This is referring to active vs reactive power and the concept of power factor [1]. You're still paying for all the real energy consumed (including waste heat). Inverter microwaves tend to have a higher power factor than traditional models (measured data [2]). Residential electricity bills are based on active energy (kWh), not apparent power or reactive components, so a better power factor by itself doesn’t lower your bill. We’ll take a look at the article to clarify it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor [2] https://www.rtings.com/assets/pages/hRDTskis/power-factors-l...

Okay, this is a new concept for me so mind if I try explaining it to confirm I understand?

Inverter microwaves have an actual power consumption that more closely resembles what you see at the wall. Non-inverter microwaves will appear to draw more power from the wall than is actually delivered to food, but it doesn't matter that much, because that "extra" power is stored inductively in the magnetron, which gets returned to the grid when the microwave shuts off. There are some minor conversion losses from this, but not nearly as great as one might initially think looking at wall vs radiated power.

Is that correct?

The most immediate pattern in the 25 tested Wi-Fi 7 routers is the complete absence of features required for true multi-radio simultaneous MLO. None of the routers support EMLMR, SRS, or STR-MLMR: the core mechanisms that allow multiple radios to operate in parallel. Even the highest-end tri-band systems, such as the nearly $1,000 Asus ZenWiFi BT10, lack the synchronization and scheduling features needed to use the 2.4, 5, and 6GHz bands concurrently as a single unified link. This gap likely reflects the limitations of current hardware, which is not yet capable of achieving the sub-microsecond timing alignment required between independent radios.