In all fairness, I do not think I said anything wrong. I did not say everything I should have in order to explain myself, but that does not make it wrong, just incomplete, and yes, that is my fault. I am not an engineer, and I think that may be part of the issue. My background is experimental physics so I may look at things from a different perspective than those that are trained engineers and technologists. I often forget that those with more rigorous technical training are used to, and expect, more precise descriptions.
This is not offered to be an excuse, because I am aware of the audience here and it would be my responsibility to ensure the completeness of my responses, especially if they go against accepted dogma in some way. However, most of the physicists I know (including myself) are masters of the "hand waving" argument. This is where we tend to assume a lot, because we all know it's there, so it's waived aside to talk about the matter at hand. In support of that behavior, if we did not we would be mired down in endless minutia about the basic laws of the universe in every discussion we have. So generally we'll not discuss the application of, for instance, the laws of thermodynamics every time we discuss an event where there is an energy exchange.
Sometimes it is very enticing to just skip the explanations. Yes, I know it's wrong, but for instance, it seems daunting to try to explain a thing like the difference between the terms cost, loss and waste and how they relate to how a regulators work when the listener is not even aware of what types of regulators there are and how they work, etc...
Just so you know, and again please do not see this as an excuse, as I have already claimed my mistake and responsibility, but just by way of introducing you to where I come form, I look at the total loss of a system as having at least two components such that:
Loss = Cost + Waste
1) Where cost is that component of loss that cannot be eliminated and is a necessary expenditure of energy to perform whatever function is being performed.
2) And where waste is that component of loss that provides no benefit but must be accounted for or targeted to be eliminated.
So, you are right. I should have said "less loss", rather than "no waste". But if I had said that to another experimental physicist, he'd want to a full disclosure of the losses to see what could be eliminated as waste and what was absolutely necessary to sustain and I'd be accused of not doing my homework. "losses? What/which losses? Let's see what we're talking about here!"