...There is another big advantage related to phase but too proprietory and we can't discuss.
So, you'd tell us, but you'd have to kill us?
I really do like this 'drama queen' approach to marketing......
As proprietary as 'it' may be, there is quite alot of public information available. Mr Tranh's initial patents on the technology -
http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST=1&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=pwm+controller+single+cycle&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=&EC=&IC=&=&=&=&=&=As well as Nuforce's parent company's website
for descricptions of the innards of the Nuforce products, and some prices -
http://www.nphysics.com/products.htmand their technical section -
http://www.nphysics.com/whitepaper-scc.htmFrom my limited experience and time on those issues relating to Nuforce's previous comments on a compettitve technology, spcifically the Ucd based products, I'll make some obvious comments -
1. Both are self oscillating sytems taking feedback after the reconstruction/output filter. While the Bruno Putzey's original Ucd patent did not fully address that 180o phase lag issuse , the actual implementation adds a passive pole to the feedback loop in addition to existing 2nd order output filter. It is simply not an issue with regards to the Ucd implementation.
2. NPhiysics choice of a BTL (bridge tied load) single rail and Ucd's choice of of a split rail half bridge is not specific to their loop control methodolgies given in their patents, but rather a design choice made for engineering/ecomonic reasons. Either loop control method coud use either rail/output topology, and both have their pros and cons. Similarly, the respective choices of swiching and linear supplies are design choices not specific to their contol loop patents.
3. Mr Tranh of NPhysics is one heck of an impressive guy, as is Bruno Putzeys of Ucd. Their technologies, IMO, are the current practical state of the art for switching amps. Both (among others) can yeild impressive results, and it would depend on the care and expertise given the implementation.
FWIW
Apologies for any innacuracies, but my only source of relevant information has been those rather dry, dense patents. And no doubt, both NPhysics and Ucd are pursuing techniques that are only covered and described in patents pending.