It moves more air, more efficiently, generating more torque on the prop shaft. The motor simply doesn't have enough torque due to the propeller having more mass and air resistance.
The motor needing to do work isn’t a sign the prop is bad. Moving air takes energy, if the prop moves more air, more energy is needed. Thus motor strain
Its not only the -6 dB that makes it feel quieter, but also the reduced frequency peak and uniform noise spectrum, similar to how they made car tires less noisy.
I think what people don't immediately realize is that the 5 bladed toroidal prop being 6dB quieter is 4x quieter than the standard prop. That is an incredibly substantial difference.
It's not only the decibels that impact the noise. The toroidsl propeller smoothes out the peaks in frequency of the nornal propeller making it more comfortable to listen to
Yeah, also, you can’t just make a toroidal shape and expect it to be good. There’s a fair amount of engineering involving the pitch and angle attack. The fact that a thrown together experiment matched up to a calculated prop at all is impressive.
sometimes good craftsmanship can overpower poor research. Not saying it's proper, but definitely cool and worth something yeah@@grubalaboocreosote4774
@@MONKEYGUY8504 symmetry has nothing to do with it. It just produces a different sound because it interacts with the air differently than a straight propellor
@@rossmcdonagh1554set to the same RPM yes, but it doesn't mean they're achieving the same rpm. If a different propeller has more drag it's just going to go slower. The only variable that's the exact same is the power of the little plane.
@@j-schnab6338 that wasn't even the point why I suggested it but yes that also comes in handy. I just think it's another good measure to compare the noise level since we don't really car that much about rpm but more about thrust that just happens to be higher at higher rpm.
just a reminder to everyone that a difference in 3 decibels is a multiplier of 2, meaning that 6 decibels is a multiplier of 4. Edit: Big thanks to yt for telling me that a whole 2 people liked my comment. It really helped me a lot to know.
For those who don't know being 5 db quieter is a little more than a third as loud 10^.5 it's because the math for db is logarithmic meaning that every 10 bd is ten times louder or 10^1 20 bd quieter is 100 times quieter or 10^2 and 30 bd quieter is 1000 times quieter or 10^3
You are wrong. Psychoacoustics isn't an exact science because it's so subjective. In general 6-10db difference is considered half or twice as loud but it differs from person to person. Also it's really hard to tell when something is "twice as loud". What you're referencing with 10, 100 and 1000 times higher is the change in effective sound pressure in Pascal. The entire point of the db-scale is to get rid of the logarithmic factor because our ears sensitivity to sound pressure follows a logarithmic scale. And working with pascal directly is impractical. 0db is the hearing threshold of the average human.
@@NiliMotoI was hoping someone commented this. It's also why I personally go by the 6db scale as that's how SPL is measured... and that's all I care about :D
There is another problem at play! Another guy on CZcams was putting together his own RC boat, and tried those types of propellers. He found that there’s quite a difference depending on whether they’re FDM printed(like you’ve done here), or Resin Printed. Then again, he was messing with submerged propellers; any residual air could mess with its performance.
must be talking about RCTestflight actually i have the list of CZcamsrs testing such technologys and it's growing with dates for chronological timeline frequency of information spread and advancement 😊 the real bonus is weed free so your small lack in efficiency becomes a heavy improvement on efficiency for heavier weeded areas boating or i guess for planes bird strike strength etc though you aren't trying to tangle with such obstacles
The edges of those propellers looked squared off and blunt while the traditional propeller looked more refined. If you want a more fair test, you need to print your own standard propeller to the same materials and standards as the toroidal. The toroidal propellers I’ve seen were precision milled to extreme precision using a 5 axis CNC to achieve their superior numbers.
@benji3900 simply because that's the only real world scenario that matters if you are focused on the sound alone. The traditional propeller makes alot more thrust, with only slightly more decibels. In the real world situation, where you need the same amount of thrust for these to be equal in performance, the traditional propeller will probably be quieter.
i think the mass distribution is affecting the moment of inertia and requiring more energy to spin the toroidal one. you may need to print it again with a different design to see better results
Yeah can you can see all the rough around the edges and extrusion which is spoiling airflow, a more refined design like the initial standard prop would be interesting.
@@TowerCrisisI can’t see that if you have a dremel and you spin it and apply lots of friction it won’t spin as fast. Or if you add a lot of weight to it. Now a car with steel wheels and the same car with magnesium wheels will spin the same because of the gears and the tiny amount of total output that’s used to spin them.
It would be interesting to reduce the throttle on the regular propeller to match the thrust of the torodial ones. Then you could compare the noise levels at identical thrust. Also measuring current draw would be informative.
That would indicate a designed inefficiency in fuel and power, which in turn would be better solved by just flying slower or getting better headphones. As for civilian noise complaints, just fly higher.
You did not address weight. If a propeller is heavier, it will spin slower given the same torque. That would explain the quieter sound and decreased thrust.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 Top speed is affected way more by drag and not weight, weight is more relevant for acceleration and climb rate. Top speed will only be lowered if drag increases, which may not happen with a small increase in weight.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 Top speed is affected way more by drag and not weight, weight is more relevant for acceleration and climb rate. Top speed will only be lowered if drag increases, which may not happen with a small increase in weight.
@@reinbeers5322 Sure, acceleration is more affected but saying only acceleration is affected it flat out wrong. This isn't a zero-sum gain. Propeller efficiency changes with airspeed. Change the propeller, expect that power band to change. Propeller efficiency can also allow the motor to be over-revved. Propeller length should be determined by the *_motor_*. He did not change that iirc. Only changing the propeller is going to affect more than just acceleration. It will affect the entire passage through the medium. As displacement of air is also critical, not just drag. "Better to move a lot of air, a little."
It's worth noting that the toroidal props were designed for drones, where sound and turbulence can be annoying. The lack of a clearly defined tip makes for less turbulence and thus easier landings.
I think the reason the toroidal propellers have some issues is the weights at the tip as they loop over into the next propeller. You might need to drill holes there to allow some air to fall out through it. If not that, then you might need to change up the shapes at the tips to account for air manipulation.
It's important to note that 6 decibels is actually a big difference. For reference, every 10 decibels is double the volume. This means going from 10 to 20 decibels would result in a 100% increase in noise.
You need to account for the weight differences and drag too...causing the motor to turn slower RPM, hence quieter and less thrust. Match RPM and then test.
Important thing missing from the thrust measurement is a simultaneous measure of power being drawn. The toroidal props could be weaker but drawing less power making them more efficient or weaker and drawing more power making them even worse. It would be interesting to see this measured together for a more complete picture.
I’d imagine the mass, especially at the tips is MUCH higher so the lower thrust and sound is probably due to a lower RPM, and power draw would likely be higher
Im trying to understand this comment. The motor should be drawing a fairly constant amount of power regardless of what its driving. The lowered performance would be some summation of the properties of the printed propeller making it harder for the motor to apply torque to. I think to make this test "fair", one should iterating the design of the toroidal propeller itself. By that i mean, the printed propellers seem suboptimal compared to the original design. My intuition tells me if he played with the mass, cross section, raidus and/or print material he'd see better results. Essentially he needs to lower the Mass moment of inertia to make the propeller easier to spin, then he can start playing woth thrust properties.
@@h34dshotgl0re By power you mean amps, right? I don’t know a ton about how to calculate amps from prop mass/pitch/size, but I do know a bit about power consumption in general. A motor has a KV rating which for our purposes is the number of RPMs the motor will spin at a specific voltage. The amount of current the motor is going to need to do that is going to change based on the load. So no prop requires few amps, big prop requires big amps OR big prop pitch (more air pushed per rotation) also requires big amps. So you’re completely right, they need to test different prop geometries to actually see if they can optimize the design to be competitive. I just don’t think it’s going to be useful to try to compare a homemade design to something designed by the pros, then claim conclusions based on an amateur attempt :(
The toroidal propeller should be much quieter, the reason why your propeller sounds as loud is because the layer lines on your 3d print are negating its advantage because its causing a lot of wake and turbulence, I suggest that you make the layer height as thin as possible, then sand it smooth and add a layer of a filler like spackle or find a way to make it smooth to the touch, then polish it, now it should work.
I like this type of videos, let's make them normal. No clickbait, strait to the point well filmed with captions so i can watch it while my baby daughter goes to sleep. Nice
How thin can you print without compromising rigidity? Lessening the mass of the blades and moving the center of gravity to the fulcrum would be the best strategy to both increase inertia and lessen drag.
The major advantage of a toroidal prop is it improves efficiency by reducing tip vortex, in case of a drone you have multiple vortex interacting making them less effective because of the prop arrangement. The down sides of this prop is spinning weight. Also more prop blades do not make a prop better, they spread the horsepower out to improve energy transfer so more are needed if the plane is over power loading the prop it is why the 800hp spitfire had a wooden fix pitch prop, and the later 2000+ hp model had two 3 blade counter rotating monster of a prop to make a 6blade prop with no P factor. A low power plan works better with a more efficient 2 blade prop.
3dB is about the smallest sound level change you can discern The sound ENERGY doubles or halves with a 3dB change, but eyes and ears have logarithmic intensity responses, not linear
@@definingslawek4731 if you 3d printed a normal one it probably wouldn't fare well. That rough surface will have a high Renoylds number and be generating a lot of noise/drag I'd be highly tempted to 3d print blades using my SLA printer rather than relying on any kind of extruder. This can produce a surface which is almost perfect (and flexible with resin tuning, I've done this for "clothespeg" type electronics clips otherwise they snap after a couple of uses) and can be further improved with acetone treatment before final hardening
Run the regular propeller at lower speed to produce the same thrust, and compare the noise. I guess that regular will be on par with the newer ones. If they are spinning slower and producing less thrust then of course they will be quieter.
The toroidal propellors also remove the higher pitch sounds from the propellers, which makes us percieve them as being even quieter even without a huge change in decibel level.
As far as I know, decibels are measured one meter away from the source. If you put it right next to the source.... Measurement is compromised. Read more about what the decibel means and how to measure it.
Thing about decibels. Each one is an EXPONENTIAL increase. Meaning going from 100 dB to 101dB is actually 100% louder. Food for thought when there's a 6dB decrease.
Important to understand: this is not about "toroidal vs regular", but _these random DYI 3D-printed_ vs _factory-grade molded optimized for this motor_ .
Ive found bigger differences comparing quality props to cheap ones. On a DIY drone I once gained 10% thrust switching from generic to DJI props. The generic ones were still quality injection molded and engineered using a time-proven design.
Another consideration is while a lot of the same rules apply, hydrodynamics where most toroidal props are designed from is executed differently than aerodynamics. The blades are usually angled to different amounts. It could be something you already considered, but if not, the difference might matter
As a person trained in basic aerodynamics and with real aircraft maintenance experience I can say that propellers are specically formed in a way to get as much "bite" on the air as possible as pulls t the plane through the air while minimizing drag. It seems that the new propellers have a lower pull and higher parasitic drag coiefficients. Still an interesting idea though.
If you match the thrust the sound goes back to normal. They aren't quieter. They just have their noise more spread out over more frequencies that are less audible to humans, there quieter. Somewhat like the tread on tires going from blocky to variable spacing and angular shapes to spread out the impact and therefore spread out the noise.
It is quite obvious that they are quieter iom that "drag" at the end of the propeller blade does not occur with a Torodial propeller. The question is how much less energy Torodial propellers draw (number of AMP's in the motor) compared to a normal propeller. and that saving can be used to use a torodial propeller with a little more pitch and get more thrust and you go plus or minus zero when it comes to energy consumption.
The two biggest factors of a propellers efficiency is the angle of attack and the diameter. Two blade propellers are typically more efficient as well, but louder.
If I remember correctly toroidal propellers are supposed to be more efficient, not necessarily more powerful. They are more like a side step to traditional propellers than an upgrade. A more accurate way to rate them would be to record audio from farther away and record how long battery life’s last.
Nice test! I think you should also 3D print the regular propeller from the same material you made the toroidal propellers, perhaps the finish has an effect on the final results.
You should compare the motor current as well. Efficiency is also very important thing. I believe that flower-type propellers were rotating slower, so this is why they were less noise and less throsty.
It looks like the regular propeller is made from a different material than the propellers. I would recommend printing a regular propeller with the same material, to test the toroidal prints against. This will ensure consistency in your testing
The famous ultra-expensive toroidal propellers that made all those claims were designed for racing speedboats. You can imagine those being much quieter than the traditional option, but the design just doesn't seem to work great for the air, or it requires simulating the design to get it right for a certain use case, or the use case needs to be specifically very high speed, or it's the imperfections of 3D printing that are nullifying any possible advantage.
I think the toroidal propeller was designed for maximum efficiency in the mid-range of engine rpm. Instead of testing thrust at the highest RPM, maybe test thrust at lower RPM to see if the toroidal propeller generates more thrust with less power. Air also has different fluid dynamics than air. I believe the point of the toroidal propeller is to minimize cavitation compared to a regular propeller, and that affect may not be as influential to noise and engine efficiency in air as it is in water. You put in a lot of work with this experiment. I'd love to see more experiments with these same propellers!
You need to 3d print a standard propellor for this to be a fair test. The weight and surface of a printer will never be the same. I still expect the standard twin blade to win. Also, we should remember that because of the geometry of toroidal propellors, it is not perfectly accurate to describe them as "3-bladed" or "5-bladed." A better terminology could be "3-fold rotational symmetry" or "5-fold rotational symmetry." These blades have more like 6 blades and 8-10 blades worth of surface area respectively.
There’s a reason why planes don’t use propellers like the ones you’re designing because there’s more air resistance on it, but yeah, it will be quieter because it doesn’t move as fast.
The reason the 5 propeller was quieter is because the more propeller blades you have the less it needs to pull the air to move which makes it create less noise
Drag comes in many forms. Just as wing shapes create different amounts of drag, a prop with more surface area will create more drag, causing the engine (or motor, if electric) to work harder. You will likely notice reduced run time from your battery if it is electric. This is why real GA aircraft stick with the simple dual blade prop design.
Would be interesting to check the Ratio Thrust/Amps. If they produce 25% less thrust, but 30% less power usage, they'd still be better, and just upgrade the motor to compensate for the loss.
The 3d printed propellers might just be a lot heavier than the originals. Plus, while adding more propellers does increase the amount of thrust, it amount it increases by decreases as you add more blades
6dB doesnt sound like a huge reduction, but it's a logarithmic scale. Every 3db is effectively double the air pressure. Air pressure and percieved volume dont line up exactly but this is still almost 1/3 quieter.
I think for a more fair comparison you should also 3D print the regular propeller. That way you'll know if the material itself has any impact on the performance.
Adjust the pitch of your toroidal, and tune for the desired thrust. Think of a constant speed prop - you need “Fine” pitch for take off, and once airborne you back off the pitch for cruising speed. As your little toy doesn’t have adjustable pitch, you have to set it up on the ground.
The big thing is that unlike regular props, you have no way to change tge AoA of the prop unlike on a plane with MPPC, they also produce less thrust and are more negatively effective by heat and density. Source, I am a ATPL-A pilot in Australia
My initial suggestion is that if this toroidal propeller was superior to the winged propeller it would be standard by now and not something that needs to be investigated. But I guess it's fun to experiment anyway!
As a consultant on acoustic noise (usually from infrastructure projects), this fascinates me For reference, a something 3dB louder is twice as loud (though for human hearing it needs to be 10dB for it to /sound/ twice as loud, because we're dumb apes who have evolved to be selective about our hearing)
Try 3d print your regular propeller from the same material. For more acurraci. And plane may need some tuning too I gues. It is optimalized for this regular type
This is such an interesting line of experimentation. Is it simply that it's heavier? Measure the max rpm. Work out the energy output per rotation. It should be higher. But you don't have the power to spin it fast enough. I think. Also, that propeller looks designed for water, so maybe modify it to the same blade pitch as your standard propellor.
Propeller thrust is one of the most complicated things I have ever messed with in design. The pitch and profile of the blade make HUGE differences in performance even before you factor in hor changing them messes with engine rpm.
To be fair, you should 3D print a standard propeller with the same print parameters as you used for the toroidal propellers which look pretty square on the edges.
By increasing the number of blades, you must reduce the diameter of the propeller. Each more blade is 1" less in diameter. Lower thrust may be caused by too much load on the engine, which results in lower revolutions. I'm waiting for further tests;)
I think theres a certain formula you have to use to get the right shape in order to actually get them to work properly. But im sure when made perfectly they are better than regular propellers
Wind turbines use 3 propellers for an efficiency reason. Same goes for a boat prop (originally it was a long screw that broke). Your tests prove that you shouldn’t re invent the wheel but rather confirm it. Fun stuff though!
both toroidal propellers were also shorter overall than the normal propeller, if you made them the same length, i think the noise difference would mostly disappear, and the thrust difference would lessen substantially
For a fair test more control would be necessary. I can think: Current measure or a constant RPM. The distance of the decibelmeter must be exactly the same. Also, the normal propeller should be printed too.
Seriously though aerodynamic efficiency and aero-acoustic efficiency can't be achieved at the same time, only at the cost of one or the other.... FACTS!
That was your first design. The normal propeller was optimized for aircraft. I’m sure if you do some fluid dynamic analysis of the toroidal props you will match the normal prop. And then after that you need to worry about the center of gravity! Keep it up!
The reason they are better is because in water they avoid making vacuum bubbles. This isn't an issue in the air (or maybe at some extreme spin it is?! who knows??) So out of water there is no reason to think they'd be better. In water however they very much are....the issue is the production cost is much higher at the moment.
The more arms on a propeller makes it grip the air more, so it’s better for maneuverability but it also takes more torque to spin hence the lower power, also more torque = more battery used
If you sand down the blades on the toroidal propeller they will perform better because the surface is smoother because there won’t be any 3-D printing lines
You can Hear it straining the engine more with the fancy propeller 😅
Maybe try to Put holes in the end of the toroidal to let air escape? Or utilize that air cant slip off the ends like a propeller
Engine that’s a brushless motor lmao
It moves more air, more efficiently, generating more torque on the prop shaft.
The motor simply doesn't have enough torque due to the propeller having more mass and air resistance.
The motor needing to do work isn’t a sign the prop is bad. Moving air takes energy, if the prop moves more air, more energy is needed. Thus motor strain
if you read the paper from MIT, it moves more air but uses just as much energy to do so
For a fair testing you should have printed the normal Rotor it self also (not smooth carbon premade)
100%
^ this
Thats a work around i didnt think of, but Glad im not the only one thinking about the 3d print vs the factory molded
yup. at the least.
Also should have tested the normal prop with 3 and 5 blades too
The specific shape makes all the difference. Unless it’s optimized for medium and rpms this won’t show the real power of the toroidal propeller.
They were debunked a good while ago now, they work but they aren’t anything special.
That also applies to normal propellers…
True, I haven't done much optimization, i just guessed a shape that may work.
@@nlmaster9811 source?
@@nlmaster9811 it don't make sense! Regular ones lose wind sideways. Weren't optimised
Its not only the -6 dB that makes it feel quieter, but also the reduced frequency peak and uniform noise spectrum, similar to how they made car tires less noisy.
-6db is a 75% reduction in noise, as the decibel scale is logarithmic
Um conhecido meu ajudou a escrever um livro sobre acustica em automoveis pela UFSC. Voce conhece este livro? É um dos poucos produzidos no Brasil.
I think what people don't immediately realize is that the 5 bladed toroidal prop being 6dB quieter is 4x quieter than the standard prop. That is an incredibly substantial difference.
It's not only the decibels that impact the noise. The toroidsl propeller smoothes out the peaks in frequency of the nornal propeller making it more comfortable to listen to
Yeah, also, you can’t just make a toroidal shape and expect it to be good. There’s a fair amount of engineering involving the pitch and angle attack. The fact that a thrown together experiment matched up to a calculated prop at all is impressive.
sometimes good craftsmanship can overpower poor research. Not saying it's proper, but definitely cool and worth something yeah@@grubalaboocreosote4774
@grubalaboocreosote4774 Yeah the ridges from printing already make more noise by creating resistance
Deleting my comment because apparently the one it was referring to was deleted.
@@MONKEYGUY8504 symmetry has nothing to do with it. It just produces a different sound because it interacts with the air differently than a straight propellor
You should slow down the regular propeller until it produces the same thrust as the toroidal and then compare the noise again.
Are they not set to the same rpm?
@@rossmcdonagh1554 Yes and I just suggested a different comparison.
@@rossmcdonagh1554set to the same RPM yes, but it doesn't mean they're achieving the same rpm. If a different propeller has more drag it's just going to go slower. The only variable that's the exact same is the power of the little plane.
That's a good idea. People always forget to remove as many variables as possible for a real comparison.
@@j-schnab6338 that wasn't even the point why I suggested it but yes that also comes in handy. I just think it's another good measure to compare the noise level since we don't really car that much about rpm but more about thrust that just happens to be higher at higher rpm.
just a reminder to everyone that a difference in 3 decibels is a multiplier of 2, meaning that 6 decibels is a multiplier of 4.
Edit: Big thanks to yt for telling me that a whole 2 people liked my comment. It really helped me a lot to know.
Facts
😂
Именно этот комментарий я искал. Почему эта информация недоступна широким массам?
It's 10 decibels
@darthpotwet2668 Ten decibels is a multiplier of 10. 3 decibels is a multiplier of 2.
For those who don't know being 5 db quieter is a little more than a third as loud 10^.5
it's because the math for db is logarithmic meaning that every 10 bd is ten times louder or 10^1 20 bd quieter is 100 times quieter or 10^2 and 30 bd quieter is 1000 times quieter or 10^3
You are wrong. Psychoacoustics isn't an exact science because it's so subjective. In general 6-10db difference is considered half or twice as loud but it differs from person to person. Also it's really hard to tell when something is "twice as loud".
What you're referencing with 10, 100 and 1000 times higher is the change in effective sound pressure in Pascal. The entire point of the db-scale is to get rid of the logarithmic factor because our ears sensitivity to sound pressure follows a logarithmic scale. And working with pascal directly is impractical. 0db is the hearing threshold of the average human.
What the heck?
Is this math?
Nah,I m definitely not getting ANY certificate in academy now 💀
@@NiliMotoI was hoping someone commented this. It's also why I personally go by the 6db scale as that's how SPL is measured... and that's all I care about :D
@@NiliMoto3db is half the power, db scale IS logarithmic, not to get rid of it. It's math.
@@NiliMoto he are not wrong, the sound pressure diff in dB will do hearing damages at proportional levels
There is another problem at play!
Another guy on CZcams was putting together his own RC boat, and tried those types of propellers. He found that there’s quite a difference depending on whether they’re FDM printed(like you’ve done here), or Resin Printed.
Then again, he was messing with submerged propellers; any residual air could mess with its performance.
must be talking about RCTestflight actually i have the list of CZcamsrs testing such technologys and it's growing with dates for chronological timeline frequency of information spread and advancement 😊 the real bonus is weed free so your small lack in efficiency becomes a heavy improvement on efficiency for heavier weeded areas boating or i guess for planes bird strike strength etc though you aren't trying to tangle with such obstacles
The edges of those propellers looked squared off and blunt while the traditional propeller looked more refined. If you want a more fair test, you need to print your own standard propeller to the same materials and standards as the toroidal. The toroidal propellers I’ve seen were precision milled to extreme precision using a 5 axis CNC to achieve their superior numbers.
Yea the surface finish is definitely not doing the prop any good.
@@makermandanthe extra weight wouldn't help either.
In scientific testing they are more efficient.
But to counter your statement, the propellers should be run with their speeds adjusted to matching thrust as well.
@@prezzatocustoms why would you adjust that? They should all be run at whatever power that motor can produce.
@benji3900 simply because that's the only real world scenario that matters if you are focused on the sound alone. The traditional propeller makes alot more thrust, with only slightly more decibels. In the real world situation, where you need the same amount of thrust for these to be equal in performance, the traditional propeller will probably be quieter.
I never thought treyarch would make a propeller
Thank god I wasn’t the only one
Was gonna say that 😂
Lmao
Thought the same thing
Was gonna comment this nice
Print in ABS and smooth in acetone. That got me the power I was looking for from these.
Also, please compare the amp draw vs thrust. It’s possible the toroidal props have a lower max thrust but produce more thrust per amp.
Well if the motor slows it draws more current. They might produce more thrust at the same rpm, but so does any bigger propeller.
note that 6 decibels is a MASSIVE difference--the decibel system isn't linear, meaning 6 decibels is actually halving the amount of noise.
To make a fair comparison you should also 3D print a 1/1 replica of the original propeller. Layer lines, material and surface finish affect so much
in addition, the shape of each blade should be like a wing. the vid looks like it has a square edge from the printer.
yeah im so tired of people printing garbage then testing it and acting like it is representative of anything
Exactly my thought. Comparing FDM to IM isnt accounting for necessary variables
The ultimate test is motor current draw vs thrust. Otherwise, there are too many other variables in your experiment... which is really cool BTW.
Thanks!
i'd be interested to know their masses, as well.
Years ago, I was recruiting for an aircraft design team, and this was one of the questions we would ask. Most people were surprised by the answer.
The toroidal propellers are designed to drop off sound over distance faster....@@makermandan
i think the mass distribution is affecting the moment of inertia and requiring more energy to spin the toroidal one.
you may need to print it again with a different design to see better results
That is true, it’s a lot heavier
That should only affect how much time and energy it takes to get it up to speed, the top speed is unchanged by just increasing mass.
@@makermandan you should always compare them to a similar sized prop, thats also 3d printed
Yeah can you can see all the rough around the edges and extrusion which is spoiling airflow, a more refined design like the initial standard prop would be interesting.
@@TowerCrisisI can’t see that if you have a dremel and you spin it and apply lots of friction it won’t spin as fast. Or if you add a lot of weight to it. Now a car with steel wheels and the same car with magnesium wheels will spin the same because of the gears and the tiny amount of total output that’s used to spin them.
The difference between 3d printed an injection molded is shockingly significant when talking about aerodynamics.
infinity ward finna start producing planes 💀💀
The treyarch logo
It would be interesting to reduce the throttle on the regular propeller to match the thrust of the torodial ones. Then you could compare the noise levels at identical thrust. Also measuring current draw would be informative.
That would indicate a designed inefficiency in fuel and power, which in turn would be better solved by just flying slower or getting better headphones. As for civilian noise complaints, just fly higher.
You did not address weight. If a propeller is heavier, it will spin slower given the same torque. That would explain the quieter sound and decreased thrust.
It'll only accelerate slower, the rest is down to drag.
@@reinbeers5322Acceleration *_and_* maximum velocity would also be reduced. Those are entirely different, and we are trying to fly in the end.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 Top speed is affected way more by drag and not weight, weight is more relevant for acceleration and climb rate.
Top speed will only be lowered if drag increases, which may not happen with a small increase in weight.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 Top speed is affected way more by drag and not weight, weight is more relevant for acceleration and climb rate.
Top speed will only be lowered if drag increases, which may not happen with a small increase in weight.
@@reinbeers5322 Sure, acceleration is more affected but saying only acceleration is affected it flat out wrong. This isn't a zero-sum gain. Propeller efficiency changes with airspeed. Change the propeller, expect that power band to change. Propeller efficiency can also allow the motor to be over-revved.
Propeller length should be determined by the *_motor_*. He did not change that iirc.
Only changing the propeller is going to affect more than just acceleration. It will affect the entire passage through the medium. As displacement of air is also critical, not just drag.
"Better to move a lot of air, a little."
It's worth noting that the toroidal props were designed for drones, where sound and turbulence can be annoying. The lack of a clearly defined tip makes for less turbulence and thus easier landings.
I think the reason the toroidal propellers have some issues is the weights at the tip as they loop over into the next propeller. You might need to drill holes there to allow some air to fall out through it. If not that, then you might need to change up the shapes at the tips to account for air manipulation.
remember, decibles are a logrithmic scale. 6db is about 50% quieter.
50% less noise for 25% less thrust seems a decent deal to me
It's important to note that 6 decibels is actually a big difference. For reference, every 10 decibels is double the volume. This means going from 10 to 20 decibels would result in a 100% increase in noise.
You need to account for the weight differences and drag too...causing the motor to turn slower RPM, hence quieter and less thrust. Match RPM and then test.
Important thing missing from the thrust measurement is a simultaneous measure of power being drawn. The toroidal props could be weaker but drawing less power making them more efficient or weaker and drawing more power making them even worse. It would be interesting to see this measured together for a more complete picture.
I’d imagine the mass, especially at the tips is MUCH higher so the lower thrust and sound is probably due to a lower RPM, and power draw would likely be higher
Im trying to understand this comment. The motor should be drawing a fairly constant amount of power regardless of what its driving. The lowered performance would be some summation of the properties of the printed propeller making it harder for the motor to apply torque to.
I think to make this test "fair", one should iterating the design of the toroidal propeller itself.
By that i mean, the printed propellers seem suboptimal compared to the original design. My intuition tells me if he played with the mass, cross section, raidus and/or print material he'd see better results. Essentially he needs to lower the Mass moment of inertia to make the propeller easier to spin, then he can start playing woth thrust properties.
@@h34dshotgl0re By power you mean amps, right? I don’t know a ton about how to calculate amps from prop mass/pitch/size, but I do know a bit about power consumption in general. A motor has a KV rating which for our purposes is the number of RPMs the motor will spin at a specific voltage. The amount of current the motor is going to need to do that is going to change based on the load. So no prop requires few amps, big prop requires big amps OR big prop pitch (more air pushed per rotation) also requires big amps.
So you’re completely right, they need to test different prop geometries to actually see if they can optimize the design to be competitive. I just don’t think it’s going to be useful to try to compare a homemade design to something designed by the pros, then claim conclusions based on an amateur attempt :(
True, I don't have the equipment to measure the current draw but I can look into it for future testing.
@@h34dshotgl0reWhy do you think a motor should draw the same amount of power regardless of what it’s driving? I’m fairly sure that’s totally wrong.
PC fan tests prove you can reduce sound significantly, and likely improve everything else too.
The toroidal propeller should be much quieter, the reason why your propeller sounds as loud is because the layer lines on your 3d print are negating its advantage because its causing a lot of wake and turbulence, I suggest that you make the layer height as thin as possible, then sand it smooth and add a layer of a filler like spackle or find a way to make it smooth to the touch, then polish it, now it should work.
I like this type of videos, let's make them normal. No clickbait, strait to the point well filmed with captions so i can watch it while my baby daughter goes to sleep. Nice
How thin can you print without compromising rigidity? Lessening the mass of the blades and moving the center of gravity to the fulcrum would be the best strategy to both increase inertia and lessen drag.
👍🏽 love engineers. Blue collar keeps the world running, white collar advances the world
Increase inertia?
You may have to optimize and experiment with different propeller types to find the best kind, as some might not be good for flight compared to others.
The fact that my man put his toy plane on a Dyno says how serious he is about his Hobby!
Hahaha I should make a dyno graph for it
The major advantage of a toroidal prop is it improves efficiency by reducing tip vortex, in case of a drone you have multiple vortex interacting making them less effective because of the prop arrangement. The down sides of this prop is spinning weight. Also more prop blades do not make a prop better, they spread the horsepower out to improve energy transfer so more are needed if the plane is over power loading the prop it is why the 800hp spitfire had a wooden fix pitch prop, and the later 2000+ hp model had two 3 blade counter rotating monster of a prop to make a 6blade prop with no P factor. A low power plan works better with a more efficient 2 blade prop.
You still have sharp edges and rough surfaces on the 3d printed ones. It would be interesting if you measured rpm as well.
A sounds volume doubles every 3 decibles, so the difference between the propellers was massive
3dB is about the smallest sound level change you can discern
The sound ENERGY doubles or halves with a 3dB change, but eyes and ears have logarithmic intensity responses, not linear
@@miscbits6399meaning it takes 10db to double the perceived volume of a sound, not 3db :)
The normal one is actually quieter when normalised for thrust generated.
@@definingslawek4731 if you 3d printed a normal one it probably wouldn't fare well. That rough surface will have a high Renoylds number and be generating a lot of noise/drag
I'd be highly tempted to 3d print blades using my SLA printer rather than relying on any kind of extruder. This can produce a surface which is almost perfect (and flexible with resin tuning, I've done this for "clothespeg" type electronics clips otherwise they snap after a couple of uses) and can be further improved with acetone treatment before final hardening
@@nathanblanchard8897 well, 50% is still a lot tho
Be interesting to measure the noise level of the standard prop running at a lower speed such that it matches the thrust of the fancy prop.
Id imagine the regular prop still retains a higher pitch timbre.
@@makermandan why imagine? You're set up to test exactly this and it's a valid point.
The regular propeller is twice as loud as the 5 blade propeller. For those wondering
Run the regular propeller at lower speed to produce the same thrust, and compare the noise.
I guess that regular will be on par with the newer ones. If they are spinning slower and producing less thrust then of course they will be quieter.
I would also sand or use resin to fill the grooves of the print so they are smoother. should help improve performance and reduce sound as well.
Spinning flower propeller 😊
The toroidal propellors also remove the higher pitch sounds from the propellers, which makes us percieve them as being even quieter even without a huge change in decibel level.
As far as I know, decibels are measured one meter away from the source. If you put it right next to the source.... Measurement is compromised. Read more about what the decibel means and how to measure it.
Thing about decibels. Each one is an EXPONENTIAL increase. Meaning going from 100 dB to 101dB is actually 100% louder.
Food for thought when there's a 6dB decrease.
Important to understand: this is not about "toroidal vs regular", but _these random DYI 3D-printed_ vs _factory-grade molded optimized for this motor_ .
Ive found bigger differences comparing quality props to cheap ones. On a DIY drone I once gained 10% thrust switching from generic to DJI props. The generic ones were still quality injection molded and engineered using a time-proven design.
Another consideration is while a lot of the same rules apply, hydrodynamics where most toroidal props are designed from is executed differently than aerodynamics. The blades are usually angled to different amounts.
It could be something you already considered, but if not, the difference might matter
As a person trained in basic aerodynamics and with real aircraft maintenance experience I can say that propellers are specically formed in a way to get as much "bite" on the air as possible as pulls t the plane through the air while minimizing drag. It seems that the new propellers have a lower pull and higher parasitic drag coiefficients. Still an interesting idea though.
On a small scale, toroidal propellers are actually worse. But on a larger scale, they are significantly better.
you gotta polish them smooth, there will be less turbulence meaning less noise and less power wasted on air friction
If you match the thrust the sound goes back to normal.
They aren't quieter. They just have their noise more spread out over more frequencies that are less audible to humans, there quieter.
Somewhat like the tread on tires going from blocky to variable spacing and angular shapes to spread out the impact and therefore spread out the noise.
It is quite obvious that they are quieter iom that "drag" at the end of the propeller blade does not occur with a Torodial propeller. The question is how much less energy Torodial propellers draw (number of AMP's in the motor) compared to a normal propeller. and that saving can be used to use a torodial propeller with a little more pitch and get more thrust and you go plus or minus zero when it comes to energy consumption.
The two biggest factors of a propellers efficiency is the angle of attack and the diameter. Two blade propellers are typically more efficient as well, but louder.
If I remember correctly toroidal propellers are supposed to be more efficient, not necessarily more powerful. They are more like a side step to traditional propellers than an upgrade. A more accurate way to rate them would be to record audio from farther away and record how long battery life’s last.
To make the 3D printed propellers more efficient, you could lightly sand them with ~600grit sandpaper to even out the layer lines.
every 3 decibles is a doubling in loudness so 6db less is 4x quieter than a regular propeller. That's a huge difference.
Nice test! I think you should also 3D print the regular propeller from the same material you made the toroidal propellers, perhaps the finish has an effect on the final results.
You should compare the motor current as well. Efficiency is also very important thing.
I believe that flower-type propellers were rotating slower, so this is why they were less noise and less throsty.
It looks like the regular propeller is made from a different material than the propellers. I would recommend printing a regular propeller with the same material, to test the toroidal prints against. This will ensure consistency in your testing
It’s funny that 99.9% of people don’t know that 6db is LITERALLY double. 117db is TWICE AS LOUD 111db.
The famous ultra-expensive toroidal propellers that made all those claims were designed for racing speedboats. You can imagine those being much quieter than the traditional option, but the design just doesn't seem to work great for the air, or it requires simulating the design to get it right for a certain use case, or the use case needs to be specifically very high speed, or it's the imperfections of 3D printing that are nullifying any possible advantage.
I think the toroidal propeller was designed for maximum efficiency in the mid-range of engine rpm. Instead of testing thrust at the highest RPM, maybe test thrust at lower RPM to see if the toroidal propeller generates more thrust with less power. Air also has different fluid dynamics than air. I believe the point of the toroidal propeller is to minimize cavitation compared to a regular propeller, and that affect may not be as influential to noise and engine efficiency in air as it is in water. You put in a lot of work with this experiment. I'd love to see more experiments with these same propellers!
You need to 3d print a standard propellor for this to be a fair test. The weight and surface of a printer will never be the same. I still expect the standard twin blade to win. Also, we should remember that because of the geometry of toroidal propellors, it is not perfectly accurate to describe them as "3-bladed" or "5-bladed." A better terminology could be "3-fold rotational symmetry" or "5-fold rotational symmetry." These blades have more like 6 blades and 8-10 blades worth of surface area respectively.
There’s a reason why planes don’t use propellers like the ones you’re designing because there’s more air resistance on it, but yeah, it will be quieter because it doesn’t move as fast.
The reason the 5 propeller was quieter is because the more propeller blades you have the less it needs to pull the air to move which makes it create less noise
Drag comes in many forms.
Just as wing shapes create different amounts of drag, a prop with more surface area will create more drag, causing the engine (or motor, if electric) to work harder.
You will likely notice reduced run time from your battery if it is electric.
This is why real GA aircraft stick with the simple dual blade prop design.
Would be interesting to check the Ratio Thrust/Amps. If they produce 25% less thrust, but 30% less power usage, they'd still be better, and just upgrade the motor to compensate for the loss.
Você precisa modificar o ângulo de ataque do perfil toroidal a fim de tornar ele mais eficiente para a velocidade de rotação que você deseja.
The 3d printed propellers might just be a lot heavier than the originals. Plus, while adding more propellers does increase the amount of thrust, it amount it increases by decreases as you add more blades
6dB doesnt sound like a huge reduction, but it's a logarithmic scale. Every 3db is effectively double the air pressure. Air pressure and percieved volume dont line up exactly but this is still almost 1/3 quieter.
Also worth comparing the load value. I imagine that for the same amount of thrust the toroidal props are using less watts. Thats how they should be
I think for a more fair comparison you should also 3D print the regular propeller. That way you'll know if the material itself has any impact on the performance.
Adjust the pitch of your toroidal, and tune for the desired thrust. Think of a constant speed prop - you need “Fine” pitch for take off, and once airborne you back off the pitch for cruising speed. As your little toy doesn’t have adjustable pitch, you have to set it up on the ground.
If you read the manual of the decibel meter, it should say that sound is measured from a distance of 1m away (3.2 feet).
The big thing is that unlike regular props, you have no way to change tge AoA of the prop unlike on a plane with MPPC, they also produce less thrust and are more negatively effective by heat and density.
Source, I am a ATPL-A pilot in Australia
Make sure to adapt well the toroidal ones to be used as thrust. They were designed to be used as fans.
My initial suggestion is that if this toroidal propeller was superior to the winged propeller it would be standard by now and not something that needs to be investigated.
But I guess it's fun to experiment anyway!
As a consultant on acoustic noise (usually from infrastructure projects), this fascinates me
For reference, a something 3dB louder is twice as loud (though for human hearing it needs to be 10dB for it to /sound/ twice as loud, because we're dumb apes who have evolved to be selective about our hearing)
If you divide the dB by the thrust you find the standard propeller is actually quieter than the toroidal props for a given thrust value…
the sound is not that quieter, they make a lower frequency off notice, but they are actually made for drones, that rund way faster..
Try 3d print your regular propeller from the same material. For more acurraci. And plane may need some tuning too I gues. It is optimalized for this regular type
This is such an interesting line of experimentation.
Is it simply that it's heavier? Measure the max rpm. Work out the energy output per rotation. It should be higher. But you don't have the power to spin it fast enough. I think.
Also, that propeller looks designed for water, so maybe modify it to the same blade pitch as your standard propellor.
Propeller thrust is one of the most complicated things I have ever messed with in design. The pitch and profile of the blade make HUGE differences in performance even before you factor in hor changing them messes with engine rpm.
To be fair, you should 3D print a standard propeller with the same print parameters as you used for the toroidal propellers which look pretty square on the edges.
Should compare against a 3D printed standard propeller. Compare against a smooth, factory propeller with different plastic adds variables.
They are likely weaker due to blade deflection because the material isn't as stiff.
By increasing the number of blades, you must reduce the diameter of the propeller. Each more blade is 1" less in diameter. Lower thrust may be caused by too much load on the engine, which results in lower revolutions. I'm waiting for further tests;)
That makes sense
I think theres a certain formula you have to use to get the right shape in order to actually get them to work properly. But im sure when made perfectly they are better than regular propellers
Wind turbines use 3 propellers for an efficiency reason. Same goes for a boat prop (originally it was a long screw that broke). Your tests prove that you shouldn’t re invent the wheel but rather confirm it. Fun stuff though!
both toroidal propellers were also shorter overall than the normal propeller, if you made them the same length, i think the noise difference would mostly disappear, and the thrust difference would lessen substantially
Where it really works is boat propellers to keep fish safer and underwater noise down. That keeps whales happy..
Makes sense; the ends of the toroidal where they bend over won’t be producing any thrust.
For a fair test more control would be necessary.
I can think: Current measure or a constant RPM.
The distance of the decibelmeter must be exactly the same.
Also, the normal propeller should be printed too.
Seriously though aerodynamic efficiency and aero-acoustic efficiency can't be achieved at the same time, only at the cost of one or the other.... FACTS!
That was your first design. The normal propeller was optimized for aircraft. I’m sure if you do some fluid dynamic analysis of the toroidal props you will match the normal prop. And then after that you need to worry about the center of gravity!
Keep it up!
The reason they are better is because in water they avoid making vacuum bubbles. This isn't an issue in the air (or maybe at some extreme spin it is?! who knows??)
So out of water there is no reason to think they'd be better. In water however they very much are....the issue is the production cost is much higher at the moment.
The more arms on a propeller makes it grip the air more, so it’s better for maneuverability but it also takes more torque to spin hence the lower power, also more torque = more battery used
If you sand down the blades on the toroidal propeller they will perform better because the surface is smoother because there won’t be any 3-D printing lines
6 decibels may not seem like much, but when you take into account that 10 decibels is a doubling of perceived sound, 6 decibels is a lot.