Simple to build isolation transformer that consumes less power than it gives out

[TinselKoala]

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.

[T-1000]

T-1000, I think you have access to decent signal generator and some ferrite. Any chance you could spend few hours and give this a try using higher frequency ? I feel like a bee doing dancing moves in front of the nest. The best dancer gets the attention of other bees, damn do I have to learn the Jackson moves or what ?

I only have http://www.ebay.com/itm/0-01-5MHz-DDS-Function-Signal-Generator-Module-Wave-New-/270864768941?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f10cc5fad at the moment and http://www.vellemanusa.com/products/view/?country=us&lang=enu&id=522377
No arbitrary signal amplifier unfortunately.

[wattsup]

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

wattsup

[JouleSeeker]

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

wattsup

Impressive, Wattsup, but the efficiency is not QUITE high enough:

Produced by Korea’s Cheryong using Metglas-Based Wound Cores Manufactured by Woojin

32 tonnes (Approx)

3.7 m x 3.95 m x 3. 5 m (W x D x H); IEC 60076

Efficiency 99.31 %

Needs to improve by just 1% or 2%, then that would be quite interesting. 

I've taken some further measurements -- but it's very late here (after midnight); busy family day.  I will post these measurements in the morning.

Thanks, Jack (especially)!

[JouleSeeker]

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.