Why This Propeller will Change Transportation Forever

[@wasupfool5692]

The bubbles shown in the video are from the exhaust of the engine. Outboard motors exhaust through the hub of the propeller

[@robfreeman5783]

yea, the vid is kind of garbage.

[@andyman8630]

01:02 the tip vortices are the ones that count! when you see them side by side you can see the tip vortices of the standard prop and (almost) none from the toroidal

[@kurtiswilkes538]

A waterjet is not an engine. It has an impeller which is turned by an external power source such as an engine...

[@old_guard2431]

Good point. Terminology tends to get fluid over time, but our narrator has pushed past the current limits. Example: “motor” vs. “engine”. The conventional wisdom was that an engine is a self-contained mechanical power source (requiring only a source of fuel) whereas a motor requires a more elaborate supporting mechanism such as a generator. But it has always been fuzzy. In the marine world a cargo vessel is a “motor vessel” if driven by a big diesel “engine”. . . And what happens if your vessel is driven by an electric motor hooked up to a battery rather than a generator? Is there a functional difference between a battery and a fuel tank?

[@speedbuggy16v]

@@old_guard2431 you are correct, but I would not call it fuzzy. I would call it people using incorrect terminology, and it drives me nuts. "we call it a gooblefribble" NO, thats a potato.....

[@lylestavast7652]

@@old_guard2431 common parlance, both get used with some interchangability despite the technical difference in formal definition.

[@williambaldwin2047]

@@old_guard2431 It's a motor, or engine AND a pump!😇

[@wafikiri_]

Technically, a waterjet device is an engine: an engine is a device that transforms a form of energy into mechanical form, and this a waterjet does. It is fed piezohydraulic energy.

[@UltimaRSfan]

".... could drastically reduce shipping costs..." Politicians everywhere: not if we have anything to say about it

[@flacjacket]

The sharrow props are not 3D printed, they are CNC'd from billets.

[@lylestavast7652]

but this style could be done with metal 3d printing with additional steps for material specific treatments.

[@PrestonStephens]

Came here to say this

[@andyman8630]

they should be cast then machine finished - orders of magnitude cheaper

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

The development prototypes were printed... Recently a major actor has developed 316 stainless printing and processing at scale.... Which is whats needed to reduce costs on these props....to do whats required in the face of technical and environmental needs. If you go bigger then rim driven pods are more efficient and cheaper if the blades get damaged ...also at higher speeds they perform better than even conventional water jets ..and take up very little interior space.. see the Italian Deep speed pods.

[@cornnatron3030]

@@andyman8630 depends on the material and the finished machining cost . it has to be cast in bronze or stainless and than it has to be mounted in a specific way indicated and than machined to get a smooth finish , with good programming al is possible but putting in a billet of a certain size and than machine that in 1 go would probably be cheaper in the long run and seeing its a program the long run is where its at. the least human interaction with the part is whats gonna be the cheapest option in the end.

[@tonysu8860]

Some of these technologies have been around for more than a couple decades (like pump jets for submarines) and some are fairly current topics (like toroidal propellers and coaxial flow). Despite the hype around toroidal propellers, they might not meet the hype. If tip vortices is the issue, it's probably a lot cheaper and easier to manufacture ducting around a standard propeller than using a toroidal shape. But, there might be some benefits from a toroidal shape that's not talked about much like possible resistance to snagging. Winged sails are a fairly common idea that has been around for as long as there have been sailing ships. There seems to be a lot of research into electrical propulsion, the new Chinese Fujian aircraft carrier is supposed to be powered by some new invention but in general I don't know that there has been much published on advances in technology by anybody.

[@corujariousa]

You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you!

[@MikeKojoteStone]

Here's why I'm excited about that toroidal propeller. I don't own a boat, yacht or container ship, so I couldn't care less for the maritime efficiency. I also don't have any drones and I actually don't even know, if I like the idea of them being more silent. BUT ... I own a gaming computer and those propellers have the same performance jump if used for cooling fans. I also own a fan. Actually, I own 3 large fans for the summer, because Europe has no AC culture. More efficient and more silent FANS are what I want to see. Today, preferably. But I'll take tomorrow as well. Next week is already making me unhappy. Next months would make me cry. So ... can we make these things very popular real quick, pretty please?

[@johnfirth6541]

I believe Ive seen videos of people 3D printing toroidal propellers, fans, on plastic 3D printers, small ones. Their designs might be online somewhere for free. There is an open source 3D file place called Thingiverse or Universe or something that you might could search on for s file to print. If you don't have a 3D printer there are now companies that will print for you, in various materials. The objects can be scaled to any size so if you measured the fan blades in your fans including the diameter of the axial hole a toroidal fan blade could be printed for you to fit. I might start with plastic blade as is cheapest. So you could test by refitting one of your old fans to see how it compares. Instead of waiting for commercial house fans to be sold.. 😊

[@Kismetix]

I don't think there's going to be much if any benefit from using them in air. Most of the efficiency gains will be in a denser, more viscous medium such as water, so that's probably where they'll stay.

[@bullzebub]

no gains in fans sadly. ducted fans are better. major hardware tested these as computer fans.

[@walkertongdee]

So you want a thiusand euro table fan?

[@MikeKojoteStone]

@@walkertongdee No, I want to see this explored and for economy of scale to kick in to bring us the next, technical evolution of fan cooling for a reasonable price. Which should be the most obvious conclusion to draw from what I've said. Or did you want to pay the prive for the first ever model of SSD back in the day?

[@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.

[@abababa7483]

If the propeller ist 105% more efficient, then how come the fuel saving is only 20%? Could someone explain this? 100% more efficient means twice as good, which in turn means 50% less fuel. so, what's wrong with my maths?

[@mammutpenthouse]

Intensity vs efficiency

[@abababa7483]

@@mammutpenthouse Explain please.

[@philippebruno7298]

It is 105 % more effective. NOT 5 % ! ! !

[@jamesrogers4674]

Diminishing returns.

[@jloren4647]

Selective quotes. This is just a long advert. Its probably the same company that does those cheezy ads about "(some idiot savant) discovered (this little known thing)- too good to be true "and "(the man) suppressed it... well, same ad company at, least and same music.

[@yelyab1]

More efficient than a pump is what they state. A pump is 20 to 30 percent less efficient less efficient than a normal propeller. These propellers have a massage amount of surface area which creates friction which might reduce cavitation but increases drag which reduces speed for a fixed input of energy . It’s been around for about 5 years. Nobody has picked it up. The manufacturing process is not that complicated. Does not relay on computer printing. It can use same process use to cast many complex engine parts using the “ lost wax process”. They use foam which gets cooked out by heat and the mold is filled with molten metal. It’s a very interesting process invented centuries ago by artists.

[@DinoAlberini]

Pumps shine between 30 and 50 knots. That’s why they are used instead of propellers.

[@vladimirzagoruy4341]

I remember tests of aircraft wings of the same type. Tests have shown no advantages. In this case, some of blade surface don't work too. But I suppose that these new blades are more strong; so they may be made more thin and thus producing less drag.

[@freddy7700]

It would be interesting to know, how far the developement of the toroidal propellers for big ocean ships are and what kind of results they got.

[@tonysu8860]

I'm guessing that there's a lot more hype than actual research. If minimizing tip vortices is the issue, you can accomplish the same objectives without expensive advanced manufacturing my simply ducting ordinary propellers. Beyond that, there's room to research different propeller blade shapes for efficiencies at different rpm.

[@carlthor91]

Casting the blades for large ships, then profiling and polishing, to the degree necessary, would require ultra large robotic CNC machining systems.

[@lylestavast7652]

@@carlthor91 "NOBODY in the World Could Machine These Difficult Parts"... just need a tool vendor to use the experience base and upscale it.

[@Kismetix]

@@tonysu8860 Agree with your comment on the ducted fan/propeller. The only advantage I can see in water for the toroidal design vs. ducted propellor would possibly be due to less drag for the toroidal design. (as opposed to dragging a large duct in water, for example)

[@johnh8615]

I would love to see some video of a giant propeller and a giant toroidal in the water showing how much water cavitation is for each.

[@robfreeman5783]

I've known about the Sharrow prop for years. Never have I heard it referred to as a "toroidal propeller". This really isn't a "future" propeller, it's here and it's been here. You can get one for your 21 foot bowrider if you want and they do make a difference. They just cost $10-15k due to being custom made for each specific engine and gear drive. A lot of unavoidably complicated math and machine work goes into that. Won't be cheap to get one any time in the near future.

[@Wildstar40]

Not worth it considering the math and machine work are done by computers and machines. Someone is greedy is all it is and these days greedy seems to be normal especially in America.

[@brandonadams7837]

Prices should be going down soon they just started mass manufacturing with a CNC company in Detroit.

[@Wildstar40]

@@brandonadams7837 You mean prices will drop when the Chinese flood the market with their Sharrow prop knock offs. Let's be realistic 👺

[@Arturo-lapaz]

The maximum efficiency is etamx = 2/ ( 1 + Vjet/Vboat) The thrust is T = rho Aprop Vprop (Vjet - Vboat) Vprop = ½(Vjet + Vboat) Given required thrust, prop area Aprop, you can calculate the propeller wake velocity Vjet , put it in the equation of max efficiency and see for yourself the validity of this claim. BTW prop area is the disc area π/4 × diameter². irregardless to the simple traditional propeller, or complicated shape of this dream prop.

[@Arturo-lapaz]

The MJP 300 X is no doubt on an electric boat? Maritime electric propulsion is the theme of this section, no? At 4 kg per kwh the battery must be humongous, barely not sinking the boat. 1 hr mission : 4 × 2070 > 8 metric tons battery on a 1.5 ton boat ?

[@johnbarker5009]

Love the potential of the toroidal propeller. There are skeptics on this thread, but IMO they're overlooking something. If propeller ducting would produce the same results, why isn't it already being done?

[@old_guard2431]

Appreciate this grab-bag overview of recent developments in propulsion engineering. Advances in electric motor/generator technology, probably developed primarily for automotive use, getting translated over to the marine world.

[@username4441]

still coal powered

[@mrjjman2010]

@@username4441 still far far more efficient and way less coal, and also increasingly wind and sun. Get off your dumb talking points and actually learn something. It’s beneficial for us all, dumb dumb.

[@ScarabChris]

These propellers do increase efficiency, at least on small recreational boats (up to 50' so far) but the cost is not practical for the recreational boater. For example a 30 foot boat with twin 300 HP ourboards, traditional propellers cost $500-$600 each. This prop for the same engines are over $5,000 each.

[@andyman8630]

currently they're 3D printed (that is they're laser sinter printed, the most expensive method) - once they iron out all the details they can cast and machine finish them much much cheaper

[@Wildstar40]

People with boats have money which honestly explains the cost, the greedy greedy cost.

[@andyman8630]

@@Wildstar40 my boat, trailer and 60hp 4 stroke outboard cost me less than one of these propellers

[@marcoaponte5888]

One would save on fuel cost and also ecological impact so sounds like a good investment. Especially for charter yachts for example

[@brandonadams7837]

@@andyman8630 they are now CNC manufactured in Detroit.

[@humorinpolitics56]

The money that could be saved in shipping fuel costs will NEVER get passed on to the consumers. It will ALL be kept by the corporations.

[@tanthiennguyen9308]

Vielen Dank allen Verteidigungspolitischen Richtlinien............................................!

[@Datboysickisboss]

the efficiency is not increased by 100% its more like 10-15% at some RPM ranges please do your research

[@tommyschroeder]

A few of the clips show through-hub exhaust though and don’t accurately show tip vortices alone.

[@cyrillawless]

With all the fuel savings bought in for ships since the 80s you should arrive in port with more fuel in the tanks than you left with.

[@albatross5466]

I came just to note that the thumbnail says 105% efficiency. That is not possible. 105% MORE efficient than another type is possible, but you can never achieve 105% overall efficiency.

[@speedbuggy16v]

as it notes in the video, buy I watched just to see if they fixed that, LOL

[@ahndeux]

The problem is the propellers are around $3000-5000 a piece. At that price, I would take the less efficient prop.

[@donbrashsux]

That’s the Game changer .. empty bank account

[@lizardhart3646]

I just saw a video in the past 1 or 2 weeks about the Toroidal Propeller and it is being made with a CNC machine I don't remember the name of the company that is producing these propellers now but they are in Michigan as well as the guy that created and holds the patents for the Toroidal Propeller propeller is from and lives in Michigan The price should come down dramatically because using the CNC process they can machine one propeller in about 8 hours per CNC machine and the other companies that are or were producing them took about 40 hours to make each Toroidal Propeller

[@dotlaj]

I think it was Titans of cnc video you are talking about.

[@Hermit-Mech]

Considering most container ships use adjustable pitch propellers to change speed I doubt these props will ever be put into use in that application ... because it would require a fundamental redesign of the powertrain unless its a diesel electric and at that scale its insanely expensive

[@drew651]

A lot of newer ships use diesel electric engines.

[@cyber2526]

they are cnc machined not printed FYI

[@dougmyers6013]

so explain mathmatically how you can spin a prop past 100% efficiency when they are inefficient at best, if that was even capable? Interested in the equations used.

[@filster1934]

Spinning past 100% efficiency?? The narrator said it's up to 105% more efficient.

[@DinoAlberini]

@@filster1934 true. He said that. Based on what, though?

[@neddyladdy]

im-bloody possible. More energy out than is put in. Is claiming perpetual motion next?

[@iandennis7836]

Did you not hear the qualifier: "up to 105% more efficient than a standard propeller " ? Not difficult to achieve when the average propeller is so inefficient......no really, look it up, it's true.

[@warhound7781]

@@iandennis7836 And that type of 105% claim is just marketing hype to make it seem real good. Overpriced marketing hype results in a failed product.

[@zeroibis]

Great for small boats for the price of a small boat.

[@douglascooper1987]

Very Nice and Informative Thanks 👍👍

[@bwise609]

We make things better all the time and the savings are never passed on to the consumer

[@meat-hook]

Donut propeller sounds way better. But I already put a prop on a giant donut, so it's already a thing. I saw something about a student at MIT designing this propeller, and immediately 3d printed 4 for my son's drone. It has too much lift, so it's uncontrollable. My second thought was that I needed to make a pair for my boat. Still working on that.

[@tohaason]

That sail won't be terribly efficient without a keel (descending keel), and dangerous too (on the smaller boats shown in the video, at least)

[@grabtharandhishammer8251]

That moment when you realise that you've spelt efficiency wrong in the thumbnail.

[@pliashmuldba]

I dont know what the propeller do on a large cargo ship, but most often the motor top out at 100 RPM I would assume a toroidal propeller in that size ( BIG ) could be done on a huge multi axis machine

[@direktorpresident]

105% "more efficient" on an 80% efficient prop is 84% efficient.

[@A5JDZK]

The company is called Sharrow and the props are extremely expensive. $5,000 for one that fits a Yamaha FX200. They make them for specific makes and models.

[@GP3X]

Yes, it's just an expensive toy, unless they could cut the cost to the same price range as the regular ones, or at least not too much more expensive. Propeller is not a one time thing, think about the repair, the replacement.

[@void6030]

2:46 THAT A SAILBOAT!!!!!!!

[@alexwood5425]

Given that efficiency is simply output divided by input, 105% is not possible.

[@eagleeye761]

Excellent innovation!

[@peetsnort]

5000 $ each for the small boat will be like catalyst theft

[@DonziGT230]

This design, and many others, have been around for several decades. All of them have claimed that theirs will become the next standard, and yet the standard 3 blade prop continues to dominate by a huge margin.

[@parrotraiser6541]

There is probably a lot more reearch to be done on toroidal airscrews, whether they're horizontal of vertical (for normal thrust). Ships with a single propellor are cheaper to build than multiple screws, but there's a serious penalty in slow-speed manoeuvering. (Without rudder authority, the vessel tends to crab.) Electic motors attached to 2 or more jets, especially if vectored, could prevent ships getting stuck across the Suez Canal, or other inconvenient places.

[@lohikarhu734]

a good friend of mine (sadly, departed), worked on nozzle systems for single-screw vessels, with very high aspect-ratio control vanes, that generated quite high steering forces, and his nozzle designs also had stators for flow control... he did a LOT of work on offshore tenders, arctic exploration work, and riverine boats for supply in shallow-water regions..

[@nalinshanavas778]

I have worked on electric propulsion ship. It will not at all have engine. It has only an electric motor and reduction gears connected to the shaft

[@rothgowooft]

Yay! Free energy! Taje that, thermodynamics

[@davidcummings2020]

Don't call it an engine when it isn't an engine

[@GIGSUPREME]

good Report, thanks

[@oldwillie313]

At $5,000 it would take a long time to pay it back!

[@francisdavis1271]

This propeller configuration eliminates the shed vortex at the propeller tip created by the differential pressure. It exploits the same principle of "winglets" on aircraft... however it cannot work "perfectly" over a range of rpm. The differential still wants to generate the vortex but by connecting the two ends preclude a severe effect. Clever, and it's "Why-didn't-we-think-of-it-before?" But it's not magic and it's merely a better solution than a prop shroud. Vibration could be an issue, limiting prop life.

[@keevee09]

...called an "intake"... all hail Mr. Hamilton and his innovative jet boat.

[@krisdavies8548]

Titans of cnc just done a video on how they are machined for the boat propeller

[@andrewoh2612]

That MJP looking dummy thicc

[@adriendecroy7254]

fundamentally you don't get more thrust for free. It takes more torque to drive it. You need to be careful to match the new props to the engine.

[@desmosedici1000]

New advanced propellers may give more thrust for free, if it is found to be the case, old propellers were pushing the water out to radial directions (=wasted work) instead of pushing the water axial direction (=the thrust u want)…

[@adriendecroy7254]

@@desmosedici1000 It will always take the same amount of energy to move the same amount of mass through water. Unless the old props were directing thrust in un-useful directions...

[@lylestavast7652]

@@adriendecroy7254 "were pushing the water out to radial directions (=wasted work)"

[@pavelsulc2617]

@@adriendecroy7254 in addition, some energy is also needed to create cavitation cavities. So less cavitation, less wasted energy

[@andyman8630]

@@pavelsulc2617 energy is wasted via cavitation - and the prop is damaged by cavitation (pitting)

[@Igors_mind]

Sharrows are CNC machined. Take look at CNC Titan.

[@wanton1234]

No mention of the generators powering the electric motors lol

[@tboniusmaximus3047]

revolutionary, we will sail

[@billhill897]

There is no such thing as 105% efficiency. 100% is the maximum possible.

[@Hrossey]

You can't be 105% more efficient. This implies a propellor today is minus 5% efficient. Ridiculous.

[@walkertongdee]

cant wait to get one for my car

[@filster1934]

They're 3D printed.....shows 4(maybe 5) axis vertical machining center

[@jamespaul579]

Thanks u

[@rumblethis2023]

While cavitation is a thing the bubbles coming from the prop hub in your video ARE EXHAUST from the engine directed through the hub. These props are now being CNC milled

[@ptv1250]

Toroidal propellers are not 3D printed in actual production. They are machined on a Heller which is a large and very precise multi axis CNC mill.

[@janwall2648]

On a good propeller, that gives 147% efficiency,amazing!

[@claycassin8437]

We are not talking about "efficiency" here- The Video clearly states that this is all about the "efficienty". That's a whole other subject.

[@ahndeux]

@@claycassin8437 Is that a Sniglet? Even Google is perplexed by the word "efficienty".

[@5000rgb]

I noticed that, too. If a conventional propeller is more than 47% efficient then it's impossible to get 105% more efficient. A quick google suggests propellers are typically about 70% efficient, that seems to agree with your calculation.

[@ahndeux]

@@5000rgb Did both of you failed simple math from elementary? If a standard propeller is 47% efficient compared to an ideal propeller, an "improved" propeller that claims 105% efficiency compared to a standard propeller means that propeller is 49.3% efficient compared to the ideal propeller. Its a simple math calculation where you take 1.05 x .47 = .493. It doesn't get any harder to calculate than a simple multiplication problem.

[@5000rgb]

@@ahndeux He said 105% MORE efficient. That's over double. You are talking about 5% more efficient.

[@tr7b410]

Looks like the ancient schist disk found in a crypt in Egypt.

[@WL2K]

You had me at Efficienty

[@user-nc1ic6yx8m]

Поставил новые свечи с экономией 25% бензина , шины с экономией 30% , залил новое трансмиссионое масло с экономией 40% топлива , навесил спойлеры , экономящие 15% ... И как ? Да вот теперь приходится откачивать бензин из бака ....

[@mrphysh]

safer for marine mammels?

[@brianjennings7644]

that's so cool,..I'd hate to have to program the CNC tho.

[@siliconvalleyengineer5875]

fact: that toroidle propeller canbe be made using the lost wax casting method, reducing the cost to about 1000.00 dollars each.

[@jiggacho]

Beautiful mind of a humans superpowers

[@norlanlamb1521]

How can I get this prop

[@MyLateralThawts]

Instead of individually 3D printing the propellers, maybe get a single giga press to make 100 of them at a time. That’ll bring the price down.

[@spolohi51]

These propellers have been shown as something unique for many years. If they are so effective, then why don't they post all the information on testing. When we tested the boats, we took propellers of the same pitch. The three-blade propeller was spinning up to 6000 rpm while the Sharrow was spinning up to 5500. This is already a violation of the test conditions. if we took a 16-pitch three-blade propeller, then the minimum and average speeds would increase significantly. That's when we would see real speed data. They would be different from what was shown in the advertisement. So far we've only seen ads. Why is there no video showing the operation of these propellers at various speeds. They show only low-quality frames where it is impossible to understand the operation of these propellers. Regarding large ships, without providing evidence that these propellers are produced, this is considered a lie. Large boats have constant speed engines and variable pitch propellers. The maximum revolutions are 500 per minute. So here is the deception. Propellers are calculated by the designer for maximum efficiency. The effectiveness of these screws is far from 20%

[@GamingTechReview]

It’s a fake it til you make it concept.

[@spolohi51]

@@GamingTechReview No. The cost of a conventional propeller is $3000. Sharrow propeller cost $5000. According to the reviews of the owners, it is 12% more economical. These are real figures, and not that they claim a savings of 20%. In order to get this savings, your engine must be very powerful. The operating speed of the engine should be 3000-4000 rpm. Find their prop test results comparison chart. Divide the speed by 15 and multiply by 16.5. This will be the approximate speed that you will get if you select the propeller pitch so that the engine speed is equal to the sharrow propeller. I'm not against concerts, but I'm against cheating users. Why don't they show the full video of the tests. Where is the testing at the National Laboratory of Fluid Dynamics? Each propeller is designed for a specific speed. If this was a breakthrough in hydrodynamics, then big boats would have used it a long time ago. Such blades were designed many decades ago. Lastly. My motor with Solas 4-13.75-19 propellers and another 3-14-19 achieves the same maximum speed, but at 4000 rpm Solas develops 38 km / h. Another propeller 43 km/h.

[@cyrilmudalige5687]

Certainly, it appears likely to cut down fuel cost by considerable amount.

[@tonyacerra2329]

It’s not 5k any longer because of a different manufacturing method

[@madisonrose4548]

You are mistaken on that efficiency number

[@abrahamsatinger265]

use chemical disposition and deposit diamond. Cavitation might be a source of extra energy, piezoelectric?

[@FTATF]

10 x cost won't pay for itself on a boat in gas savings. These props take a beating and you'd have to run 20 or 25,000 dollars worth of gas through your boat to pay for that. Even a stainless propeller likely is getting replaced by then.

[@jonray6805]

Efficienty or Efficiency?

[@Vesper255]

Hopefully it’ll also prevent fatal prop strikes on marine animals.

[@jasonsweet1868]

How do you think that a propeller with no cavitation and less noise will achieve better safety for marine animals

[@iz5772]

By 105%, are you suggesting while old rotor provide 100 newtons, the new provide 205 or 105 newtons?

[@pinetree2473]

They are throwing inconsistent figures around.

[@rmbeaudry]

Efficienty! Even better!

[@michaelr1624]

“Change transportation forever”? That’s what Trevor Milton said…

[@njjeff201]

1:04 is not cavitation. That’s engine exhaust

[@mickireland2421]

All that cost efficiency is lost on the cost if the prop, maybe in the future when they ate the same price as a normal prop

[@cornovii3012]

Game changing and would cut the cost of transporting large container ships, i can just imagine these big company's passing the savings onto consumers 🤣🤣🤣

[@weslegna]

Totally avoided the archeological findings dating thousands of years back with the same design…

[@BixbyConsequence]

It has ALL the efficienty

[@michaelbayer5887]

... the turbo Motor - and the Turban of India people - start me Up.

[@brettbull5238]

Put the water blades inside the cone

[@chrisoakey9841]

All jets should be rim driven. And the center completely free of blades so obstructions like seaweed or fishing line will just flow straight through and out the other end. No entangling. And venturi effect through the center. Most thrust comes from the outer edge ofe the blade anyway.

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

I urge folks to look at the Italian deep speed rim driven electrojet pods ...they outstrip most designs at med and high speed even conventional pump jets.

[@brianhiles8164]

If the new prop had _minus_ 105% efficiently, the laws of thermodynamics would break, and the world would end. _Whew! That was close!_

[@kevretallick]

It can't be 105% efficient unless it produces more energy than it consumes. Simple laws of physics.

[@ExcavationNation]

He said it 105 percent more efficient. So he's basically saying it gets 5 percent better fuel economy

[@crypto_que]

Too bad the cost savings won’t be passed on to consumers. This savings in shipping costs should make goods cheaper but instead because of “inflation” the cost of goods will continue to increase

[@dennishartford2077]

Where can i get one for a 15hp johnson outboard

[@dezent]

Sharrow is made by cnc, not 3d printing.

[@normanboyes4983]

Quite confident and authoritative while spouting absolute bollocks.

[@brianpesci]

Efficienty?

[@amazeddude1780]

With respect to the potential for global trading to have lower fuel costs which would mean lower shipping costs: It will never happen. Any cost reduction will go directly to profit. Doubt that? Look at what has happened during the pandemic to virtually every corporation; massive increases in profitability.

[@matthewwadwell6100]

This video reminds me of the Sham Wow commercial - as it is only there to see stuff.....