This Propeller will Change Aviation Forever!

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

I’ll say it’ll change aviation forever - a Cessna 172 with a half ton of bronze hanging off the front would definitely be changed ! 👍🏻

[@chazndave]

Haha…yes :)

[@gulfstream-tvstudios9546]

noooo, will be 3 kg of carbon fiber ...

[@zivoradnedeljkovic8242]

😆

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

@@gulfstream-tvstudios9546 Since a standard fixed pitch carbon prop (Sensenich) for a 172 is about 6 KG I doubt this new prop shape could come in anywhere under 20kg.

[@jaysonwallker1648]

It doesn't have to be bronze, it could be carbon fiber

[@tylerfb1]

That clip from Mark Rober did not use toroidal propellors, fyi. There are definitely costs to this design. Two off the top of my head are that it is much heavier and it will have significant problems with implementing a variable pitch design. Both of which are very significant to aviation. Hopefully those problems will be solved eventually.

[@cowboybob7093]

Imagine a scimitar blade being pitched Slice the toroidal where the trailing half begins to experience stress decline Make a flexible bridge between the segments Yeah, easy as pie, not. But within the realm of realistic expectation.

[@rusle]

I have to agree. To be able to go all the way from feather and to disk and sometimes even continue to reverse are all important feature of a modern aviation propeller for a turboprop today. For small drones, it would be a bit different since they got different requirement for their propeller.

[@lodgecav490]

If and when electric motors replace engines, variable pitch will be potentially obsolete, speed controllers will take care of it.

[@Chwibon]

​@@lodgecav490 Variable pitch is not there only to control thrust, but also to optimize the propeller efficiency at different air speeds and rpms (related to blades angle of attack). You can't replace this with more flexible speed control.

[@Skyprince27]

“And for that reason, I’m out” - Mark Cuban

[@ReidMaulsby]

In the Mark Rober clip, that drone did NOT use a toroidal propeller…the design is completely different.

[@alfworks]

Exactly

[@Patrick-xd8jv]

Don’t let facts in the way

[@PiaDoBan]

I love the "this will change something for ever" as if hundreds of aeronautical engineers from huge companies wouldn't have done it or at least thought about it before

[@raylawrence1]

This idea has possibilities but has a limited application in aviation. I can't see how the pitch of the blades could ever be made variable and the 'dead-engine' drag in the glide would be unacceptable. Drones certainly have a need for quieter operation but the big opportunity must be in under-water turbines for tidal power generation. New ideas are always exciting but I have seen claims of 101 % efficiency - clearly ill informed !

[@Nanoblaster77]

Need collective pitch control on our quads. That will revolutionize drones. Like the wheel or fire. Lol. Turbo prop our drones yo

[@cayenne7792]

@@Nanoblaster77 what do you think the three phase electronic speed controllers are for? Mechanical collectives will never be as fast as ESCs

[@Nanoblaster77]

@Cayenne no bro. I dont want to spend batt power on breaking amd spolling back up. Collective pitch control on all 4 props will change the game. Also speed Battery efficiency all that goes up with collective pitch. I'm a helicopter pilot trust me when I say. I like my motor to stay at a constant rpm when i'm doing tic tocks. If ya know what a real 3d ticktock is. On top of that The mechanical part of the Turbo prop is all the way down to a 10000 of a second with the digital high speed servo again helicopter pilot. Here. I know what I'm talking about I've also seen the math. Please give me more reasons to go on. It will increase everything about your drone even the sound

[@Clickmaster5k]

@@Nanoblaster77 There already are collective variable pitch quad copters. They are mechanically complicated so more expensive and less popular.

[@Clickmaster5k]

@@cayenne7792 CCPM is far far faster then motors can change speed. Look at RC helicopters.

[@jamesnielsen1802]

I think one thing they need to consider are fluid variables. You can design a single propeller for water because it's relative pressure/temperature remains within certain parameters. While in flight, you're soaring through differing pressure/temperatures all the time plus the variables of the motor that turn it. (both electrical or combustion style motors)

[@2009dudeman]

It's also not the end all be all for marine either. In the best conditions it's able to achieve up to 20% more fuel efficiency as claimed on some testing. But thats everything goes right testing, make one variable poor for the test and you radically drop efficiency. It's going to be a rather benign change that will affect the bleeding edge of the boating market, as well as the extremes. But starting at $5,000 for a 200HP marine motor really isn't very enticing considering a standard prop only costs $200-300. It's not like buying an engine for the boat either, props don't last forever. It's like buying a set of tires for the boat, at least if you want any performance. Sure smaller boats run their props for the better part of 30 years in slow lake boating as long as they don't prop strike anything. But take any bay boat and you are looking at a lifespan of less than 10 years.

[@evanfinch4987]

soaring so high above the world, never thought i could feel so free

[@evanfinch4987]

im one with the birds, and magic is all i see

[@france895]

@@evanfinch4987 lsd is good

[@OkalaborationO]

The one application I’ve seen that seemed to have a lot of potential was continuous wings on planes that curve back to the fuselage.

[@brianx2504]

I'm curious if classified naval submarines are already using a design like this. They go to great effort to conceal the props when subs are in dry dock. It could make sense considering how important it is for submarines to operate as quietly as possible.

[@velqt]

Not quite but seawolf and ohio's propellers are ducted

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

Just look at USA propellers advantage over USSR until they purchased CNC technology from Toshiba.

[@s.h.nourani5469]

Dive to find out

[@NigelTolley]

No, but they are odd numbers of blades, and subtle differences to spread the sound across a range of frequencies rather than all at the same, reducing the power at any given frequency.

[@trololoev]

​@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha USSR made quietest submarine, "black hole", why USA didn't buy same technologies?

[@TommyT777]

Animals, especially the marine variety I would imagine, will probably appreciate this innovation the most. Our propellers have been unnecessarily obnoxious for so long! I hope this is a relief for them!

[@isacchris1]

You can plainly see at 3:43 the top outboard engines prop produces no cavitation just exhaust gases. Absolutely ingenious design!

[@randomslacker9204]

Best used to keep submarines quiet 🤫

[@embracethesuck1041]

I love that they decided to photoshop a boat propeller to the front of a Cessna. Well done

[@fhuber7507]

An April foolish ship propeller...

[@quillmaurer6563]

I'm skeptical that this would be usable on airplanes. Drones and boats yes, but not manned airplanes. Two main issues with that, plus another speculation: - Variable pitch: All but the smallest airplanes use variable pitch propellers, and I can't see any way of incorporating that into this. Not a problem for drones and most water vessels, which typically use fixed-pitch propellers. - Centrifugal force on the hoop section. Normal propellers have straight blades for a reason, the immense force pulling outward is along their length, keeping them straight - a curved blade would be pulled straight. A toroidal propeller the size of an airplane propeller spinning at airplane propeller speeds would pull itself out of shape unless it's immensely heavy. Weight is also a concern, this would be much heavier than a normal propeller. This isn't as big a concern for boat or drone propellers that are much smaller, or on large ships spin much slower, centrifugal force is a much smaller component of the load on them. Drones can use lightweight (3d printed in experimental designs shown here) plastic, and boats have small propellers and are less weight sensitive. - Actually a third thing comes to mind, even more technical: these look like somewhat wider-chord blades. Smaller propellers and moving slower through their respective fluids results in a lower Reynolds number, with viscosity a more major factor (water is much more viscous than air but also denser, the ratio of viscosity to density is fairly similar, so the same object at the same speed through air or water would have similar Reynolds numbers). I believe that this is why boat propellers, as well as desk fans, typically have rounded scoop-like blades, while airplane propellers are longer, thinner wing-like blades. TL;DR I'm skeptical how well this will scale to the size and speed of an airplane propeller from an aerodynamic perspective.

[@Sircleanfpv]

The graph at 3:34 actually shows a drastic decrease in thrust if you would be able to read you would notice the blue one being an HQ prop and the orange one being the toroidal prop

[@LukeKirk1113]

Lol, environmentalists always trying to pull a fast one on us. Idiots.

[@SW-qr8qe]

The graph at 3:41 shows the prop produces more thrust then the new design. Opposite to that stated

[@dougthomson5544]

Hmmm … how would you manage to incorporate variable pitch into these things.

[@avolantyable]

If it could do it without compromising the operation then the aviation community would have your ear.

[@tigersharkzh]

3:35 The orange curve is from a Toroidal Propeller, the blue one from a conventional Propeller. It shows that the Toroidal design is significantly less efficient. Exactly the opposite of what you're trying to tell us.

[@mac22011964]

As an aero engineer I can tell you this is complete tosh.

[@frenciobencio]

doesen't the graph at 3:40 contraddict the thesis that toroidal is more efficient? we can see that for the same motor utilization the HQ prop generates much more thrust...

[@stefans.8072]

Yes, well spotted!

[@Shipx7]

I learned about toroidal propellors a while ago as a new design for use in ships and immediately wondered if they could be used the same way in planes and also wind turbines since the principles are largely the same.

[@ChrisG1392]

Nope it's not the same. The advantage of toroidal props is that they reduce cavitation but that only applies to water. In air they would be a little more efficient and quieter but its not the same efficiency gain as a water prop. And only applicable to multi rotors

[@VlaD-tv8to]

@@ChrisG1392 then u guys know that Mark Rober's "I cannot believe that's airborne" hook was for a NON-toroidal prop ;) kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoC6dYF4qp53obc

[@stevewinwood3674]

I haven't seen any toroidal propellers on ships. When I saw these toroidal propellers I wondered how long it would take for shipping companies to change over.

[@DarthCrumbie]

Love that you use a propeller that looks nothing like the toroidal shape to show how quiet it can be.

[@rv6amark]

As a mechanical engineer who has had to deal with the dynamics of mechanical systems for over 40 years, this propeller looks like it will be a dynamics nightmare on an airplane. It won't be so bad in water due to the damping effects of that fluid, but air does not have near the damping properties. Weight will also be a problem. Modern materials will help that, but not eliminate it.

[@philshyu5248]

Interesting. A very long time ago when I was still in university, we all knew that the centre of the prop doesn’t do much work and it was all done by the edge, so we experimented with sickle shaped props. But they were too fragile. It never even occurred to me the toroidal design to reconnect the end of the sickle back to the base. That’s brilliant if you can get it to work! 🤓

[@ACiDGRiM]

😢😊😊😊

[@FullCircleTravis]

I think these would be great for electric foil boards, hydrofoil bikes, and pedal kayaks. That is if they are substantially more efficient.

[@stephgagnoulet3133]

Very interesting but only to replace fixed pitch propellers...

[@KOUKAROS-GR]

Exactly!

[@DirkHav]

But there are MUCH fixed propellers to swap.

[@stephgagnoulet3133]

@@DirkHav agree!

[@tonypitsacota2513]

You got to love the *PERPETUAL MOTION PEOPLE* and the *SQUARING THE CIRCLE PEOPLE* ... Not very bright, but what soul!

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi. Existing aircraft propellers are about 80% efficient so there's little room for improvement. Certainly not a doubling of aerodynamic power delivered, 100% is the theoretical maximum. Efficiency depends upon the pitch of the blades and the altitude of the aircraft, so a "one size fits all" approach isn't possible either. The reason propellers haven't changed since the Wright Brothers, is that they established the science behind them and the only improvement possible that significantly improved efficiency was variable pitch. Extrapolating from slightly improved performance on low altitude model drones to full scale aircraft at various speeds, heights, and power levels isn't warranted. Cheers, P.R.

[@mojoneko8303]

I don't think a variable pitch Toroidal propeller is likely to ever happen.

[@philliprobinson7724]

@@mojoneko8303 Hi. Probably not, however for constant speed constant power constant pressure uses such as ships and hydroelectric turbines, a toroidal turbine could increase efficiency by 10%. For Norway and NZ that's a lot of extra carbon free electricity in their national grids. Cheers, P.R.

[@MonkeyTrade]

physic is the rule and everything else is opinion. you can't have a propeller more efficient than single blade. However, Single blade doesn't have weight balance, So 2 blades is as efficient as it's physically possible

[@erwinb3412]

If a type could be designed that has a pitcheable thrust , by changing the shape somehow (for example being able to slide in and out on the axle in terms of length and simultaneously changing pitch angle) , then its function analog to a GA constant speed propellor would be even better .

[@silverthunder6653]

You often see planes with the tip of the wing that is bent upwards. That thing is called "winglet". An example is at 5:56. It doesn't produce lifting force, and it's purpose is to minimize the difference of pressure between the upper part and the lower part of the wing. This difference of pressure generates a vortex at the wingtip. A vortex is loss of energy, and a winglet minimize this loss, thus increasing the efficiency. Now look at the toroidal propeller: the furthest part from the center is vertical, and generates no lift. It's like the winglet. So the toroidal propeller is a "regular" propeller with a built-in winglet. That's why it's more efficient.

[@NigelTolley]

Good thought. I looked at it more as a ducted design that contains the duct as part of the prop.

[@louisavondart9178]

The noise is called Cavitation. A submarine's nightmare.

[@piperg6179]

Another flash in the pan. Sure it looks like an wonderfully complex gift from heaven. Sure it’s got a sexy form. But we long long ago learned that surface area costs drag and small disk diameter reduces thrust. Yet both are inherent in this prop. And, in an airplane, weight is everthing and this design will never be light for the needed disk diameter. What may be gained in reduced tip vortex will be lost several times over in lower thrust, greater drag and very high weight. Perhaps Hartzell and Sensenich and all them wind turbin folks know what they are doig.

[@ne1cup]

thoughtful answer... science is calling

[@piperg6179]

Oh! I forget about ice! Those closed loops sure ain’t gonna shed ice as easily as a straight blade. Bet this prop would look like a twerling snowman and would lose all thrust when you need it most.

[@obi-ron]

Researched and found to be a dead end over a half century ago. The prop itself would create so much additional drag and cause greater fuel consumption at higher speeds that you get a quieter, more efficient flight by reducing the speed you fly with a standard prop. Might have a benefit in tiny rc drones but upscaling would cancel out any advantages.

[@rfjohnson69]

This would be fascinating in use on submarines where cavitation and rpm issues are paramount in staying quiet. If you could reduce the rpm of the screw on a sub by 20% and also reduce the noise by the same amount it would be a real game changer in giving subs the advantage over surface ships.

[@lifeintornadoalley]

If you don't think the engineers haven't tried it yet, you must not know our army well.

[@rfjohnson69]

@@lifeintornadoalley submarine screws cost millions of dollars and installing them takes weeks (if memory serves). Testing this would be a huge endeavour

[@lifeintornadoalley]

@@rfjohnson69 we've tested worse for years

[@Parawingdelta2]

Variable pitch seems to be an essential part of performance, particularly in aircraft that fly to high altitudes. It's particularly relevant for multi engine aircraft in the event of power failure, so how would this work?

[@riogrande5761]

So if this propeller is so much better, we should be seeing them every where very soon,

[@FlatOutFE]

They can't be molded due to their shape. Printing is necessary. This limits the materials used and drives up the practical cost.

[@garyszewc3339]

​@@FlatOutFEthey are machining from billet for boats. $10,000 each.

[@riogrande5761]

@@FlatOutFE To use an over used term, it's it's a "game changer" then the cost should be worth it and eventually more efficient ways of production will be found.

[@FlatOutFE]

@@riogrande5761 , I don't think it's a "game changer".

[@riogrande5761]

@@FlatOutFE Bingo!

[@mateusz4r]

The graph visible at 3:40 contradicts what you say. The orange line shows the thrust generated by the toroidal propeller, and at maximum engine power it generates only 40% lift of conventional propeller.

[@jawaanwatkins6569]

Motorsport has been using this on wing design for many years. MotoGP has designs similar to this on the front of their bikes.

[@AZREDFERN]

I wanna see a toroidal turbo-prop. The problem with aviation use, especially with longer range aircraft that fly at various speeds and altitude is blade pitch. There currently isn't any way to adjust blade pitch on toroidal props during flight, so we won't be seeing them on aircraft for quite some time. The only solution I can think of is maybe blade warping. A carbon fiber and spring steel blade that can be warped to different pitches, since they are a continuous hoop shape.

[@pengykill]

I was thinking the same, no blade pitch adjustment. I was also thinking maybe the higher the rpm the higher the centrifugal forces which could “wrap” the toroidal shape to the corresponding resonating form. But is limited by material properties

[@TheAlchaemist]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see at the graph shown at 3:35 it is exactly the opposite, the orange curve is the toroidal propeller and given the same engine power, it has less thrust.

[@deldridg]

Well spotted. You are correct! There are many holes in this presentation - even toriodal ones!

[@brendanwarrick4978]

This propeller design originates in Tasmania in 1971. It was developed by David B. Sugden, an engineer consulting to The Robbins Company

[@amelierenoncule]

NOW, with your aeroplane, mes amis, you can easily mix a pasel of cake batter...Sweet !

[@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife]

The main issue I see with widespread adoption in aviation communities is the Tori le with changing pitch with a toroidal prop. I'm not sure how you'd do that (or if it's even necessary for that matter). The design is just so new.

[@KuDastardly]

Didn't Zipline developed their own silent blade propellers? The devs explained that it was inspired by nature when they observed how quiet an owl can flap it's wings.

[@saltydecimator]

Link?

[@KuDastardly]

@@saltydecimator kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoC6dYF4qp53obc

[@_superthunder_]

@@saltydecimator mark robers vid

[@SirJonneh]

3:33, stating an increase in performance while displaying a graph that shows the toroidal props producing lower thrust at the same utilization prolly ain't the right way to support your point

[@meowfaceification]

Toroidal propellers were experimented with back in the 1950s. The work was abandoned because the costs outweigh the benefits. Loss of lift at low speeds, increased maintenance costs, reduced survivability in the event of prop damage, and minimal difference in fuel savings for fixed wing aircraft. These have useful applications but plane props isn’t one of them

[@Solisium-Channel]

I'd definitely love to have them fans inside of my computer. I can still hear my GPU and case fans spin when I play games and it heats up in there. Could go with water coolers but those still have fans.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

So aside from the real world benefits in watercraft, so far all the you-tube channels that have tested this design have shown they are quieter but less efficient by a factor of four.

[@nurburgringkid]

Thank you, finally a realistic potential tech breakthrough.

[@rzero21]

Considering the size of that thing, doubt it will have a practical application in aviation, at least within the next 20 years. Current propellers are aimed at ease of maintenance, production cost and practicality. While noise is of concern, reliability and costs are more important in aviation. Perhaps in a future new type certificated aircraft it will be practical, but not today, unless manufacturers address the size/weight of that thing, and how much it is gonna cost to put on aircraft vs current propellers.

[@dogjennings1171]

Yeah, it'll change it for fixed pitch applications to an extent (stress limitations for larger props), but not variable pitch applications

[@BangkokBubonaglia]

First thing I thought of when I watched this. How on earth do you optimize the pitch of this thing for different flight modes?

[@dogjennings1171]

@@BangkokBubonaglia the same way you optimise any propeller, based on your performance requirements

[@BangkokBubonaglia]

@@dogjennings1171 Except requirements change during different phases of the flight. I highly doubt anyone is going to volunteer to climb out on the wing and replace the propeller with a different design so you can transition to cruise from climb mode. The angle of attack of the blades needs to be continuously adjustable over range. That is easy with the conventional design. I don't see how that can be done here without T-2 like liquid metal.

[@dogjennings1171]

@@BangkokBubonaglia how do you think other fixed pitch propellers account for different phases of flight?

[@chestergt7765]

I'll believe it when they hit the markets. These will sell like crazy in the rc hobby and won't cost much more than what's out there already. But I have my doubts it's really that good.

[@randomclick2826]

The tests I’ve seen on drones with 3d printed versions of these have been louder than normal props and much more prone to spontaneous catastrophic failure. There’s a lot engineering problems this design introduces. Maybe with the correct materials these could work but the additional forces mean they’d need something vastly superior to steel to manifest any advantage over standard propellers. Just the centrifugal forces on these in a vacuum is enough to demonstrate why they’re prone to failure.

[@chestergt7765]

@@randomclick2826 that's because they are 3D printed. They aren't as accurate and the layer lines make them weaker.

[@matsv201]

It wasn´t 205% increase, it was 105% peak efficiency. That is a 5% increase. While that might not sound like a lot, its actually quite substantial.

[@beepbop6697]

How can something be over 100% efficient? Sounds like perpetual motion quackery.

[@matsv201]

@@beepbop6697 it just depends on what refernce you have. The referense may not always be imput power, but it might be a other system. Even if the reference is imput power it can still be higher than 100%, say for all heat extractors is that pretty much always true.

[@beepbop6697]

@@matsv201 ok, that makes sense. I always think of efficiency where the reference for 100% would be the "laws of physics maximum" and everything is relative to that. If fields arbitrarily pick a different reference, then you can have 105%, 200%, a billion% "efficiency" -- but one should state what the 100% efficient relative reference actually is.

[@HotelPapa100]

You just proposed a double decker propeller. Sound is not the only loss a propeller encounters. The ring wing concept has again and again proposed as a solution for induced drag. Newsflash: ist isn't Higher thrust at lower RPM does not yet equate higher efficiency. The key figure is input power.

[@MOOBBreezy]

Yep, I immediately thought of the manufacturing cost being high for these. I imagine this could be easily done with injection molding, or even 3d printed, for small applications such as drones. Metal machining is a whole different story

[@darkwetntight910]

3D printer titanium can be done on smaller scales for affordable pricing. I ride bikes, and a company called Atherton Bikes manufacture a frame with all the joining high stress points of the frame are made of said titanium. It’s a clean and affordable process now.

[@scbane]

The only way this would work on GA planes, is if they had electric propulsion, which is capable of near-instantaneous torque changes. It also would create far too much drag in a dead engine scenario. Add to that, toroidal shapes are subjected to far higher centrifugal stress than a standard prop, which translates to material fatigue, especially under load. Therefore, time before replacement could theoretically be much lower than standard props. Overall, good for drones and other electric applications with very little load, never make it in GA.

[@petercrossley1069]

Stop saying “advancement”. The word is simply “advance”.

[@firestarter105G]

Personally I love the sound of a propeller on an aircraft. Nothing sweeter than four of them being spun by 4360's.

[@alexreynolds2717]

It will be interesting to see how industries use this. Twin prop freighters now tend to allow prop featering so if an engine goes out on the ocean, the boat can stop the drag. Same with planes. So this design would really help in boats or planes with multiple engines. It only works in basic needs like a fixed angle single prop for planes or any boat where drag on a broken engine matters a low (ie not on your speed boat but on a freight liner)

[@hamishahern2055]

if you have to hear about something on youtube first instead of the news.. then I call buillshit :) lol

[@zivoradnedeljkovic8242]

Just tell us how much static force / per 1kW of power. Thank You.

[@nixy49]

Yes..... that's what I was hoping for. Quite an easy test to carry out. ?

[@jonasbaine3538]

@@nixy49 this is just investment hype to generate viewership data

[@3RTracing]

what a great way to turn my 172 into a submarine. Really folks.

[@bobbofly]

This could be a real game changer for part 103 ultra light fuel carry limits. Substantially increased fly times.

[@scottbutler2343]

In applications where these propellers are lined up in series, would the downstream prop have a more aggressive pitch or even counter rotate?

[@nedkent5239]

Also impressive results on boat motors as well.

[@1988gellertgal]

This Propeller will Change Aviation Forever! ABSOLUTLY AGREE!! All planes will swim :))))))

[@Gazzapa57]

I wonder if it's possible to ask an AI to design the perfect propeller form - it could try billions of different designs inside a simulated environment and work out which design is the quietest or most effective. It would suprise me if somebody isn't working on this already.

[@mohamedashik6092]

I also thinking same

[@jakubparcheta9643]

You show a graph of grams of thrust plotted against motor utilization percentage, which clearly shows that the toroidal prop generates 30% of thrust of the conventional prop when at max load, am I reading it wrong? It would mean that the toroidal prop is efectively a gimmick, not applicable to anything in the real life, except when the noise is crucial

[@XPlanes-uh6ww]

This Propeller can really change transportation- I am sure that the question of the production will be solved with new 3D-Printing technologies in future.

[@akketa]

What I find interesting is this propeller was patented in the 1970s.

[@ericresh3268]

I want a house fan with one of these in it.

[@matthewwilsonn6748]

This may work for a boat, but this will never work for a plane.

[@sircudius5620]

the thoroidal propeller is genius, it follows the form of nature, therefore it functions 205 percent better.

[@GenY_Millennial]

"not only does it seem quieter" is a promising statement

[@pi.actual]

looks like it's three times the weight of a normal prop

[@nixy49]

Yes but what if the power required per unit static(?) thrust was half, say.

[@gulfstream-tvstudios9546]

no, 3 kg of carbon fiber

[@pi.actual]

@@gulfstream-tvstudios9546 So a regular prop, made of the same carbon fiber, would weigh 1 kg.

[@sparrowhawk-nm1qf]

Have they tested if the efficiency gains carry through to windmill blade design?

[@robertmargolin-ross6025]

There are not any actual efficiency gains. You need only read the actual mit paper to see that.

[@TheDJGlucose]

Your content keeps me sane.

[@beepbop6697]

Forget aviation for a minute, think of all the other applications where propellers are used in more common items: regular window/ceiling fans, residential ac/furnaces, vacuums, and similar household appliances. If this new design is as good as claimed (more efficient, less noise, etc) then why don't we have manufacturers pumping them out as it would be all the rage?

[@EDX2308]

I would be most interested to see this on a contra rotating setup on an aircraft and if it will be even more efficient.

[@chamberlin1]

So much incorrect information here 🤦

[@NeoMK]

So much lack of examples here.

[@mjklein]

So that's what that crazy Egyptian propeller thing is!

[@kylemichels738]

That’s the coolest video I’ve seen in months

[@jacktheripper-hp9tx]

and if all this would be good how come you dont see it all over ? never one seen one in my life

[@Sopixil]

because we just discovered it dummy

[@atticusrallye702]

The design was discovered and developed very recently, in the past year, so aviation industries have not had time to adopt the propeller. The design also must undergo rigorous testing, and it is way more expensive right now than a conventional propeller. To summarize, it is not common yet because it is expensive and not fully developed.

[@benjaminnevins5211]

I'm going to put a 200 lb bronze prop on my 80hp cessna

[@benjaminnevins5211]

WTF the propeller on the submarine is wrong, it has more pitch at the tip?

[@robm.4512]

Because it’s a proprietary marine design primarily aimed at the outboard engine marketplace and they’re ludicrously expensive for a small performance gain due to the difficulty in generating the complex form necessary.

[@blue280485]

Amazing! Can this Toroidal Propeller be used as 'Turbine' 🤔 What if we used Toroidal Turbine for Wind Energy & Hydro-Kinetic Energy 💡

[@joldidjeridoos6026]

Perhaps the ceiling has been reached regarding aviation. The release of anti gravity technology would likeley inspire the next great leap forward.

[@kchalu]

Any fan would likely benefit from this as well.

[@Jeremy-ms3bd]

It's combining the front that does the work while the vehicle can also be pushed from behind.

[@steffenjespersen247]

Look at the graph again @3.36 then running at full motor utilization the Toroidal propeller only delivers 160g of thrust while the standard gives 450g. So it is useless outside very niche applications where efficiency and payload matters very little.

[@Silvertarian]

This needs to be applied to pc fans. Edit: nvm way ahead of me lol

[@randbaldwin]

It's so amazing and revolutionary that nobody except experimental 3d printers are playing with. If it was so amazing and practical, it would be in use. The question is, why isn't it?

[@gerardmeehan8240]

Abs and Lloyd's of London should be interested in this new technology

[@steveprice5664]

This looks very interesting. While not controllable pitch, and more massive than a conventional 2-blade propeller on a airplane, I would expect it to be made of lighter weight material that could flex, giving the effect of controllable pitch. An advantage I see for aircraft would be substantially reduced risk of engine damage in a prop strike accident.

[@SomeOneOneOne]

Aerodynamic noise underwater - GOT YA!

[@armyranger9346]

It may work for a fixed pitch aircraft but, for a variable pitch aircraft it has a long way to go.

[@grahamconquer8117]

My tests show that if by disturbing the air in front of the propeller can make a vortex which is excellent when it hits the propeller making the noise under 5

[@hstrinzel]

BRILLIANT! Thank You! :) Hermann

[@joshuadelongchamp3859]

Lol the random major hardware clip had me like the Leo meme pointing at my screen

[@formulacam]

Stick these on MU2’s, turbo commanders, King Airs, PC12’s, tail dragers, meridian’s, TBM’s, and a bunch of other loud ass prop planes i can’t think of right now lol

[@1962Sting_Ray]

Good luck on the FAA approving this

[@avolantyable]

This propeller would have to flex and adjust blade pitch to compensate the aircrafts engine power. You should really look at traditional aircraft props more carefully since they heavily use pitch changing mechanisms (governors) to adjust how much the prop thrust is given. This design does not look like you can change the pitch easily while its rotating, this should be carefully considered when you want to use it for aviation. A variable pitch Sharrow Propeller, if you can build that, then you may get the attention of the aviation community. You have to reduce wind-milling in case the engine dies. Safety always comes first in aviation, and if the blade cant change its pitch, its not even considered, and is more of a hazard to the craft.

[@jbevill4085]

Big truck fan blades could use this.

[@RA-gk5zg]

You know nothing about aerodynamics. The conventional airplane propeller is very efficient, around 90 percent. Some specific applications aircraft propellers are 95% efficient (large and slow turning). Hell, the Wright brothers propeller had an efficiency of around 70%. The difference is air vs water. Boat propellers are below 50% efficiency. That is why there is a lot of room for improvement in boat propellers. Toroidal propellers will never be used in aircraft.

[@MascottDeepfriar]

the mark rober reaction clip at the beginning is of a drone that does not use a toroidal propeller.