10 Toroidal Drone Propeller Questions Addressed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- 🔗 Link to the Printables and Thingiverse files including STEP and F3D versions:
www.printables.com/model/394030
www.thingiverse.com/thing:584...
www.printables.com/model/393972
www.thingiverse.com/thing:584...
⚠️ The tutorial video is now up:
• Toroidal Propeller Tut...
🔗 @MoppelMat's test video flying my V3 Tri-Loop 5" prop, FDM printed in Nylon Carbon Fibre, weighing less than similar 3-blade injection-moulded props and getting the same flight time!
• Toroidal Props V3 by @...
🔗 Playlist of people who've discussed, bench-tested and flight-tested my designs:
• Community Toroidal Pro...
🔗 Links to the original videos on this topic:
• MORE Toroidal Propelle...
• DIY MIT Toroidal Prope...
🔗 Link to PDF document from the MIT people that came up with the idea:
www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/...
===
👍 If you like what I do, please consider supporting me:
☕️ buymeacoffee.com/strikingfpv
🔔 Subscribe for more content like this:
🔗 ruclips.net/user/strikingfpv?s...
===
💥 STRIKING FPV is a cinematic FPV drone operator based in Thailand, wanting to show the beauty of this country from a new perspective - evidently also likes tinkering and is happy to show you how stuff can be made
/ strikingfpv
/ strikingfpv
===
🕓 Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:10 I Don't Know
00:42 Latest V3 Tri- and V2 Bi-Loop Designs Uploaded
01:22 Q1 Why Are We Doing This?
03:16 Q2 Seriously, What's the Real Benefit?
05:53 Q3 What's the Best Design?
15:55 Q4 Can We Get STEP Files?
17:40 Q5 Can We Get a Tutorial?
18:07 Q6 What Materials Work?
21:34 Q7 What's the Correct Terminology?
22:26 Q8 No Injection Moulding?
23:41 Q9 What's Up with the Patent?
26:00 Not Only MIT Researchers
26:56 Q10 Last Bits
31:31 Hooray
It was good to hear you give props to all of those folks who contributed to the designs
I try to acknowledge previous works and people who've been involved. I'm not great at it, could be better, just trying to give credit where it's due, something a lot of the RUclips and overall social media space doesn't do in the mad rush to pump out videos and perhaps appear to be the first to do something.
Everything we do rides on the shoulders of the pioneers who came before us, ultimately. Least we can do is acknowledge them and/or support them if possible.
@@STRIKINGFPV All good. It's good for people's work to be recognized. Also note the pun in my original comment. :)
@@stefanshapiro1245 🤣🤣🤣
honestly, less interested in FPV and more in your skills / tutorials related to CAD! Thanks for sharing this
FANtastic advice and buttery smooth delivery, cheers! 🎉
Glad you enjoyed it!
It is amazing how you can make a potentially boring subject seem very interesting and intuitive . thank you.
Oh that's very kind of you to say!
It is amazing how you can make an interesting subject seem very boring and inintuitive . Does anyone else on earth love his own voice more than you do? So I Can resume this video : blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .Oh look this awesome guy speaking in a so cocooning atmosfere blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You are the pitiest clickbait cheater on RUclips. Congratulation.
Maaaan, doing props is such a cool rabbit hole
A deep, deep rabbit hole. Centuries of scientists and engineers before us scratching their heads on this endless topic, and here I sit behind a five-year old mid-range gaming laptop with a non-commercial license of Fusion 360 and some basic CAD knowledge trying to loosely mimic years of research by the toroidal team at MIT's Lincoln Lab...
Written like that I wonder if I'm partially suffering from imposter syndrome 🤣.
that's probably the nicest explanation for the reduction in aoa I've seen so far
^^^^This. He should chop that into a short and repost it. When doing my own props in the past, I just sorta guessed at how much to flatten the tips. This was an excellent way to preset his rails. I think it was a learning experience for him too, as he now posts the pitch number on the stl.
Awe, shucks, you're making me blush
I don't think I want to get into shorts just yet, but you're right, it is exactly the sort of the kind of thing that would work well in that format. Glad you and Marc both enjoyed that section
@@STRIKINGFPV Maybe "short" was too specific. Not sure it would fit in a minute anyways. But you could chop it into its own video with a catchy title like, "Modeling velocity adjusted AOA in Fusion 360".
The way you deal with the haters is awesome. We are having fun so hate all you want.
Lol, it's the internet, kinda' have to expect it at this point, but the general trends are interesting to observe.
It's like the FPV Life and Cinewhoopers groups on Facebook - the former are kinda' aggro about most things, the latter being much more chill. You ask about flying in angle or acro mode and many FPV Life people are quick to tell you that "you're not a real quad pilot if you don't fly in acro mode all the time," whereas the Cinewhoops guys are usually like "whatever works for what you're doing" whilst sharing personal experiences and stuff.
Excellent follow-up. Shared you with my brother as he loves drones and has a 3d printer he's always tinkering on.
Glad you liked it and thanks for sharing!
Awesome work. Can't wait for the tutorials!
Cheers!
Thank you for your continued posts on this subject! 💪👼
My pleasure!
Excellent coverage. Thankyou
Glad you like it, cheers
less talk, more flying. that is what this channel needs!
And yet the most views I have are from these toroidal prop videos 🤣
Believe me, wanna fly them as much as you, but now just waiting on fresh hardened steel nozzles so I can use my carbon-PETG. In the meantime I'm in the middle of doing the Fusion 360 toroidal tutorial.
And this is all in-between a bunch of other obligations, but anyway, I'll get there soon enough!
Your passion is more amazing than the props themselves.
You are good at communication and feel like a good-minded person.
:)
love the community we created around ur creations‼️ Thanks a lot from France ❤️🔥🇫🇷
The commun effort around this project is insane. Like even if its not perfect it prouves that we are stronger together and we can create things that even corporations cannot in a short amount of time. I hope you envoy it like i do guys 😂
It's always exciting to see 3D-printed propellers flying, even more to have my current designs actually working relatively well, given the limits of FDM as a printing method. Hope to see more in the future!
I agree with the comment about making the tip section be more horizontal, but not fully horizontal. It should be tilted up from the horizontal by whatever angle you want the tip of your blades to be. This completely eliminates the problem of the angle of attack getting bigger as you go towards the tip. I have resin printed my own designs and this really does work. Also, having the rear blade bow upwards and the forward blade bow downwards works well with this tip section design, and does not need to make the rear blade have a larger chord as was suggested in the video.
Great videos - thank you for posting.
So which way are you tilting it, outwards or inwards? The way the loop is supposed to work means that whichever way one tilts the outer edge profile, it will ease the twist of one of the blades but end up overly twisting the opposite one at the transition point, unless you're not actually creating a loop and are instead just making a single warped blade with a hole in it.
If it works, flies well and is quiet, then I'd be curious to see it. Have a link to the design, or an image of it?
Tilt it forwards, in the direction the blade tip moves, so that it is nearly in the plane of the top of the hub.
There's a picture here:
www.dropbox.com/s/oxuiuk9vgu95m5i/Toroid_Tip.jpg?dl=0
Wow, awesome, great engineering here. Kudos!
Thank you very much!
This whole development is super super interesting to watch. And I love how you iterate from design to design. I really hope this leads to whisper-props in the future for all of us to buy and use... my 5.5" screams so loud, I get people actively driving down from the nearby living areas to figure out what makes this noise... nothing that I can sustainably do anywhere close to where I live... so a quieter quad larger than my tiny-trainer would be amazing.
And your vids rock. Top notch audio, lighting, camera and script. You definitely deserve more followers!
P.S.: Get a cat. ;P
Like I've said in some of the Facebook groups, this video was a bit of a reality check, in that the likelihood of this producing dream props that perform and are quiet is not really realistic, but we can hope. In general if you want quieter, larger and slower-spinning props are generally preferred, with swept-back tips - the DJI drones are relatively quiet because of this, and they also don't do aggressive acrobatics which is also a key factor.
Thanks for the compliments, though I hope to improve everything for the future - it's all just scraped-together from a former life of videography, haha.
And what if I told you I have two cats, but one always meows and this is not helpful when trying to film a Fusion 360 tutorial for the past four days 😅
we can now have rim driven 3d printed propellers :D more stability? covering the motor might add weight, but it might also help lessen the most irritating higher motor frequencies?
maybe a rim driven toroidal prop would be cool, when the rim supports more forces, allowing for thicker blades perhaps, or a single loop. maybe if we booleaned the entire final prop out of a box shape, you can even 3d print a mold to later replicate again in metal or....
I'd also like to divert your attention to @MoppelMat's test video flying my V3 Tri-Loop 5" prop, FDM printed in Nylon Carbon Fibre, weighing less than similar 3-blade injection-moulded props and getting the same flight time!
ruclips.net/video/RqREG_KD0wU/видео.html
The tutorial video so you can learn to make your own toroidal props is now up as well:
ruclips.net/video/UUPffl7JxKw/видео.html
Also, FYI, turns out Fusion 360's STEP files don't include the object's creation history/timeline, so I've now also uploaded the Fusion 360 (F3D) files which, in theory, should include said history. Crossed fingers it does, otherwise I'll be spending all night trying to sort it out, or you'll all have to wait for the tutorial videos 😅
thank you so much for all the effort you put into this! I just modified the v3 40mm for .75mm shaft micro drones. will comment on thingiverse when tested.
I didn't even know there are drones with .75mm shafts, that's crazy. Hope it works out for you, I have noticed that smaller drones seem to have more difficulty with these props than larger ones in terms of generating thrust, but hopefully you can get it to work!
@@STRIKINGFPV there mostly the super cheap guys with .75mm shaft. Ive had a few issues with getting them to print clean. I do finally have a complete set i printed in CF PLA. Once cleaned and tested ill update
@@nikolus24 Awesome, hope it works out 👍
Thanks for your video
The hydro versions have the distinct, advantageous characteristic of reducing cavitation, which is very destructive to watercraft props. The analog to that in an aircraft is tip vortices, which are noisy and reduce the efficiency of the prop. If the toroidal prop is run in an orientation where the shaft is horizontal; as on a conventional aircraft, the results would be different from one operated in a vertical (VTOL) orientation such that there would be a horizontal speed rage wherein the toroidal design would have some advantages over the conventional design and speed ranges where the conventional design would have advantages over the toroidal. This would make the choice of prop a function of the mission of the craft under consideration.
I truly enjoy watching your presentations. I like the way you think, assuming the way you speak is a reflection of that. I also like that you are willing to make your work available for others to test and make variations. I would suggest that you make the use of your intellectual property subject to some restrictions such that a developer is not permitted to take your ideas and use them to acquire a patent or copyright on their derivations the same way other so-called 'open source' creators do.
Please keep up the great work.
You seem to have a lot of insight, or you've certainly read more of the technical literature, may I ask if you're an engineer of sorts, amateur or professional? I am curious about the relationship between hovering applications vs forward flight for these toroidal propellers, as I would like to help out my fellow RC enthusiasts who fly planes more than quads, and I feel like you might have some suggestions or a theory behind prop choice perhaps.
On the other hand, the few who've tested these on planes I haven't actually seen the quality of their print or the type of aircraft they're flying, which I suspect will make a big difference, so there's that.
Thank you for the kind words, and I like to think that the way I speak is a reflection of the way I think, though I tend to emphasise my lack of knowledge more in day-to-day life. On this video I wrote almost a script of sorts to keep things somewhat flowing, but it can be hard to make sure I'm not too strongly asserting ideas that I'm actually still pondering.
As for copyright on the designs, I've set the licenses to Creative Commons-Non Commercial, so sharing with credit and adaptations are allowed, but it's strictly for non-commercial use, important I think considering the designs are somewhat based upon the Lincoln Labs paper/patent on the topic. That being said, others have already started making their own designs, and once I've created the tutorial video(s) then even more may be able to create their own without necessarily needing to acknowledge my prior work, which is fine, I'm doing it all in the spirit of the maker community anyway.
And the coffee is very-much appreciated, sir (or tea, in my case, haha).
@@STRIKINGFPV I'm, currently, a self-taught computer geek. In my previous life I was a hot-rodder, a diesel mechanic and a private pilot. I've spent my entire life immersed, more or less, in all sorts of technology and machinery. Propulsion systems of any type, fascinate me and have since I was a small child. I've flown a variety of aircraft from light Cessna's to Beech King Airs and even a Huey helicopter of which my buddy was the Aircraft Commander in Vietnam.
I was struck by a couple of things about the two of your videos I have watched; Your precise descriptions of what you are doing, why you are doing them and what you are seeking and by your apparent ethics in the way you are going about it.
My first exposure to the toroidal propulsion devices was the marine version and my, admittedly, limited understanding of cavitation that the U.S. Navy seems to have, largely, overcome in the designs of their submarine props but that the inventor of the marine toroidal prop also seems to have conquered via a very different approach.
The marine props, however, seem to exhibit their best characteristics in the low to mid and higher mid-range regimes. At the top end, any thrust advantages seem to even out compared to conventional props. Learning that led me to wonder if anyone had considered attaching one of these aero versions to a fixed wing craft for testing the thrust characteristics relative to the conventional prop.
I apologize for rambling but I get started and inertia takes over.
Thank you so much for the response. Please keep up the great work.
@@bobstovall9570 Ah cool, I used to do computer programming back in the day, and whilst I do light wrenching on my (diesel) car/truck/SUV thing, I have more experience working on motorcycle engines, having done full rebuilds of my CBR150R motor a few times now. Then carburettors, oh what a rabbit hole - haven't touched ye'oldey mechanical fuel injection in the car much, but I think I'm okay with CV carb tuning, although I do cheat by using a wideband O2 sensor, haha.
I used to be obsessed with aviation as a kid, loved flight simulator which is how I got into drones eventually (also programming, but that's another story), always prepped to fly if the pilot passes out 🤣, but getting an actual pilot's license seems a bit out of reach, for now anyway.
You make me wonder more about what it might be or what changes might be needed regarding a forward-flight application of these toroidal props. I don't inherently see what could be so inefficient if @MoppelMatt can get similar performance out of my V3 5" design to a regular prop on his quadcopter - maybe the people who've tested on planes didn't do something quite right, I'm not sure.
It's not a huge sample size of home testers at this point, and I'm not sure where it may be best to try aggregating anecdotal test results. Nor do I think I'm really in a position to keep track of it all given this is just a hobby of mine.
talks with his hands like a magician trying to distract you but as much as an Italian
Well done and informative video about the current state of 3d printed Toroidal Propellers. Really awesome stuff happening in the open source community.
It's only been a few weeks now since the MIT Toroidal news appeared, so I'm sure more people will maybe jump on board later on. Or it might fizzle out, who knows 😅
@@STRIKINGFPV We don't know yet how big they will become, of course. But I'm quite optimistic. It's quality open source designs and commentary like yours that will help to "propel" the toroidal design approach into higher spheres. :D cheers mate
Thank you for making such an informative presentation. I wish you had been my physics teacher !
you could injection mold these, the 2 part re-usable mold would rotate as it comes apart or use a silicon rubber method with recyclable molds
i don't own a drone and likely never will, but curiosity about the new design brought me here, and i'm Subbing simply for the response from 28:55 .. Well said bloke..👍
They are 3d printable and they look tough and cool - worth enough reason to use them. Gonna try them for shure.
Thanks
"Scimitair"
Also yeah... The Chinese for "patent" is the same as the Chinese for "blueprint". heheheh
I'm really impressed you introduced all the features I suggested in comments a couple of videos ago. Of course I wasn't the only one, but to me this looks like a giant leap forward.
Always planned to make the changes I did, and it's fantastic to see so many people on the same page. Like I said, we're getting to that point where I think more people can jump into the CAD game to test their own designs - I'm especially interested to see how the university students do in their testing, if they get super-scientific and make find adjustments and improvements that can be shared with us all. In the meantime, we can FDM our way to numerous prop'splosions, haha.
Good take Sir, people will always appreciate good science. (Even withstanding the word "Whooshy" 😉)
I propose an addendum to the patent filling, whereby all references to the novel concept's audible frequency and harmonics analysis is replaced with alternate, onomatopoeic spellings of the term "whooshy" 🤣
The mit 'paper' lol. It's two pages long and provides no data. That plus there being no data in the video and the video having muted the special prop makes me think this isn't a legitimate design. It is very interesting though and I'm glad we're having fun exploring it :)
what if you thicken slightly the vertical (outermost part of your loop) edge to round profile.. and hollowed a bit to counter the added weight this would create?
Basically the idea is not new, check out Patent 3504990 by David Sugden or Patents of Rudolf Bannasch. Spend a lot of time working on the same and similar designs in 2016 but finally could not find a geometry able to keep up with a traditional propeller.
Try making a propeller inspired by the the structure of owl feathers and combine it with the counter weight propeller. Combining the principles of counter weighted propellers with the structural features of owl feathers could result in a unique and exceptionally quiet propulsion system.
Perhaps, but considering the counter-weighted props I've recently tried and also the behaviour of the "traditional" prop that I also 3D printed in the toroidal hover testing, I have a distinct feeling that the flexibility of the final part is playing a significant role in whether or not the prop is viable.
I think the tri-loop design being self-supporting is one of the biggest reasons why it's working pretty well. I think it's also why the bi-loop counterweighted prop flew (though not for long) and the single-loop counterweight prop just exploded on spin-up.
FDM printing is showing its limitations here, as is resin considering not many people have had success in getting strong enough resin prints of this to not explode as well.
Hey Ashton, nice to be introduced to you. I found you through a video of "Will it Mod?" that I stumbled upon. I actually live across the border in Myanmar, though I'm currently in hiding from the military. Otherwise I usually visit Thailand every two-three months, so after the war is over here maybe we could meet up in Thailand sometime and do some flyby videos of each other's drones. Are you Thai?
Anyway, I noticed that in the videos and photos I saw of the MIT biloop, each loop seemed far more round, and almost circular, vs the more oblong elliptical or tear shaped loops I've seen people like you and others printing. It could be just my viewing angle from those short MIT videos, but I felt like the outer circumference of each loop was almost a full circle. It's amazing that you've been able to print something that flies at all, but perhaps the shape could be improved? Have you been able to get any input from the guys who claim to have worked on it on the MIT props on how accurate your shapes are? They had access to some advanced computer simulated fluid dynamics testing, so I'm sure their shapes must be damn near perfect.
Anyway, thanks for all the great work your doing and helping the community do. I look forward to seeing where it goes!
Hi Daniel, and greetings from this side of the border! Sorry that you're stuck at the moment, I do hope that situation resolves soon, but considering it's long been out of the headlines I dare say you'll still be hunkering down for a while - hope it doesn't bring you down too much (as if COVID wasn't enough). If you do manage to make it over yeah, would be happy to meet up should I find some free time. And no, I'm not Thai, actually Hong Kong-Australian, but most of my life has been in Thailand so I'm pretty local at this stage 😅.
It's not the viewing angle I think, the more I look at the images from MIT the more I notice how rounded they are. If I do get around to making a V3 bi-loop, I'm tempted to make it as round as they did seeing as that seems to be the design they were most happy with, but I can't shake how awkward they look - my gut feeling is trying to hinder scientific progress in that regard 🤣. Unfortunately the two researchers that hopped into the comments have yet to reach-out further which is understandable, but that's okay - we seem to be getting on alright for home-engineers, haha.
It's my pleasure to contribute to the open source community, and I do look forward to seeing what else comes of this as well!
@@STRIKINGFPV it's been out of the headlines for so long I think because the protests have long since ended, ever since they started using live rounds to disperse them. However, the actual armed resistance has really picked up momentum in the last 6-8 months. They finally ambushed enough supply convoys and even 3D printed enough guns that now the "Peoples' Defense Forces" (as the resistance militias are known) are finally well armed and able to operate offensive operations that now as much as 1/3-1/2 of the country is controlled by these PDFs. I really think the war will be won by the end of the year, maybe even by August, when the sham military elections are set to be held. So I'm crossing my fingers. Also crossing my fingers that you decide to take on the biloop v3, as that seems more suited for non-FPV flight. The only FPV I might consider would be the Avata, and I don't know how the toroidal props would work in that frame, since the props are almost ducted.
Excellent work and analysis!! I think the main issue with using quad props on planes is the lack of pitch. Most good prop pitches for fixed wing range from 4" to 7". Anything lower is for hovering.
That's something I didn't know, actually. Figures I should've looked-up common prop pitches for fixed wings, but then again I wasn't designing these for fixed wings to begin with.
Ah well, when I finally pump out the tutorial, other people can design and print their own with whatever pitch they prefer, haha.
Yes, that is usually true but I tested a scaled up 7' v2 bi toroidal last week on my flying wing and I normally fly with 7x6 so I didnt expect it to work as I think the pitch is 2 or something, but wierdly enough it had much more thrust with the toroidal and flew pretty good compared to it flying with a standard 7x4 or 7x3 which is way too underpowered.
@@seantuitz Oh that's awesome to hear! And also strange but awesome!
I wish I understood more about proper prop selection, clearly it appears to be much more complex than just selecting diameter and pitch - it must significantly play into the motor specs and the weight and/or drag of whatever it is we're trying to fly, be it a quadcopter or a wing.
Use CF filled materials like PETG or Nylon. It´s way more rigid and combats the disadvantages of Nylon or PETG which is being too ductile.
In regard to the injection molding question, everything can be injection molded it only depends on how much you are willing to pay. Their complex geometry does make them non injection molding friendly you would need angle sliders etc.but it is doable.
The zipline drone is using a counterweight instead of one blade to make it quiet. It is an interesting Ide if you make the sides different you will distort the sound generated. The weight and possibly the drag will need to be the same on both sides.
Really interesting how the project is evolving. I admit that I am currently less enthusiastic than before, about this new design, but obviously, being still at the beginning, there is certainly a lot of room for research ... On the other hand, I am increasingly wanting to build myself an FPV drone . I need something that doesn't limit my enjoyment!
Build the FPV drone, join us join us join us 🤣!
Hey I could be wrong and all it will take is one person to come up with a better design than mine that categorically performs better and is quieter than standard props and the amazement will be back again. But most things in life aren't free, and so I imagine that even an ideal toroidal design will have a trade-off - much like we currently have to decide between how many blades we want and the pitch of said blades, toroidal would end-up being another checkbox on the list of what we want in relationship (with propulsion, lol).
But seriously, try building an FPV drone. Also if you have an interesting in designing parts and/or you have a printer, being able to take a base FPV drone and modify it with your own choice of electronics, motors, 3D-printed mounts and protection or ducts and stuff, it's always satisfying adding things and watching them work (or not, then making changes to make them work better).
I added a camera-tilting headtracking system to my Veyron35CR (got a video on it) which is one of the more complex things I've done, and yes a bit of a headache but very satisfying when it's all working smoothly.
@@STRIKINGFPV
I hope to find the time, because by now my interest in the world of fpv drones is very high!😁 I fully agree, the greatest satisfaction is when you manage to create something that you can freely customize, based on your preferences and/or needs! I've been in the world of 3D printing for a year now, and improving my Creality Ender 3 Pro, from software to hardware, has been (and still is), very rewarding! I guess it could be the same for the world of drones too!😃
I found some videos from the RUclips channel "Craft Channel" about building from scratch interesting. I had in mind to build a 7 inch cinematic Fpv drone, approximately (with a housing dedicated to a GoPro). I hope to one day find a video of yours dedicated to building from scratch, I'm sure it would be very useful for the whole community!😀
I saw the video you mention (Flying an FPV Drone with Your Head), it's very interesting, even if it was inevitable not to think about neck pain at the end of each flight!😅
But I totally understand what you mean. If you can do it, why shouldn't you?! Exploring nine potentials in each direction is surely the coolest thing of all!
Regarding toroidal propellers, it could help a lot in their development, using professional space simulation software, such as those used in aeronautical design. I don't think I have a powerful enough pc, otherwise I would have already run some tests. In this way multiple simulations could be carried out simultaneously, of different designs, and understand which one is the most advantageous, where to continue the research.
Дружище, ты крут! Респект и уважуха!
Did anyone mention that you have a good voice!
For resin, my first test would be with sirayatech blu as it is pretty similar to petg if you really look at specs, and I am pretty sure that is what the ones shown were printed with (emerald blue for the really blue ones, and my guess is nylon black which has even better mechanical properties for the blackish ones. ). Anyway, my pitch in here based on nothing but a gut feeling is that a biloop with looping done axially instead of radially will allow for better transitions of the curves and would allow for easier and faster printing on resin printers. As a big proponent of fdm printers and someone who does all the 3d printing at a smaller aerospace company, this just isn't something you want to fdm at all, it really is the bread and butter for resin printers.
Very interesting to note, I've also heard of that Sirayatech Blu resin before, but like I said I'm not a resin printing guy so not that aware of its significance, haha. When you mention the axial looping, I suppose you mean the loop would come off the print bed? Considering your experience, is that something that you think resin will be happy with, and what sort of post-processing would you end up doing for that kind of shape?
I agree also that what this is really isn't the realm of FDM, but part of the spirit of this hobby is the relatively low-tech DIY that allows home tinkerers to have fun as well, regardless of the level of equipment they have, which is one of the reasons I try to keep my design FDM-friendly. Also I'm biased because my printer is an FDM and I won't be affording a resin printer any time soon 😅
Iflight is showing off some injection molded toroidal props today.
Just had a look on their Facebook group and yeah, looks like they reworked their weird x-shaped prop and connected the ends, but it doesn't actually follow the rule of the toroidal, what they've done is essentially put a hole in the middle of a single blade that warped the two halves to be level with one another, as such the prop itself still has a tip.
Upside is that what they've done /can/ be made with injection moulding, but I fear flight performance won't be great. Could just be a relatively easy money grab riding the toroidal hype train.
I hope I'm wrong though, would be cool if it actually did perform.
I have tried printing your 3 inch propellers in polypropylene and they seem to give good results. I need to do more tests at the moment.
Yes, I saw your posts on Facebook, looked like fantastic print quality - I can dream of being able to print that cleanly
When you have 1 million subs I want to be sure I was here in the very beginning. Well done, I tried adapting your model to my Phantom 3 but I am a bit concerned if ABS-like resin will resist the stress
Very kind words, though I don't think I can expect that kind of subscriberage for a while 😅.
Do let us know if you successfully get them to work though, the more people who have success the more the test of us can learn from it. Resin printing is the big hopeful for this, but it seems finding the right resin is more challenging than it is for team FDM at the moment.
Would you be printing on the plate, or supported? Curious how well you can get rid of the elephant's foot when printed on the plate. My AnyCubic Mono X has built-in transition layers, and I have yet to fully remove the elephant's foot while trying to print props. Can do it on something cylindrical or straight walled, but not something with an angled wall like a prop. Been trying to use UVTools to dim or erode pixels on the first layers,...
I was viewing a video by Luke Maximo Bell using your print file in an avata which has ducting. When you go from three blade conventional to effectively six blade toroidal there would be pitch/diameter questions as well as curved blade issues to resolve. More blades mean smaller diameter of same pitch. I came from an RC background before drones. The toroidal blades have curved blades with variable pitch. Do you go rounder or straighter? I see lots of questions with a super answer waiting to be found.
As you were talking about the bi toroidal actually being like a 4 blade regular prop, I had the thought of a single toroidal blade. Then a second later you said just that. That was pretty cool. Maybe you can design a one toroidal blade and have it mounted to a ring on the periphery with the opposite part of the ring being gradually thicker to create a balanced counterweight?
By the way, I just discovered your channel and I find it quite amazing. Thank you for your contribution. Be well,
Isidro
Oh man, if MIT called me up and offered me a job or something to just pump out interesting ideas I'd probably give every design concept a go, though I'm but one man with "real life" to contend with, haha. Would love to try so many more of these ideas, but with limited time and other weird projects I'd like to try, I think I'll be leaving the toroidal topic in the hands of the community for now. Probably do some more casual testing here and there, maybe more videos much further down the line, we'll see. I'd love to see more people design their own and experiment themselves.
It's been a pleasure working on this stuff, and I hope you stick around for other odd videos and projects 🙃.
At 15:10, you mention that strain could change the shape of the propeller.
Could we make that a sort of living hinge, and make a variable pitch by means of centrifugal force? It could be designed to flex in a specific prescribed manner that could help address power curve issues on certain applications.
Yes, it probably could be done, I believe the term often cited is "compliant mechanism", whereby the elasticity of the object contributes to its working function.
Most props that have had their designs iterated and tested thoroughly to achieve optimum performance probably inadvertently have elements of compliancy in them, as the blades will naturally warp more towards the tip because of increased forces and a thinning cross-section.
The natural tendency for prop bending would result in less blade pitch at higher speeds, which would produce an exponential thrust curve whereby low to mid speeds would produce a sharp increase in thrust, but then increasing further would trail-off. Allowing for more prop flex in this regard would make this curve taper-off even more, thus reducing efficiency as you'd be spending energy spinning a blade but producing less thrust than a more rigid prop.
One would have to come-up with a specific use-case for doing this, or some interesting method of inverting the typical behaviour, like warping to a steeper blade pitch at higher speeds, to help produce a more linear thrust curve, but I can't really think of how that might be done.
If attempting to use centrifugal force to perform the actuation, I guess we'd have to have some kind of weight out at the extremity, but adding weight there would put a significant amount of tensile stress on the entire blade. It would also cause more blade warping when the quadcopter is manoeuvring.
I like the idea very much, but a lot of careful thought would be required to come up with something which works in a desired way. I dare say a lot of computer simulation would need to be done as well, before attempting to manufacture.
It's certainly outside of the scope of my hobby-levels of expertise 😅.
Hello striking, I am going to carry out a project at the university in which I have to analyze a toroidal propeller but I must start analyzing the NACA profile using it, I want to analyze your design, could you tell me which NACA profile you used, it would be of great help to start my project.
So sorry for the late reply, and so sorry that I cannot really help in providing a NACA profile because I actually didn't use one. If you want, you can download the F3D files from Printables or Thingiverse and analyze the sketches which make up the mid-section of the prop design. You can get rough measurements to determine chord length camber and all that stuff, but essentially I free-styled to be most like an aerofoil whilst being 3D-printing-friendly.
The tutorial video might also help to see the process under which I designed the props.
Hi, again thanks for this forum you are creating, this is so much fun !
I am stuck with the idea that the section on the edge should be horizontal rather than vertical. Indeed there is so much drag generated there for nothing, and not only drag: the first blade pulls the air out and the second one drags the air in, so at the end there seems to be a vortex that we don't want.
I understand that it is the only way to make it printable, but I happen to have bought an injection modling machine so I am thinking on how to build it this way. I am working with fusion 360 but obviously not at your level, and when I download your step file, I can only see the final object and not all the history of your design. Could it be possible to have access to your full file in order to twist the external section and play with it?
again, thanks a lot
Oh man, so yeah just discovered the STEP files from Fusion don't include history, so I've just exported and uploaded F3D files which in theory should contain the design history. Let me know if they do, otherwise I'll be spending most of tonight trying to work out how to include the history
@@STRIKINGFPV perfect, it does work with the F3D files, thanks a lot. I will play a bit with them and let you know if I can end up with something useful. Cheers !
@@alexisphilandrianos5786 Oh glad to hear, I don't need to do an overnight panic'd Googling session, haha
Brilliant work at always. Your insights and contributions to community are invaluable. Do you have a discord or even better, a forum, where we can all gather and interact instead of on RUclips? Also, have you thought about live streaming to interact with the community? I think you'd hit it off well.
Oh man, I've joined a couple discord servers in the past and man it can get crazy in them - I'm honestly not sure I have enough time to get that heavily into the subject, as much as it is this generation's go-to method for collaborative thinking. I used to do the forum thing back when I was heavily into flight simulator, but I suppose the most I do now is Facebook Groups because of the convenience. There is actually a new Facebook Group dedicated to Toroidal Propeller design - small and quiet group currently, but a few people are relatively vocal.
In terms of livestreaming, well, that'll reveal my true speed of thought with more ums and ahs between sentences, so it might not be that exciting, plus I don't think there's enough of an audience just yet. I'll consider it in the future, but this is just a hobby at the moment. Still kinda' got a day job, lol.
I'm honoured that you would think I'm at that level though
@@STRIKINGFPV go for it man. You got what it takes, unique personable feel and a community that is exploding on your content. Don't worry about how you'd be perceived in real time. No one will judge you on that. It's just more about having conversations. People WANT to talk to you.
@STRIKINGFPV this whole topic has a ton of emms and uhs , and creates a ton of hmms.
I've read about leading edge serrations reducing noise, there are extensive studies on it, though it would be a pain to print
I have a question
The drone has 2 different types of propellers, how do I do this here if there is only 1 file, do I just mirror it?
Yes, can mirror in X or Y, pick one (not both). That being said, I've actually provided CCW (counter-clockwise) and CW (clockwise) versions for all my props, so you shouldn't have to mirror, just print two of each version.
Personally, I think this type of design shows promise, but probably at much higher travelling speeds. Has anyone done an actual fastest ground speed test? I've seen some in water, but not air.
Two areas I would suggest looking into:
1) print a normal blade, not moulded. Test the difference. Then, print a normal blade setup, but with connecting pieces to irradicate wing tip noise. Test what the reduction in efficiency is.
2) reduce the thickness at the outer edges a lot more on the toroidal loops. It would be hard to do, maybe with a 0.1mm nozzle on your printer, but an initial response my gut says that the heavier tip edges means the weight distribution is far too even. Normal blades have decreasing weight the further from the hub.
Also, is there a difference with using ducts? It's a shame you can't get your hands on a CFD modelling programme...
Keep up the good work all the same
Wow - who would have thought? Something like this will be the future, I think. Will there be variable pitch, washout (and washin)? And how are the effects of P-factor - are they a non-issue, or does it get worse? And if ducting these props is a no-go, will there be an application for jet engines? Lots of engineering and development to do, so whoever has a patent now will be stuck in the past of the future.
22:11 "Scimitar" is already used by Emax who makes a prop by that name. It is one of the most interesting shaped props I fly.
Ah, so it is. Cool design, very bio-mimicky, kinda' pterodactyl-like, I dig it. How do they fly compared to more normal looking props?
Yea I like those. I have on smaller quads
The outer tip is important since it moves fastest, if that outer tip has a lot of surface area and providing 0 lift the design is bad. Turbulence at a tiny tip is far more efficient than a large cross section non-lifting tip. The thing about droid props is there isn't a lot going into it unless you are in the defense industry. The water screw propellers are probably a better solution since it is strong, the blades do not have dirty air, the whole system lifts.
Maybe PLA+ would be a good material to print, its something between pla and petg its softer than pla but not so soft as petg.
Funny that, I found PETG to be a bit funny when I printed my old duct designs with it - very rigid, but upon hitting a certain load (crashing) it tended to splinter more, more delamination. But it's kinda' like that with most materials, the more rigid you get, the more a failure becomes catastrophic, the softer you get the less it holds its shape but it doesn't fail so spectacularly 😅.
@@STRIKINGFPV I think i order a roll for trying, i mean they use it for 3d printed gun parts. 😅
Excellent video, and I really liked the part where you did the helix to set the pitch.
I know I've made a few comments about balance here and there. Hopefully it didn't come across as a design complaint. It was more about the printing process,...and actually,.. even injection molded props can use some balancing. Gemfan whoop props are pretty out of balance. I find I can generally run HQ's as is, but I have to balance Gemfans. So I fully expect to have to balance a printed prop. But maybe these v3's are light enough to skip balancing for the first flights. Balance later to remove jello. We'll see.
Trying to work on resin printing these also. I have only ever printed SyriaTech Blu, as I have only ever been interested in functional prints. Currently working with a mix of blue and black( old and new bottles). It's just a good deal harder to get a print straight on the build plate with resin that doesn't have a huge elephant's foot. Especially with fairly clear resins.
That's interesting, I've often thought that part adhesion would be pretty good for small and light-weight parts like these props, but again I have no experience with resin. For the longest time I've want to get a resin printer but I've met a few people with them who've all said the same thing: they smell terrible, haha. I currently don't have a clean enough outdoor area to put one, and as of yet I don't exactly have a strong enough reason to buy one if it were just for printing props and nothing else (maybe some flexible parts with that TPU-esque resin).
Sure would love to grab one, but I ain't got funding for this 🤣.
@@STRIKINGFPV So I figured out half of the elephant's foot. My build plate was not flat/warped. Seems it is a common issue with these. So I bought some flat glass and sanded it flat. Actually, I sanded it most of the way on a plain sheet of glass.
So that removed a good bit of the elephant's foot, but it still exists. My guess now is it's the thin layer of resin trapped between the plate and fep on that bottom layer. So it ends up just being a thick bottom layer. That's somewhat ok for straight walled prints, but for props that don't come straight up off the plate, you'll get a lip. Maybe a thinner resin would help,.. not sure. I've tried slowing down the build plate to give it more time to squish out, and heated the chamber to thin it. For now, I'm just assuming I won't be printing directly on the build plate. Props will have to be supported.
I was wondering if the Bell Shaped Lift Distribution wing, as expounded by Al Bowers of NASA, would also reduce the noise of a prop. The twist of the wing causes the vortices to shed before, or inside of the wingtip, at say about 75% of half span so that the wingtip harvests energy from the vortex, like a winglet, but flat as continuing the wing. The explanation is that the vortex causes a vertical flow tilting the lift vector forward, producing 'Thrust' instead of 'Drag'. In the case of a Prop, may increase the 'pitch', the distance moved forward in one revolution, or at least improve efficiency.
Al Bowers did experiments with the BSLD wing but I have not yet seen experiments with BSLD props.
So we are actually creating a wind turbine blade for a competition based off the toroidal blade. For our design I put airfoils as a the mid and final profile but I have been having trouble trying to CFD test it to get like the lift, and pressure, etc. So I have been having trouble finding data for the efficiency and power output. I was wondering if the final profile as an airfoil is a bad idea as far as turbulence goes. What are your thoughts?
I guess if I were to try and apply this design to a turbine blade, I believe it's still fine to use an aerofoil shape, however the orientation would be different. In this prop design, the leading edge is facing the direction that the prop turns. For a turbine, the leading edge would need to face the oncoming wind. Basically an inversion of the prop design, if that makes sense?
If you've watched my tutorial on how I designed mine, you might see a bit easier how to go about designing it, but you'll have to think about how the rails which guide the loft command need to be laid out.
Apologies for the late reply, btw, you know, day job and life drama, etc.
I’m a mechanical engineer with +25 years in injection molded plastic and MIM design. I do think a mold can be designed for this concept, with some tweaks for shutoffs.
Someone else on another video also mentioned that they reckon injection moulding can be done here, so it makes me wonder a little, but the main thing is to not do my design but an actual "ideal" design which has a much much tighter transition at the blade edge and also has to deal with the blade intersection points on the trip-loop.
Would be great if you could have a look at my current models on Printables or Thingiverse - there's a 3D viewer available on those sites - so you can better work-out how complex it might be to do a mould. You'd have to imagine a sharper trailing edge and also a much tighter edge transition to get the shape more optimal than what my 3D print model is actually like. Of course, I guess you have CAD software too, and I've made the STEP files and Fusion 360 files available if you'd like to have a look.
If you can confirm that making a viable mould is do-able, I'd love to update everyone on my next video (hopefully a video where I get to test fly my own design).
How do you think this would work out for long range planes? We typically use two blade designs, and this would make it essentially a four blade. So less efficient. But if you can lower rpm for a given air speed it might prove useful.
I wasn't really sure since I had someone in my last video mention that my design did not do well at all, but on this video we've had someone mention that the design worked remarkably well, noting that my prop had much lower pitch than what he originally used and this worked out better.
I think a big challenge is choosing the right type of propeller which also depends on the motor and weight of the plane. This, and there seem to be huge losses from the imperfect finish that 3D-prints usually have vs injection moulded props.
I also think that toroidals might have a narrower efficiency window, so to speak. Like a regular prop can quite easily spool up and get a fairly linear rpm-thrust curve, whereas the toroidal might get higher thrust lower down but then run out of steam the higher you go.
Top form and bottom form and a radial form for each loop for injection molding...
Great ideas throughout the vids. One thing I think of is all these designs will eventually pay off to something. Then the next steps would be to design the machines to better the product manufacturing. So it in itself is a loop. New prop leads into new equipment to build. My opinion..
They are working toroidal props on boats so there should be a prop tuned for plans too.
Do these props also offer an advantage regarding weight lifting capabilities of drones?
As an educated guess, I'd say no - from what I've seen from other tests and what I'm kinda' gathering from the research, I feel like these propellers probably have a narrower efficiency window than regular props, so someone getting into serious design considerations for heavy lifting would probably need to have a target weight and try to extrapolate ideal motor specs paired with prop diameter, pitch and blade/loop count to make a toroidal prop that can compete in efficiency with a regular prop.
Semi-educated guess then 😅
definitely possible to injection mold a prop like this
just needs to be a multi part split mold
What if blades could be printed flat and melded into the required shape using another piece you design? The prop doesn't have to be in one piece right off the printer, as convenient as that is. The reason why I suggest this is because layer lines would add turbulence (and weakness, as you point out). Ofc, there's also non-planar 3D printing.
To expand on my idea a little. What I imagine is printing the hub and blades, then taking the blades right off the print bed and softening them up with a heat gun, to bend them over a shape in a way akin to sheet metal fabrication. Although this would be post-processing, it wouldn't be much. By doing this, there would be no supports and limited sanding required. The hub would have slots in it to glue the formed pieces into, or something to that effect.
I've thought about something like this, but was struggling to work out how to make it feasible. But having read your suggestion I'm thinking of another variation: print the hub and main blades as a single piece, but the blades are extra super long and the hub has the slots - you bend the blades back and slide the ends into the hub slots, then cap it off and stick it into a jig then heat to annealing temperature.
I wanna try it just to see if it works, haha, but I'll be doing some guessing on the blade geometry 😅
@@STRIKINGFPV Yeah. So for a 2 loop prop, you would have 2 pieces that fit in the empty space that the loops would form, which you then heatform the loops around (edit: um, these might have to be split up into multiple chunks so that they can be removed without breaking anything). Thinking about it that way, maybe modelling the assistant pieces isn't so difficult, because it's just the inverted space. Theoretically, because these pieces would support the loop geometry, the loop would turn out the same shape as intended. (keyword, theoretically :P)
Then comes the question of materials. Using ABS might actually be a good idea in this case because 1: abs welding, 2: it's light, and 3: it's relatively rigid. The traditional problem of poor layer adhesion is moot when you're working with the layers. Whereas, with PLA, it may be simply too soft and low-temperature such that heating it causes an instant mess.
Of course, if printing in ABS, it would make sense for the assistant-pieces to be printed in a higher temperature material like PC, or made with something like plaster of paris. This is starting to sound like a ton of work, but this technique could be used in other areas of 3d printing, and I'm all for pushing those boundaries.
I might give it a try, but I don't have a wind tunnel and such to test things with.
Step one would be making a simple heating-and-bending test, rather than trying to do everything at once.
Interesting idea. I made a 3D printed blocks for forming flat copper into blades for a heat exchanger. It would be tough to do, but it might produce results.
How about printing them vertically flat, making a reduction the outer blade thickness ~0.1mm. You could make a clamp that 'sharpened' the leading and trailing edges. Our company did some testing on gas flows and particle losses over shim materials, and orthogonal (or "flat") edges have a noticeable loss
Something like: Y have a 3D printer 4 when U can mold it ?! BRIGHTNESS IN ACTION!
I believe hobby 3D printing is a fair bit cheaper and more convenient than moulding at home. Unless things have changed recently..?
about the small vertical wingtip area. You say there is no waay around is, but why can't you continue with making the angle shallower until 0 deg (flat/horizontal) at the tip and continue from there to increase the angle again? I know that if you continue with the same airfoil design, it would be upside-down. But you could transition to a new airfoil from the tip onwards. the airfoil would be inverted from the one before the tip, but now because you continue the rotation on the other side of the loop, it would be right-side-up again. Does that make sense to you? it does to me, but it is difficult to find the right words to describe...
I'm not quite sure I understand your idea, but the way I can explain why that vertical exists is because it's a transition for the loop. Some other commenters have mentioned making the tip flat instead of vertical, but this will result in a blade tip, which is against what the loop design is trying to achieve.
You can imagine it with a piece of paper. If we made it flat-tipped, then actually we have one blade with a hole in the middle. The loop idea is like one long blade which has been almost folded back on itself, and this fold means that there will always be an upright section at some point.
The challenge here is minimising the size of this vertical loop bit, but if you make it so thin as if it doesn't exist, then you now have a blade tip.
@@STRIKINGFPV i guess I imagine my idea would be a little like an inverted Mobius strip. With the horizontal part on the outside. This might indeed be against what the loop is trying to achieve. But it would still make it a suitable prop for 3D printing, which seems to be the main benefit for now with your designs.
I am going to follow your tutorial and see if I can make my idea into an actual design. I have no way to test it though. But still educational and fun.
Acually, the inverted Mobius strip does not make sense at all. 😅🤦♂
It would be more like two separate normal twisted wings glued together at the tips. One originating from the leading side of the rotor hub and the other from the trailing side. So it would not be a loop anymore at all.
Was sleeping on this video if the plan is to continue down the toroidal rabbit whole maybe decreases the attack angle of the blades if it's a quad blade for the biloop toroidal. Also weight saving needs to be a focus maybe keep same attack angle but decrease blade width to decrease the amount of energy needed to spin the motors
I do believe that is the direction to go as well, but I'm internally fighting between the part of me that wants the ideal shape for the purpose, and the part of me that still wants an easy-to-print version that people can fly with. If I go full-send on creating the ideal shape (even though I'm still just making educated guesses), I risk creating a design that not many people will be able to test, which would be a shame.
I'd like to strike that balance if possible, but the more I think about the geometry the more I think the ideal design isn't really feasible on FDM printers - it seems to be much more a resin or SLA kind of thing.
@@STRIKINGFPV wondering what the finest fdm settings can print also printing with supports isnt as scary as it used to be you can tune the gap so the supports work but also break away with no grinding. fdm has come a long way perhaps your design might still work. maybe a .15mm nozzle with a even smaller layer height since we want a smooth print anyway so you can get as thin as possible. you can also order some from a company in the material you like once you have a design you think will work. right now i dont think we are limited by material strength yet at least on smaller drones. ran on rekon35 had alot of bobbles but i was in angle and it is only 2s so might not have enough power. just bouncing ideas dont feel obligated to take any advice.
Im no expert, but have a question about your comment at about 2:40 “ more drag” being detrimental. We usually think of drag as a negative, so we streamline race cars, airplanes, etc to reduce drag. But, isn’t the whole purpose of a blade to create drag? Nothing is 100% efficient, so some of the components of the drag might work against the efficiency, but overall, isn’t more drag getting more work done in this case?
by your pronunciation of your T's I'm guessing you're from eastern Canada?
Thanks for your work on this. Fascinating stuff
I will eventually be trying to print this with CF-Nylon and again with Lightweight PLA (100% infill)
Ooh, my Canadian friends will be pleased to hear your guess, but no, I'm actually Hong Kong-Australian but grew up mostly in Thailand 😅
@@STRIKINGFPV wow I was way off haha! I guess it's good news if you ever wanted to pretend to be Canadian you have the accent down!
@@iamdmc I'm a bit of a mimic actually, echolalia is when you can't help but imitate the accent of the person you're speaking with. So if I want to really really sound Canadian, I just channel my inner Rob (Canadian friend, who incidentally sounds like the "I'd buy that for a dollar" guy) 😅
I wonder if you have two different pitches... ex, 10 on the leading blade and 20 on the following blade. would it make it better or worst...lol
I dare say it would end up the worst of both worlds, or at best averaging out 🤣
Lawnmower props, extra flight time? extra thrust?
I've heard many say TPU is too flexible but no one actually mentions what TPU they've tried. I'm sure A95 hardness for example is still way for flexible for props but there are at least D58 available that would be a bit harder, still might not be enough tho.
Where I am I don't really have as much ready access to TPU harder than 95A - it's the most common and I reckon most people who've tried doing these toroidals in TPU probably used 95A.
If there is someone with a roll of D58 lying around, would love for them to print one to see if it's viable or if it's still too floppy, or flyable but inconsistent because of the flex.
For quietness, has anyone thought to incorporate something like the Blackhawk blade? A small portion at the end angled down, much the opposite from aircraft wingtips.
There r props that do this tip angles down like some plane wings too. Weirdest thing I seen prop with tip angled up. I thought the angle down was efficiency. Keep air under prop not going off edge
@Diving Falcon FPV the purpose is vortices reduction. Which does improve efficiency, but, reduces noise by a lot. If I remember correctly, and I may not be, it does change the tonality much the same way that the toroidal does.
It's something to consider, but it would be more difficult for 3D printers to do without lifting the main prop off the print bed with supports or printing upside down, which may mess with the leading edge of the aerofoil.
Swept-back tips on standard props often help with noise reduction though - the original DJI Mavic got a Platinum version afterward its initial release which featured sine-wave commutation for the motors and new props with swept-back tips to reduce noise. To my memory most of the DJI drones after that kept up the same trick, but recently the Mavic 3 props went back to normal without the tip sweep, interestingly.
@STRIKING FPV which does bring up a good point. Printing upside down might allow for either a thicker chord or more aggressive curve to the airfoil. Also might mean keeping the end of the prop horizontal rather than going vertical. In my mind, I kept envisioning it as a ribbon type shape, kind of difficult to get past sometimes.
@@tobins6800 I had a commenter on the last video mention that he worked with resins in the aerospace space (lol) and I did ask how he felt about printing part of the loop back in mid-air. Don't think he replied yet, but it's also getting harder to track comments so might have to go back and find it.
I know what you mean and I think MIT doing the split blade held with the t-mount is how they did it, so they probably printed the loop standing upright to get the shape you're thinking of.
I guess I'm just stuck here trying to keep my easy printing and minimal post processing dream alive by never lifting off the print bed 😅
the new design is supposed to be more efficient, that can mean that they couple more of the motor's power to the air (which you would expect from more blade area anyway) so it's not surprising that the motors draw more power (run hotter, spin up slower)
The real question is if the thrust/power ratio improves (i.e. if they produce 50% more thrust but eat 30% more power, they are clearly 'more efficient' but will require retuning of the drone)
Yes, I think it might result in us needing to design a drone to best-suit the performance profile of the prop, as opposed to the other way around.
Then in terms of comparing bi-loops to quad-blades and the like, I also didn't consider what might happen if we tried to design a very low-surface-area bi-loop to minimise drag in comparison to its equivalent bi-blade. But then the lower the surface area the less strength it has, haha.
So many factors to consider 😅
Maybe you should look at ducted propeller theory. There's an RC propeller teacher that may help.
Funny thing about ducted propellers is that in the drone world they do increase efficiency, but also increase noise and reduce maneuverability. I believe that the US Air Force, when doing experiments with various ducted fan flying machines, discovered that they had a natural tendency to self-level, which fights against the type of handling that many FPV pilots want, which is why the "slammed duct" was created, to try and benefit from the efficiency increase whilst reducing the effects of self-stabilisation and the aerodynamic cross-section which slowed-down the drone and made it more susceptible to wind.
Nowadays, a lot of "ducted" designs are not in fact real ducts due to far too much clearance between the prop tips and the "ducts" themselves, effectively making them glorified prop-guards. Many newer cinewhoop designs do-away with the duct fallacy and just have thin-ish prop-guards which don't interfere with aerodynamics all that much but protect the drone props from damage and protect people from getting sliced-up.
This is why I started with a "ducted" cinewhoop, the Cloud-149, then I designed slammed ducts for it (made a Fusion 360 tutorial), and then eventually switched to the Veyron35 CR Pusher frame. A pusher configuration with prop-guards seems to be one of the best ways to do a cinewhoop, as the thrust column has no obstructions, theoretically making for improved handling and flight behaviour. I definitely enjoy the flight characteristics of my Veyron35 as it still gives me the ability to fly indoors easily, but also cuts through the air outdoors as well.
Can you use a desktop 3D scanner, desktop cnc machine to make aluminium mould plates and desktop injection moulding machine to produce some propellers?
For the two part bi-loop maybe, but you better know what you're doing (no need for the 3D scanner, btw). Difficult is designing the mould in a way that your part will release, and making sure that you can get consistent results so as not to produce imbalanced props.
It's certainly not a challenge I'm currently equipped to take on, but a small team in a uni could probably do so.
Ahh okay I was watching your video and went down the rabbit hole of how ethix and other brands get there props made. Ended up watching a video from China they have a heap of plates and a commercial injection moulding machine. Fit the plate into the machine pick the type and colour of plastic pelets, even they had bags of rejected props quite interesting.
It seems much easier and low tech to build them from carbon fibre rather then plastic moulding.
@@jayzzz1234 Ooh I gotta go watch that, I love seeing how it's made kind of stuff. I really do wonder if either Gemfan or HQProp are looking into this with any level of seriousness, or if they realise that manufacturing is too complex for them to invest without having any real idea of how good they are or if people will actually buy them.
Well, like some comments I've read, there are definitely people who'd buy them for looks alone, so hey hey 😅
@@jayzzz1234 Actually, gotta put the carbon into a mould as well, and you'll suffer from the same release issues, it'll be stuck in there (assuming a single piece mould). If the bi-loop then again maybe, but it also wouldn't be a cheap manufacturing method, nothing like melting plastic and injection at high pressure, hehe.
As proposed I used the Tri-V2 for my DJI Mini 2. I made a Picture and Video (raw) from it. Starting all motors is successful only 50%. Maybe the Probs are still too heavy or behave too much different while starting that higher momentum to turn. I printed out the 50x3 and resized that to 92% 0.4mm wall 0.8 bottom, top and 10% cyclic infill. I can give STL-Files including the different mount if someone wants also print a set. Write me. But what happens is documented on a video. The drone starts up to the minimum hight of 0.5m, stays a moment and then the motors step off and it falls down. I run that first with only one prop replaced, stable so far but the same problem that the 3 remaining normal probs get switched off ! The Mini 2 seems too be too sensitive if load profiles of the motors are controlled. I cannot make the props with lesser weight. Imagine that the drone falls down some meters because the motors are switched off in the air 🙃. PLA worked best also with the thin walls and infills. I try for V3 as Tri and V2 as Bi and can give the STLs but be sure I do not want to risk my DJI Mini 2.
That's quite interesting, so it would seem that DJI has in-built protections against overloading the motors. Not surprising, but I suppose irritating for those who want to test these designs with their hardware.
I'm also slightly relieved though, as we know 3D printed props have a higher chance of breaking and DJI drones are more fragile than a lot of FPV drones, so I've often worried about people testing this and badly damaging their drone.
There's also a deeper worry for those who persist - if you can get the props light enough for the DJI firmware to not notice anything wrong, will they be even weaker and more unsafe to fly?
can you try designing and printing Zipline's silent propeller and how quieter it is compared to toroidal ? No one is actually talking about it. You can find the propeller design from Mark Rober's video.
Casually just saying -> 20:56 :D But anyways, this is interesting topic. Good video! :)
Hahahaha, normal in my house it seems 😆
Great video! Fascinating subject also thought (while my back to the TV ) that Elon musk was speaking lol your tones and enunciations are dead on ..though I'm sure it's just my brain 😊..
Hmmm.... Maybe a ducted propeller- propeller blades with ring attached around the blade tips- would work better than toroidal propeller.
Those sounds are probably generated by vortices on the tips of classic propellers.
Is there such thing as carbon fiber 3d printing?
Yes and no - there is carbon-fibre impregnated filament which basically has very small chopped up carbon strands in it - I have dabbled in PETG-CF, for example, but the most robust carbon material for 3D printing is PA-CF (Nylon Carbon Fibre). There is one other method which has a continuous carbon strand in the fibre and a special printed with a blade designed to cut the carbon strand at the end of an extrusion, but this is very specialist.
How about one loop plus one regular blade? Best of both worlds?
Print a prop with blades that mimic owl wings.
But ur adding weight cause tri loop has 6 or well 4.5 blades maybe haha so I can't see how it's more efficient. Maybe very low rpms.
I like props that got a curve down at the end, like certain wings, to keep air rolling off tip
For 3d printed don't u need to polish it smooth too to improve efficiency.
Actually, if you refer to my pinned comment, @MoppelMat printed a V3 Tri-loop 5" set in nylon carbon fibre and got the weight lower than regular injection-moulded 5" props. He did also smooth the blade using a Dremel like tool, but still nowhere near the same smoothness of a production prop. Got very similar performance to the standard props, I was very surprised!
There's only one answer for the name: blade loops, or bloops for short.
If I do do a poll, this'll have to be an option 🤣
Check this out.
This Genius Propeller Will Change Transport Forever
Yes!!
BECAUSE WE CAN! o7
Best answer for most things we enjoy 😆
so why arent we going to make some single blade propeller and try them ?
Funny you should say that, considering my latest video 😉
To make a valid comment and not make fun of MIT that made this public on purpose for community to research it.......a point the noise that the regular prop makes - toroidal may be quiter because the high frequency resonates also the object.......evident on hard styrene airplanes where the motor also vibrates the wing surface which amplifies the sound. Maybe this applies to quads also.
Just add a rim at the tips of a traditional propeller. Won’t that be simpler, more efficient and manufacturable?
any one else think of hybrid toroidal Zipline props?
My latest video kinda' heading in that direction, but we'll see how it goes, first tests not exactly great
mouse was a spy drone from boeing
How about that:
The name toroidal is propably misleading. The original boat prop design looks to me more like a twin-wing or an oversized leading edge flap with the benefits of winglets..
You propably know the strange tailrotors on some helicopters, two pairs of blades influencing each other, this is supposed to be more silent and efficient. The offset of the two pairs of blades is horizontally and vertically so that the leading pair acts as a sort of leading edge flap. The advantage for the boat prop is propably a higher tolerance against cavitation.
The twin-wing in the case of the original boat prop has a downward winglet on the leading wing and an upward winglet at the trailing wing. The angle off attack at the tip of a winglet is supposed to be 0 so both winglets are joined at this point.
What do you think?
Everyone has an almost identical design but they just don't look right to me, I guess it's the limitations of the printer