I read the specs and you can take the square wave as output via one pin, if I understood the spec correctly. Of course if it is only DC then it is of no use. I have a hardware guy who can double check this for me if I want to try this out. First I would need some other gear which I can possibly get for free for limited time. If I can put 600 kHz via nanoperm, then I will consider this EVM if hardware guy says there is square wave output. I also need to check first how the square wave behaves when it goes via nanoperm core. If I would see clean sine wave at output then there is chance EVM could work here. Plot thickens as new twists occur... I will keep you posted of my progess, if any.

I think the pin output is just the oscillator output not a power output.
You'd probably be better off constructing a little signal generator of your own, which you can do for under 50 bucks, and then also making something like Groundloop's H-bridge to drive with it, at whatever frequency (up to about 1.5 MHz) you like. This will give you a lot more flexibility in the long run than a 2amp DC-DC converter will.

http://www.8085projects.info/post/555-based-wave-signal-generator-circuit.aspx

groundloop's h-bridge is posted in this forum somewhere. It's simple neat and effective, all you need is the driving oscillator and the main power source.

Hey what about using two of these buggers.
http://www.metglas.com/products/xfmr.htm
hehe

wattsup

I have done further measurements one of the two "identical" toroidal coils shown below.  The inductance L shows variation with frequency of the measuring device (MCP BR2822) which I borrowed from a neighbor, who is also a freedom-energy researcher and very supportive.  I also re-did measurements with my home LCR meter (CE 4070L); and found it gave results less than 20 Henries also.  (So there must have been some error in the previous attempt; sorry.)

So here we go:
Home LCR meter:
Primary coils (2):    1.4 H each; in parallel gives 1.4H
Secondary coils (2): 1.8 H each; in parallel gives 1.8H
 
This surprised me a bit, parallel 2 coils giving the same L as one individual coil (in the pair), so then I went to the neighbor's fancy MCP meter, which measures as a function of FREQuency (lowest being 100 Hz) as follows:

Neighbor's LCR meter  @100 Hz: Primary coils @100Hz (2):    7.2 H each; in parallel gives 7.2H Secondary coils @100Hz (2): 8.5 H each; in parallel gives 8.6H

Neighbor's LCR meter  @1KHz:  Primary coils (2):    1.9 H each; in parallel gives 1.9H  Secondary coils (2): 2.4 H each; in parallel gives 2.4H

So we see that the sum of L's in parallel gives about the same L as an individual coil, and the inductance varies with frequency. 

Now for the resistances. 
Home LCR meter:
 Primary coils (2):    41.8 ohms each; in parallel gives 21.4 ohms
 Secondary coils (2): 69.7 and 71.9 ohms; in parallel gives 36.o ohms

Neighbor's LCR meter  @100 Hz:
Primary coils @100Hz (2):    1.4Kohms each; in parallel gives 1.4Kohms
 Secondary coils @100Hz (2):  1.65 Kohms each; in parallel gives 1.6 Kohms

It appears that the "resistance" measured at 100 Hz actually has a component from the inductance in the coils; but I was using the resistance ( ohms) function on the meter.
In any case, @100 Hz, the measured resistances are approximately the same.

Given the observed variations in R and L with frequency, it is clear to me why we need to make empirical measurements of Jack's set-up with various frequencies -- just as Jack strongly suggested.

@JouleSeeker

Thanks for your measurements. Curious to say the least.

The point in efficiency is that those numbers 99.31% for that big Metglas unit then compare it to your toroid that states 87%, but both given under what may be considered standard operating conditions (SOC). I would suspect that @JN's transformer will show maybe about 99% just like the Metgals one under SOC. The idea is to find the highest percentage under SOC to then use it under the rather non SOC method to achieve OU. I mean even if you wind your own transformer using whatever, we should not be seeing above 100% under SOC.

When a transformer core becomes biased (in one direction) and it it is followed with a biasing in the reverse direction, that then creates extreme in the state of core change that imparts to the secondary. When the setup is fed AC to primary, secondary and bulb load, the bulb load cannot act like a trampoline (I am watching the olympics where Canada just won the Gold in trampoline - YaMan).

In the @JN scheme of things, the first primary is rather standard method except that the load of the first is not a bulb but the second transformer and the bulb combined via a semi-shorting across the bulb load. This will generate a whole host of harmonics inside the second transformer that will reverberate back to the first transformer.

Now in the case of using standard laminated transformers like my last trials, seems like the core is simply not reactive enough to pick up those harmonics and reverse reverberations in order to create a more havoc stricken extreme change in bias. The core just ignores those effects. To a lesser degree the ferrite cores are doing the same thing and this is why when I did the test with my two toroidal Hammond coils, the results were far better then with the laminated coils.

So logic would have it that with a core of higher permeability, could also mean higher sensitivity to those other harmonic and reverberate effects that is run under the right conditions will provide or favor a combining effect and not a cancellation effect.

So all this time up till now just to learn that the core is the key. This is a good confirmation to now realize not only for this device but for other devices but also bad to know because this cancels the potential for standard transformers to be used and calls for the more expensive and more specialty nature of using more exotic cores.

An added realization is that if the @JN method can work with cores, it may also work with air core designs like if you simply used a four individual layer air coil and work out the connections to simulate the @JN circuit.

So now we go core hunting. lol

But before that, let's take this logic one step further. If standard transformers do not have the inherent attributes to work with the @JN circuit, then maybe the circuit should be modified to accommodate the cores "stiffness" or "lower reactivity" by combining in series between the two transformers with two more transformer that do have the reactivity.

See here this ready made choke coil that is using Metglas cores. Yes, unfortunately they only have one coil but if put in series with the two isolating transformers (IT), maybe this could act as a go-between that has the reactive skills to exchange more effects between the two ITs.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Valab-4-5H-500ma-Filter-Choke-Amorphous-Metglass-Double-C-core-UTC-Transformer-/251121566211?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item3a78030203

wattsup

I have also noted the fallacy of the LC meters concerning those iron core transformers. Mine gives a 1/10 measurment in comparison to real impedance that comes at 50 hz.


and yes.. parallel inductances are like resistors. but not wound on same core (closed magnetic circuit) of course. .e. equal inductances in parallel config wound on same core have equal inducactance as each one. (try checking it with a bifillar coil)

That last part is interesting, thanks. It makes sense too, like simply using a thicker wire for a single winding on the core.
What about series connection for coils on the same core.... add inductances like normal?

That last part is interesting, thanks. It makes sense too, like simply using a thicker wire for a single winding on the core.
What about series connection for coils on the same core.... add inductances like normal?

Hi TinselKoala,

In the case you ask, inductances do not add as normal due to the mutual inductance(s) involved on the common core.
See this link for explanations, starting from the middle of the page, under Example 1:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html

rgds,  Gyula

TinselKoala, thanks for the info, very good. Ideal waveform in my opinion is sine, do you happen to know oscillator that puts out sine wave, just in case square-to-sine conversion does not go like in the movies ?

T-1000, trafo needs power pressure before it can deliver power. Signal generators put out power in milliwatt range, so most likely output is not so good. But high permeability core and high frequency drive signal might change things, atleast math says so. It might be worthwhile to test this anyway to gain more understanding.

Steve, very nice that you have such a meter available. Was not aware that such meters exist. So basically you could just measure the impedance of one coil with different frequency and when it reaches for example value above 100 kohm then that kind of frequency is needed to drive the coils to get the effect.

wattsup, I think there is only one frequency at work here. I tried multicore setup and I know it created lots of harmonics based on the sound of those nanoperm cores. Operation is such that the driver frequency needs to be cancelled by the second coil. If there would be multiple frequencies involved then this cancellation would not occur perfectly. The load causes 'delay' which causes change of impedance in normal trafos. Now that those two coils are connected together this delay is not seen by the first coil, only second coil sees it which then causes normal trafo operation in such a way that source does not see load. Maybe reason is that impedance can be diffent for two currents depending on their direction. Impedance is low towards output side but it is high towards input side, then input side is unable to push current through. Anyway, any experiments are good even if result is negative. But in my opinion any replicator should first see the original version working and only then try different setups. Otherwise tweak if unsuccessfull might cause frustration and whole project gets dropped. In FE search frustration is your worst enemy.
 
Yesterday I measured the idle power of the fat nano. I crossed the coils so I got current through both coils and 40 watt bulb lit up brightly. Then I touched the coil to see how hot it gets. The damn fatty shocked me ! I got shocks from the dielectric field, quite unpleasant actually. Then I put power just through 400 meter coil and same effect. The harder I pressed the bigger the shock, weird stuff. The wires I used have Mylar C insulation so I was not getting shocks from electric current in the wire. Maybe this dielectric field could be utilised at some stage, some coil perpendicular on top of toroidal wind and feedback to source or something like that. Anyway beware the dielectric field.
 
Idle current with 560 meters of wire (Litz setup) was around 8 watts, with 400 meters it was that 134 watts, with 800 meters it was below one watt. If someone wants to try grid frequency then these figures should give some insight on the amount of wire you would need. Core permeability was that 80000.

I used 220V/50 Hz, but it is easier to replicate at higher frequency. Note how in Steven's measurement resistance to AC was increased, at 0 Hz it was 40 ohms but at 100 Hz it was already 1.6 kohms with his commercial trafo. This is the effect that must be created in the core, high impedance state and higher is better. Core material does not matter, except for higher frequencies iron is out. Wire gauge does not matter, DC resistance does not matter. Only high impedance condition is needed and input should be sine wave with power behind it. This rules out normal signal generators, you might be able to see the effect though and determine the frequency your setup can use.

You don't need Litz wire, I unwound it first to get single wire because that was the only wire I had. This I then used to build the 800 meter nano, 80 10 meter strips. I was quite sane when I started it, but when I reached the end I am not so sure... My first test cores were done with just one 63 strand coil made from Litz wire so that prototyping was easy. This showed that it does not matter if coils were interleaved or separated, but this is true only at 50 Hz. At higher frequency things might change. Easiest way to make this is to use two strand wire, one round on top of core, then connect them and drive it at high enough frequency. Frequency does not need to be any resonant frequency as this setup is always in resonance wth source. This fact makes this important. Ridiculously easy way is to use commercial trafo and just raise up the frequency. It could make a difference if those coils are of different length, which seemed to be true in the trafo that Steven tested. At high frequencies I think it is necessary to have same length of wire in both coils.
 
Parameters you asked:
iron trafo: very thin wire, 0.0x mm thick, resistance was 165 ohms. Coil was small, atmost 10 mm wide. If you break trafo made by chinese company named Jutai then you will get the same coil I used. Trafo was rated to 20 watts and it was used to light up 80 small bulbs, not leds.
nanoperm: the fat one had 2 times 400 meters of 0.31 mm wire, close to AWG28, two separate sides, permeability 80000. 400 meters had about 68 ohms resistance, this particular coil was not measured because I lost my meter during winter.
 
If someone does tests then please put your findings here, even if the test is a failure. It will show to others what does not work and maybe we all learn something from it. My word is valid only for 50 Hz, rest is my speculation based on what I have read and use of common sense. Which is not very much in this field, I write software for living, so don't believe everything I say. Take it with grain of salt and if you end up testing a high frequency system be very careful and start from low pressure/power from source.