## 4 Discussion
In this case, parasitic resistances, capacitances, and inductances will have a significant effect on the dynamic response of the output voltage and current. Again, the greater the number of adopted simplifications, the greater the divergence between the experimental response of the converter and that simulated by the models. This is clearly seen in the comparison between the dynamic responses of the experimental converter and the models, as shown in Figure 7. In particular, the overvoltage and overcurrent in the real case reached 6.81% and 4.00% respectively, compared to the 6.05% and 5.28% achieved by DM (Figure 7b) and 5.75% and 5.95% achieved by RM (Figure 7d), which were both very similar. However, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RMSE**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RMSE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Developed Model**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Ideal Model**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Reference Model**} \\  & & & **(DM)** & & & **(IM)** & & **(RM)** & \\ \cline{2-10}  & & & **RMSE** & **MAE** & **MAPE** & **RMSE** & **MAE** & **RMSE** & **MAE** & **MAPE** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \(v_{R}\) & 8.625 & 1.468 & 1.722 & 30.20 & 24.87 & 11.456 & 11.89 & 7.939 & 3.982 \\  & \(i_{R}\) & 0.119 & 0.055 & 2.680 & 0.407 & 0.347 & 13.291 & 0.174 & 0.136 & 5.636 \\  & \(v_{R}\) & 2.517 & 1.344 & 1.034 & 21.55 & 20.76 & 10.973 & 7.770 & 7.020 & 2.507 \\  & \(i_{R}\) & 0.064 & 0.059 & 2.507 & 0.310 & 0.302 & 13.138 & 0.136 & 0.130 & 5.618 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Developed and reference model comparison. Analysis of errors. both models show more pronounced differences in the final value at steady-state. Thus, the values provided by the DM (194.4 V and 2.43 A) are much closer to those of the real converter (191 V and 2.5 A) than the MR (201.7 V and 2.52 A). Finally, for the settling time (99%), the DM (7 ms) is closer to the real case (7.5 ms) than the RM (6.7 ms). Regarding the dynamic behavior of the IM with respect to the real converter and the other two models (DM and RM), Figure 7c shows that it does not support a reasonable comparison, as its results are far from what could be considered minimum acceptable behavior. That is, the IM is not valid for the dynamic analysis of push-pull converters. From the results, it is concluded that the DM allows for the dynamic and steady-state behavior of the push-pull converter to be modeled with high accuracy and are shown to have a better performance than the reference models studied in the scientific literature. Moreover, the accuracy of the DM is likely to be even higher than that shown in these graphs and tables. The reason for this is obvious and practical. The real converter and the experimental setup have additional resistances, inductances, and parasitic capacitances (not accounted for in the DM) associated with the wiring, connectors, and printed circuit board. The only notable discrepancy between the response of the real converter and the DM is likely that the DM is not able to simulate the output current and voltage ripple due to the absence of switching frequency in the model. Finally, it is questionable whether the addition of non-idealities and losses to the model should lead to more than the three analyzed being considered. Of course, the magnetization and demagnetization of the primary and secondary windings of the transformer could generate transient microstates of microseconds or less. The number of microstates that could be generated is very difficult to evaluate, since the casuistry would be diverse. However, based on the obtained results, this has no practical effect on the quality of the model, so it has not been considered. Finally, although simulation time is not a determining criterion in this work, the models can be compared according to the computational cost to evaluate their performance as simulation and control tools. Thus, for test 1, simulation times of 3.39 s, 3.75 s and 5.16 s were obtained for IM, RM and PM, respectively.