## 4 Results and Discussion
### Real Load Test  
In the last part of the experiment, the system was tested using real loads. The purpose was to verify the viability of the proposed system in real applications. Firstly, the output of the MLI was connected to incandescent light bulbs rated at 300 W. The output waveforms for both voltage and current are shown in Figure 17 with their respective FFT analysis. The behaviour of the incandescent bulb load was found to be very similar to that of the pure R load. This is because the incandescent bulb is nearly entirely resistive due to the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Load** \\ **(f)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Source Power (W)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{P}_{\text{in}}\) (W)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{V}_{\text{inv}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**pf**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{P}_{\text{inv}}\) (W)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{THDv/i}\) (\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{\eta}\) (\%)} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{8-11}  & & & & & & & & (V\({}_{\text{rms}}\)) & & & (W) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{476} & S & 14.45 & 8.722 & 51.23 & 39.38 & 113.78 & 231.1 & 1.00 & 112.34 & 3.89/3.89 & 98.74 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 15.10 & 8.692 & 51.40 & 39.45 & 114.65 & 230.1 & 1.00 & 111.37 & 3.7/3.2 & 97.14 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{156} & S & 43.87 & 26.45 & 155.4 & 119.1 & 344.86 & 231.0 & 1.00 & 342.57 & 3.87/3.87 & 99.34 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 45.89 & 26.69 & 158.7 & 122.1 & 353.42 & 231.1 & 1.00 & 342.95 & 3.7/3.4 & 97.04 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{99} & S & 69.16 & 41.69 & 244.9 & 187.7 & 543.51 & 230.9 & 1.00 & 540.54 & 3.87/3.87 & 99.45 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 68.77 & 43.61 & 247.4 & 190.8 & 550.59 & 229.7 & 1.00 & 534.97 & 3.6/3.2 & 97.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Simulation (S) and experimental (E) tests of the full system with 17 L inverter under R load. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Load** \\ **(f)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Source Power (W)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**P\({}_{\text{in}}\) (W)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**pf**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{P}_{\text{inv}}\) (W)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**THDv/i** (\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\text{\eta}\) (\%)} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{8-11}  & & & & & & & & (V\({}_{\text{rms}}\)) & & & (W) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{599–211} & S & 5.160 & 3.100 & 18.38 & 14.17 & 40.810 & 231.1 & 0.66 & 39.64 & 3.89/0.28 & 97.13 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 5.290 & 3.030 & 18.53 & 14.02 & 40.880 & 231.3 & 0.66 & 39.84 & 3.5/0.8 & 97.46 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{168–0.33} & S & 29.66 & 17.77 & 105.2 & 80.59 & 233.21 & 231.1 & 0.86 & 231.94 & 3.88/0.38 & 99.45 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 30.16 & 18.31 & 105.8 & 80.48 & 234.13 & 230.2 & 0.86 & 230.24 & 3.7/1.8 & 98.34 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{103–0.095} & S & 61.07 & 36.60 & 216.5 & 165.8 & 479.95 & 230.9 & 0.96 & 478.13 & 3.87/0.58 & 99.62 \\ \cline{2-11}  & E & 61.97 & 38.75 & 220.7 & 170.1 & 491.50 & 230.5 & 0.96 & 476.64 & 3.7/1.2 & 96.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Simulation (S) and experimental (E) tests of the full system with 17 L inverter under RL loads. absence of external inductive or capacitive elements. There is still some reactance due to the construction of the bulb and its filament, but they are very insignificant. Thus, the voltage and current waveforms still produced comparable THD values. The system was then tested using another type of real load, which is the fluorescent light bulb. Theoretically, fluorescent lights are nonlinear and are also very inductive due to the presence of magnetic ballast. The output voltage and current waveforms obtained using the fluorescent light load combination with the theoretical rated power of 120 W each are shown in Figure 18, along with their respective FFT analysis. As can be seen, the current did not have a pure sinusoidal waveform shape and appeared more triangular in shape even though its pf was very low. The pf, in this case, was 0.41 lagging.