True but it doesn't really make sense as it has dismal performance, far worse than even the cheapest standard props. I haven't seen any test of a toroidal prop that shows performance even approaching that of an ordinary mediocre two bladed prop. The only aspect measured that appears to be better than an ordinary prop is it making less noise but that can also be achieved with an ordinary prop if you don't try to optimize it for efficiency. I think part of the problem with this craze is that someone has taken a design that has some merit for use in specific situation with incompressible fluids, and misguidedly applied those same principles for a prop working in a compressible gas, which behaves very differently. However, just because it looks strange and different everyone is going crazy about it and of course the RUclips algorithm is happy with that and promotes it even more.
There is an expired U.S. Patent 6,736,600 "Rotor with Split Blade" to Rudolf Bannasch that looks similar to the MIT toroidal propeller. Please see Figure 7 of U.S. Patent 6,736,600. I have no idea of Mr. Bannasch's propeller has good performance or not, but it would be very interesting to see a comparison between MIT's propeller and Mr. Bannasch's propeller, especially since U.S. Patent 6,736,600 expired in 2020!
it would be interesting to see how the effects of a toroidal propeller would change with the addition of more toroidal blade, like a four, six, or eight bladed design
@@supyrow well, what wasn't more efficient and in which way? I was talking in general, the toroidal design that MIT created wasn't shared yet, also, this toroidal design is expecting to produce less noise.
@EulerFink what wasn't more efficient? Watch the video again, understand the values of the readings. If you look through the comments, I left timestamps
It all comes down to blade pitch, airfoil of the blades and the number of blades, but I think that you are on the right track simply because you won't have to worry nearly as much about breaking the blades on a crash
Thanks for testing. If looking for low noise, the hq multi bladed props are still the most viable option at the moment. Maybe if these new toroidal props are manufactured the same, they might become more silent. That was the whole purpose right...
Interesting, what is the difference if you take the noise measurement at the same amount of thrust on each prop? So in other words, how many amps and db would it take each prop to achieve 50g of thrust? Ignoring rpm obviously as each prop would achieve the same amount of thrust at different rpms.
I wonder how much difference it makes that the 3d printed props surfaces are quite rough ..seems that a rough surface compared to smooth would probably make quite a bit of difference.
@@leogama3422 amount of wattage(power) is what your looking for in a battery operated device. if it exhausts your battery faster, that is not 'more' efficient'
What IF = ...(control) = toroidal supplies torque (control) = blades supply power (use) = ... (release properly) How will you ratio-size and ratio-speed to stabalise the 3 bladed thingy after the toroidal. Lowest possible ratio...
It would be interesting to see the actual MIT one and not some cylinders extruded at an angle. People are test similar looking props, but none are the actual design so the results are obviously worse. Also the real designs have been optimized so that their weight is lower, and the angled and shapes are the best possible. That’s the design that will be more efficient, quieter, more thrust, etc.
The toroidal props tend to have more bite and better slip performance at mid-range and then taper off at high RPM to essentially identical performance to a three-bladed airfoil prop of similar pitch. The real benefit beyond the enhanced efficiency is that they have less tip vortice. QED's version doesn't have nearly the engineering behind it that the MIT versions do, but even as a simple PoConcept, he's getting some results...
Dead end props. If those new props pull more amps then how these can be more efficient?? No esy it will be more efficient.. And on the end of the day just a few cares about the sounds and if the new design make slightly less noise. This is not the whole point on here. For now for me it isn't worth it.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
NUTS how fast this new prop is exploding across youtube
So far ive seen on youtube, its 1 minute flight time
@@verdi6092 how many of those videos used 3D printed props?
scams have a tendency to do that.
@@supyrow advances as well
True but it doesn't really make sense as it has dismal performance, far worse than even the cheapest standard props. I haven't seen any test of a toroidal prop that shows performance even approaching that of an ordinary mediocre two bladed prop.
The only aspect measured that appears to be better than an ordinary prop is it making less noise but that can also be achieved with an ordinary prop if you don't try to optimize it for efficiency.
I think part of the problem with this craze is that someone has taken a design that has some merit for use in specific situation with incompressible fluids, and misguidedly applied those same principles for a prop working in a compressible gas, which behaves very differently. However, just because it looks strange and different everyone is going crazy about it and of course the RUclips algorithm is happy with that and promotes it even more.
There is an expired U.S. Patent 6,736,600 "Rotor with Split Blade" to Rudolf Bannasch that looks similar to the MIT toroidal propeller. Please see Figure 7 of U.S. Patent 6,736,600. I have no idea of Mr. Bannasch's propeller has good performance or not, but it would be very interesting to see a comparison between MIT's propeller and Mr. Bannasch's propeller, especially since U.S. Patent 6,736,600 expired in 2020!
it would be interesting to see how the effects of a toroidal propeller would change with the addition of more toroidal blade, like a four, six, or eight bladed design
Generally propellers with more blades are less efficient due to skin drag and other issues.
It's cool to see every thing being more efficient these days.
lol this proved it was NOT more efficient .
@@supyrow well, what wasn't more efficient and in which way?
I was talking in general, the toroidal design that MIT created wasn't shared yet, also, this toroidal design is expecting to produce less noise.
@EulerFink the MIT design is a copy of a design from 35 years ago! It was a scam then, it's a scam now.
They missed the mark. This thing could have really taken off, if it had been re-released on April 1st
@EulerFink what wasn't more efficient? Watch the video again, understand the values of the readings. If you look through the comments, I left timestamps
It appears that the Bernoulli effect is not implemented in these toroidals. where can i look at the cad data? maybe i can help improve the design.
It all comes down to blade pitch, airfoil of the blades and the number of blades, but I think that you are on the right track simply because you won't have to worry nearly as much about breaking the blades on a crash
Thanks for testing. If looking for low noise, the hq multi bladed props are still the most viable option at the moment. Maybe if these new toroidal props are manufactured the same, they might become more silent. That was the whole purpose right...
Yes, and the jury is still out there as to how they behave in ducts. I'll print the 2" design and will try it on a cinewhoop
Interesting, what is the difference if you take the noise measurement at the same amount of thrust on each prop? So in other words, how many amps and db would it take each prop to achieve 50g of thrust? Ignoring rpm obviously as each prop would achieve the same amount of thrust at different rpms.
I wonder how much difference it makes that the 3d printed props surfaces are quite rough ..seems that a rough surface compared to smooth would probably make quite a bit of difference.
This is an open question. I suspect if these props are factory made they will be substantially better in terms of efficiency and thrust
1st) 29kRPM @ 35W TIME::3:34
2nd) 29kRPM @ 35W TIME::4:54
3rd toroidal propeller) 24kRPM @ 45W TIME::5:30
it is slower and LESS efficient
by the way, this design is not new, it's well over thirty-five years old. it was a SCAM then and it has come back!
If it produces the same thrust at lower RPM, it is actually more efficient
@@leogama3422 amount of wattage(power) is what your looking for in a battery operated device. if it exhausts your battery faster, that is not 'more' efficient'
What about to write final results, as I don't see what prop you're testing in video.
I Will love to see how they're performing on mini 3
What software can u use for prop design?
Creative video, thanks :)
where can one get the RPM and power meter!?
Can't wait to see these flying, hope it doesn't annihilate the battery like the last version 😅
Found one ruclips.net/video/C10XgojHu44/видео.html
Thanks for measuring the dB as well. I saw in a boat video they were getting better efficiencies with toroidal props. Do your number say that as well?
What IF
= ...(control)
= toroidal supplies torque (control)
= blades supply power (use)
= ... (release properly)
How will you ratio-size and ratio-speed to stabalise the 3 bladed thingy after the toroidal. Lowest possible ratio...
Subbed and waiting for flight🙌
It would be interesting to see the actual MIT one and not some cylinders extruded at an angle. People are test similar looking props, but none are the actual design so the results are obviously worse. Also the real designs have been optimized so that their weight is lower, and the angled and shapes are the best possible. That’s the design that will be more efficient, quieter, more thrust, etc.
subbed!
please File Toroidal .STL for chinewoop 3.5" thanks
Can toroidal be optimized to compete bi-blade props in terms of efficiency? Also wondering if they are usable for fixed wing cruisers.
The toroidal props tend to have more bite and better slip performance at mid-range and then taper off at high RPM to essentially identical performance to a three-bladed airfoil prop of similar pitch. The real benefit beyond the enhanced efficiency is that they have less tip vortice. QED's version doesn't have nearly the engineering behind it that the MIT versions do, but even as a simple PoConcept, he's getting some results...
Good luck
Print a toroidal prop with the same surface area as the standard blades you are comparing it with.
Dead end props. If those new props pull more amps then how these can be more efficient?? No esy it will be more efficient.. And on the end of the day just a few cares about the sounds and if the new design make slightly less noise. This is not the whole point on here. For now for me it isn't worth it.
Что за странный пропеллер для квадрокоптера хотелось бы узнать что он даёт
All this equipment and work to put this together and you didn't have the forethought to put the propeller in the screen shot? SMH
What screenshot are we talking about?
Good luck