in the table below. The comparative analysis of the literature is presented in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Literature**} & **Impedance** & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Optimal Efficiency** \\ **Tracking Control** \\ **Methods** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Load Response Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Overall Efficiency**} \\  & **Matching Circuits** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Tracking Control** & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Verations in** & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Verations in** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{This paper} & Both modes employ & Adjusting the & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & buck conversion & converter duty cycle & Approximately 170 ms & Approximately 160 ms & Approximately 80.2\% \\ \cline{3-5}  & circuits & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[24]} & With a buck-boost & Adjusting the & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & conversion circuit in & converter duty cycle & Approximately 180 ms & Approximately 150 ms & Approximately 80\% \\ \cline{3-5}  & DCM mode & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[25]} & With a buck-boost & Adjusting the & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & conversion circuit in & converter duty cycle & Approximately 800 ms & Approximately 600 ms & Approximately 80\% \\ \cline{3-5}  & CCM mode & in CCM mode & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[26]} & Along with a T-type & \multicolumn{3}{c}{The tuning of the} & \multirow{3}{*}{Approximately 200 ms} & \multirow{3}{*}{Approximately 800 ms} & \multirow{3}{*}{Approximately 800 ms} \\  & passive impedance & matching network’s & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & matching circuit & inductance and & & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & capacitance values & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative analysis of the literature. Figure 14: Current error and Efficiency error graph.