FYI: Latest video featuring frequent questions and suggestions is up: czcams.com/video/pjZaGHKQB8Y/video.html Hey all, so I couldn't wait and I added a bunch more sizes from 40mm, 2" up to 4", but all scaled from the original so they're not ideal. Larger sizes would obviously need to be redesigned, but for now this will do. Also I've never used or designed t-mount stuff either, so no idea if they'll work. Interesting thought, a commenter named Max over on Thingiverse has already tried the design in TPU and it worked! This has me excited for two reasons: 1) It works! 2) TPU might be a viable material here, because the toroidal design kind-of loops back on itself and provides more support for the overall shape. Whereas regular TPU props would flex and flail in the wind, maybe this toroidal shape will hold stronger, despite the more flexible material. Who knows! And recently also @QEDFPV printed and tested the design to find lower noise and more thrust (but more amps) so certainly more work to be done. Check out his video here: czcams.com/video/qP0OPz3NgK4/video.html One last update, I've already begun with another generation of the tri-toroidal design which tries to improve on blade shape and a shallower blade angle going out towards the tip. Doesn't look as pretty, but might yield better results and be slightly lighter in weight, plus a bi-toroidal design too: www.thingiverse.com/thing:5832892 www.thingiverse.com/thing:5833027
waiting in realtime for people to upload der tests. i really hope this is a breakthrough and all drones can be quieter. perfect for cinewhoops if it works!
Oh definitely, I just liked the triblade design more so I went for that first. The community as a whole will have to give a bunch of different designs a go, but I'll probably do the MIT bi/quad blade design a go later-on.
Ok printed 4x CW and 4x CCW for a friend. Both are 3". Will share the outcome soon! The toroidal theory sounds very interesting! Thank you! Oh and, I'm using PET-G filament. For improved resistance against cracking. I'm sure it'll still crack - due to nature of its thinness.
Incredible video! You've kinda blown up this space and I love it! Congrats on all the new subs. You've earned it man! I was just looking at SLS printing today and it's out of reach for most, but would definitely be the machine to fabricate this on. Excellent work, walkthrough, and content. I'm continually amazed that the creators that share everything, actually do better than those that horde content, designs or processes. Keep up the great work!
Haha, I think MIT have more to do with blowing up this space than myself, but I'll claim partially victory if we in the open source community manage to produce our own decent-performance toroidals that can be printed comfortably at home
This is great. I have tried to make a few of my own toroidal props for RC planes at 70mm radius and test them on a thrust load cell. These have been 3D printed on an old Prusa printer and have worked well so far. I will scale up and print your design and test them.on the rig as well to compare results.
Definitely something I want to try eventually, as I suspect the bi-blade or bi-loop design I think might end up being more efficient anyway. Frustrating being on the road though, haha, limits design time!
Wow! Amazing project! Thank you for showing this project, because I did it differently and you showed me a different way of designing. I learned something new!
My pleasure! I have no idea if my way works the best, but if it works for others then that's something! I look forward to actual Fusion 360 or other CAD design pros coming up with better methods, though.
@@STRIKINGFPV oh I immediately went to your other designing videos! rare to see people do step by step explanation of these so I'm grateful you did. not sure when you checked your 633+ subs but seems like you just got 100+ subs! keep on going dude!
@@im_ricebowl At the time of recording it was 633, yeah, didn't expect the immediate influx from it though. Grateful regardless 😁. At this point I'd be a fool not to post a proper tutorial on this design, and maybe the bi/quad version that is illustrated in MIT's PDF, but gotta improve the design process first 😅.
Ooh, would love to see how it prints in resin, must come out really smooth. I'm considering another design iteration with thinner blades for finer print methods like SLA and SLS.
I am really interested in how the will behave once they get revd in terms of their shape. I can imagine they might grow in diameter and could possibly get in conflict with prop ducts/guards. Looking really forward to any results. Thanks for sharing the construction files and for walking us through the design process.
I remember looking up prop design online and seeing all the theory behind the blade size, length, angle and stuff - I feel like this toroidal design will need some standardised method of gauging their profile as well, and there will need to be a lot of prototyping to see what design works the best and in what way. Then there's manufacturing - injection moulding will be ideal, but because MIT have a patent, I'm not sure how easily or quickly prop manufacturers will actually jump on these possibilities, considering the amount of R&D first needed, plus tooling. Lots of questions, but also kinda' exciting times, if these might become the next big change in the drone space.
As a general concept, I see where these infinity boat props are similar in terms of the loop back, but at the same time I wonder if there's enough reasonable difference that MIT were granted the patent for the toroidal props. They certainly look different enough and have a very different application. Makes me wonder if we get to a point where people can start to manufacture, will anyone try to challenge the MIT patent based on pre-existing material, like said infinity boat props.
Hey great job, I’m definitely going to try this!!! I’ve been working hard to push the boundaries of 3D printing and drones just because most everyone says it’s a waste of time. But I don’t think it is. I believe we’re just getting started! I’m definitely going to try this design.
Awesome dude, looking forward to it. This is certainly one of the bigger changes in the drone space, and I'm looking forward to more designs coming out and all the testing that's going to be done!
After reading your update, I've decided to print them with PCTPE. It's kinda like the "TPU" of nylon. My nylon filaments just spent 10 hours in the dryer a few days ago. Stored air tight with desiccant since then, the PCTPE should print super clean.
@STRIKING FPV First two props are done, 3.5" T Mount. They weigh 3.3g, while the gemfan 3.5" tri blades weigh 1.93g. I have one 3.5" drone with 1404s, and I have another that I built with 2004s. Worth noting that the low pitch, 5" tri blades from gemfan, commonly paired with 2004 motors (at least initially,) still come in lighter at 2.9g. I had an urge to modify the design straight away, to reduce weight, but knew that I needed to get my baseline first, using the design as is. I can see I'll need to drill out the t mount holes. I have a jig for drilling 1.5mm props out to 2mm, so it shouldn't be an issue. I'll adjust the design accordingly on the next round. Okay, 2.5 more hours of print time, and I'll be taking these babies airborne! They look fantastic in black PCTPE, which printed super clean, no supports. OH, and the main reason why I came back to comment right now, is that I'm installing an octoprint plug in that should let me stream the print to youtube, so I'll come back with a link of i get it working.
@@24kJames Haha, that's cool. Interesting on the weight, though I'm not surprised since I made the blades thicker than what would be ideal to account for lower strength with 3D printed stuff. My next iteration I'll probably thin them out a bit, but will more or less be reserved for those with SLA or SLS printers (or impeccably tuned FDMs, hehe)
@STRIKING FPV I forgot I had another 3.5" quad with 1303s, a light weight, printed frame and canopy that flies great on 3S. I decided it was best suited for the job. Unfortunately, the props aren't working for me. They don't seem to provide enough lift, but I need to verify it's not an error on my part. I'll make a video and drop a link here so you can make an assessment.
There is an expired U.S. Patent 6,736,600 "Rotor with Split Blade" to Rudolf Bannasch that looks similar to the MIT toroidal propeller. Please see Figure 7 of U.S. Patent 6,736,600. I have no idea of Mr. Bannasch's propeller has good performance or not, but it would be very interesting to see a comparison between MIT's propeller and Mr. Bannasch's propeller, especially since U.S. Patent 6,736,600 expired in 2020!
Crazy yeah, that's pretty much the lofted circles idea, it's more or less what initial toroidal designs are and kind of what QuadMovr did in his video. I talk a little bit more about it in my latest video, but I believe the unique claim that the recent patent makes is specifically the leading blade intersecting with the trailing blade of a different loop, so I think that's how it was initially granted. The big question is if anyone can prove that this is a significant enough difference to grant the patent, but I also suspect that MIT are not going to be so litigious towards our community - maybe towards DJI or potential military contractors, but I think we're alright for now, haha.
Good news they do work. I was able to fly reasonably fine with my old BOLT SpeCops 01 HD version 5" quad and modified "Tri-Toroidal_50x3..." (little down-scaling). The noise is slightly different ..the high pitch is not present. Those printed props flex, but holding well even with loops and twists. They won't survive crash.
Oh that's cool to hear, I wonder if my latest designs will work better for you like they have for Johnny at @WillItMod, he found my V3 tri-loop behaves more like a traditional prop. Indeed they won't survive crashes, props usually don't do well and if it's FDM then it'll explode I'm sure
@@STRIKINGFPV V3 They do perform so much better. The wobble is not present or I do not feel it. They noise is noticeably less present. Since I do not have 3"quad mostly 5" and if I push it they explode (at about 70-80% throttle) . I have to get some PETG otherwise they were all printed at higher temperature with PLA. For me they would be great if I can eliminate need for ducked design quad.
@@lee8org When @MoppelMat printed from nylon carbon-fibre he had much lower weight than a standard prop, so I'm wondering if I have some leeway with the prop thickness and make it stronger, but of course there's a give/take in that if it's thicker to be stronger, it becomes heavier so it's under more stress, haha. Maybe future versions can play with the thickness more, but for now I'm quite satisfied with V3's viability. Now I'm working on the tutorial video first.
this is cool, I will give it a shot on my FDM printer. All my cinewhoops are 3 inch though so I can't actually test the props if they manage to print ok.
The angle in the middle of the prop seems much to high, normal propeller are in the range of 30 to 35 degree. Can you check if your design is at approx, 45 degrees? That forced to much power consumption for the motors, the ampere and the thrust goes up to much. I would like a design with a lower angle, similar thrust like normal props. This could be also much quieter. Thanks for your video, very great help for me as a fusion noob. Will try this to redesign your workflow
That's something I need to work out, because the design needs to eventually go vertical at the tips, part of the challenge is to try and maintain a shallower angle as far out as possible but that's kind of a difficult challenge. I have an idea on how to improve it, but have to do some more testing. This might also be why MIT's final design favours this bi-blade/bi-loop configuration, if it allows them to keep the blade angle shallower for longer before reaching the outer edge.
Hope so too - more R&D needed to see if it's worth it over regular stuff, but would be exciting to see the usual prop manufacturers actually producing these, nice and thin and injection moulded.
I will try it in my resin printer. i would like to give this a try in my taycan , and that excepts 75mm. specs of taycan, holybro f7 mini 45A , apex 1608 2750 on 6s .
I'll print the 2 and 4inch for my 2inch and 5inch drone. Maybe I might scale up the 4inch to 5inch. I have a dual extruder printer, so overhangs are not a problem for me. Many thanks!!!
That's interesting, I've searched for them but their website is gone, and what little Wayback Machine has doesn't share much. No designs, no images, still only a 30 second video and nothing else. Looks very vapourware at this point, especially considering they're no longer operating. And one of the claims of "10x maximum thrust increase" seems a little much. You seem to remember well, did you find any more info or designs back in the day? Something I'm missing or hasn't been archived or shared?
Oh I totally agree, I think it's similar to how a lot of long range drones use bi-blades, but I chose the tri-blade mainly because of looks, hehe, but also in the whoop space I think they're less "slicey", and more likely to bounce off things, so there is some kind of application there. That being said, I will give their bi-blade design a go at some point.
@@STRIKINGFPV I also want 3 blade for my cinewhoop, they look cool and looks like we could fly without ducts or props guard.. I am checking what people are making. In the mean time I am working on a setup to measure trust, efficiency and sound so I could compare each iteration of props.
Trying this on my Ender 3 with PETG. Might be an excuse to finally try out the AnyCubic Photon Mono SQ resin printer that's been sitting there for a few months, ha ha. Just have not had the motivation or an interesting design that required it.
It seams to me very strange that this design has an inverse pitch progression. Standard propellers have a high pitch near the hub (30° or so) and the pitch is much reduced at the end of the blade (10° or so). This is because the end of the blade moves faster in the fluid than the root. The two-loops design of the MIT reproduces this, with the squashed ends. And the same for the Sharrow marine propeller: see the twist in the pitch... So why this vertical wall at the exterior of your loop? Seams conter-productive... could you try the squashed ends?
Yes no totally you're 100% correct, I did improve upon this in my latest designs. It's still not perfect, much more work to do, but I'm moving towards a direction where I would like others to continue development as I don't think I can single-handedly keep working on this. You're welcome to check out my latest video where I also address comments and suggestions that I've come across, and I also have plans to do tutorials on the design so others can continue experimenting themselves.
A few others have also mentioned to me, and I've had a play around and it still gives me issues sometimes. Definitely need to look deeper into it, but II won't be printing soon anyway 😅.
Superb. Loved watching your design process. I spent several hours failing to do exactly this in Fusion360 last night 😂 I have a ProTek35 so these will drop straight on. Looking forward to doing some tests. 👍
Can't wait to see the results, hope it works out! I just added a bunch more designs to the Thingiverse link, all scaled versions of the original but with correct shaft sizes including some T-mount. Not sure if they'll work since I've never touched a t-mount before, but if the specs online are correct then they should work.
Thanks so much for sharing the file. Are you worried that your "3 loop" design is quite different from the MIT "2 loop" version"? Seems like the pretty large change in the overall geometry wouldn't yield the same results as MIT's version? I see Lincoln Labs used both 2 loop and 3 loop designs - the best closeups I can find (and their press release) seem to show the 2-loop at least: czcams.com/video/M0nMW1E8J90/video.html
Literally the only reason why I went with the tri-blade or tri-loop design is because it looks nicer 😂. But yeah, I would actually like to try both designs to see which one works better - I dare say the bi-loop will be more efficient as we already experience this with longer range FPV drones flying with bi-blades for efficiency (and quietness), so I imagine it will come out on top. I will say, though, that the tri-loop is potentially better in terms of safety since it's more likely to glance and bounce off obstacles (and fingers) than the bi-loop, so for Cinewhoops the tri-loop might end up being preferred for that added benefit.
yes, just add much more weight to the props. this will have a affect on changing rpm. dont forget to go up to 32768 khz in your ESC to counter act the weight. at least you made a new video.
I have a feeling that an injection-moulded design could use thinner blades to save on weight because the toroidal design, coming back in on itself, adds to its own rigidity in some ways. Certainly worth exploring. The freestylers, upon seeing the news of toroidals, don't seem interested because of xyz reasons, but I think slower steady flyers like cinewhoopers (which are also the most loud and annoying, lol) will benefit from this eventually.
@@STRIKINGFPV just guessing, never. the prop rpms they have is so high, because of the diameter. if you add just 20% more weight and i think it would be some more, they are just loose too much rpm control. this type of prop is useful when you almost never have to change rpm and if, not in a fast way like quad esc use. in this use case it has too much downsides. the prop has to be as light as possible. this is no. 1 priority in rpm control. this is more important if the prop goes down in diameter.
The toroidal fan does not have to be revolving inside a cinewhoop, the cinewhoop can be built on to the toroidal. Also the outside of the cinewhoop could be rounded for side on air flow.
Please do! Unfortunately I'm already down in Petchaburi on a trip with the family, but it's cool to see people writing in from Thailand as well, haha. But please, don't print the first generation, the second generation tri-loop design is much better (so I'm told, haha).
From an engineering perspective where one loop meets the other they could be blended in or rounded into the back of other. Just a thought, try it and see. If you decide to do this please let me know of the results.
Thank you, does anyone know if these count as " exposed blades" or if they were rounded out completely would that count as a guard? Being able to drop prop guards would be nice if it didn't make it leave little burn marks when it touched.
Something is wrong... You get the largest angle of attack in the "tip" of the blade and the smallest angle of attack closest to the hub... It should be the opposite.
This is a very good point - the whole purpose of the toroidal shape is to remove the wing tip, since in most aircraft the wingtip is where the most turbulence occurs, hence MIT's design removing the blade tip by coming back in on itself. Another commenter suggested that instead of the edge going vertical, make it horizontal, which would better match typical propeller design, but then that would reintroduce a blade tip, of sorts. I'm currently working on a next generation or iteration of this design which tries to maintain more of the shallow blade angle further out before the vertical loop-back, you can check it out here, but it's still a WIP: www.thingiverse.com/thing:5832892
What about making edges horizontal but not vertical. Normally blades angle get closer to horizontal at the edges, since speed of blade is higher there.
I think part of what makes standard props and a lot of wings so loud is the turbulence at the wing tips, and so the toroidal prop design is trying to make a wing without a tip. I have a feeling that a horizontal tip might be too similar to a regular wing, but your idea is still interesting. Might give it a go at some point.
@@STRIKINGFPV I think It would be what MIT did. Tip of first blade doesn't end thus creating vortexes, it gets thin, flat and continues and turns into tip of next blade.
This is awesome. I would like to try this out on my 5 inch quads. Could you add a version with a 130mm circumference and a 4.75mm shaft hole? I wished I knew how to work Fusion 360, I would do it myself. Thanks for sharing, this is a fun experiment.
@@STRIKINGFPV I was actually able to resize the 4in props up by 134% and they made the perfect size for 5inch, even the shaft hole worked out. I have my second printing now. I'll check out your new one. Thanks.
@@MikeMillerDrones Technically it's actually less aggressive in terms of the blade angle, but that should hopefully reduce drag and generate more lift further out towards the edge. Only issue is that it is a fair bit thinner, so a well-tuned FDM is needed (or resin or laser sintering, hehe).
You can get them made from cf from thingaverse right? I'm not sure I 100% like the design, it seems a bit inefficient especially on the vertical parts...but it seems like its definitely got potential. If they're significantly quieter even if a little less efficient it might be worth it even over normal props. I think you could twist those outside supports top out, so they're also adding lift and not just hitting a wall of air?
I made up to a 4 inch, but literally just scaling the design so it's becoming big and thick and probably not ideal, so for larger sizes I think probably makes sense to do a fresh design, which I'll try and get around to at some point. Many issues with my current iteration which can be solved with better planning, so will get to that at some point, but I am travelling so it's a bit inconvenient at the moment.
Thanks for "biblade" 5" design i want to try that one. I have acces to Stratasys F770 (beast of a printer) and i will print this using ASA filament. WIll let you know how it works out
@@STRIKINGFPV Tested it on Trilab Industral using PA12+CF filament. You can see it on my youtube channel. Definitely a different sound. Lower. But at the same time much higher power consumption to the extent that the motors get warm. I'll play around with the PID a bit and try to take it outside when it stops snowing haha. I will have ASA ones printed od stratasys tomorrow probably
Testet on a NazgulV2 5 Inch Quad. at the moment cant Upload the Test Video. Ist works but the restless behavior is problematic… Does anyone have the same problem??
Oh man, sorry - the files you need to download individually because Thingiverse sometimes corrupts the zip files. As for the profiles and rails, they're literally just planes on the flat (z) axis and then splines which. They need to intersect with points on the profiles to work. Try looking up other Fusion 360 tutorials on using the loft tool with rails, and I think you'll get a better idea of how it works. It was my first attempt with this design and was a little finicky but eventually worked out. In future I'll probably do a real tutorial, but I'm travelling at the moment so it'll probably be a ways out.
I am about eight months into fusion 360. You lost me on how you came up with the profiles that you started with. I would love it if you would do a fusion 360 tutorial you explain things very well.
@@nmfireman I would love to, but even my latest revision I've found a different way of doing the lofting, so I'm kinda' working it out as I go. I'll be on the road for the next week or so, so I won't be able to do much, but when I get back home I'd definitely like to do a tutorial on this style of prop design. For now, I might suggest looking at other Fusion 360 tutorials online regarding the loft feature, and related to that also the sweep feature which may also work somewhat maybe?
Check out Mark Rober video - Amazing Invention- This Drone Will Change Everything, go to 15:41 sec. This prop design is whisper quiet, need to model that,
Maybe a real tutorial you'd learn more? I dunno', haha. You can check out my older actual Fusion 360 tutorials - had some commenters give me tips on using Fusion 360 as well, so even I learned quite a bit in the process 😅.
Not yet, I'll consider doing it but I'm concerned that it might not be worth it because of the thickness required and how small 2" actually is. I'll give it a go in maybe the next few days, but gotta' look up typical 2" mount - problem with 1mm holes and T-mount stuff is the holes are so small, I don't know how accurate it would come out on an FDM printer, certainly not great on mine 😬
@@STRIKINGFPV because 2-3 inch cinewhoop is very noisy . i think if you can find a way to make this props for two inch , it will be a great impact . because 3.5 - 4 inch can use 2 blade normal propellers if they want silent props.☺ . But thankyou for share the file .
@@captaindronieversefpv So have a look now on Thingiverse, I just added a bunch more sizes with T mounts as well - I don't own any t-mount drones so I'm just going with specs on the internet, no guarantees since nothing's been tested. Hope they work for you 👍
hi, your video is greatly wondful! but there is a question about the toroidal propeller, how do you calculate the geometryical parameters of the propeller, I am studying this question, I would appreciate it if you can reply to me
Please watch the 10 Toroidal Questions video I did, as it might help a little in that regard, but not much. Unlike traditional propellers, for which we have numerous aerofoil designs available and a known concept for calculating correct propeller pitch across the length of the blade, toroidals by their nature somewhat break the rule because they have to bend back into themselves. This bend requires that the blade angle will have to become steeper until its vertical to become the loop - traditional props need the blade angle to become shallower, further out. I have an explanation for this roughly here: czcams.com/video/pjZaGHKQB8Y/video.html Beyond that, I haven't done any physics simulation or anything fancy, so can't really say much else about how to make the best or most efficient toroidal. Bit of an unknown at the moment.
FYI: Latest video featuring frequent questions and suggestions is up:
czcams.com/video/pjZaGHKQB8Y/video.html
Hey all, so I couldn't wait and I added a bunch more sizes from 40mm, 2" up to 4", but all scaled from the original so they're not ideal. Larger sizes would obviously need to be redesigned, but for now this will do. Also I've never used or designed t-mount stuff either, so no idea if they'll work.
Interesting thought, a commenter named Max over on Thingiverse has already tried the design in TPU and it worked! This has me excited for two reasons:
1) It works!
2) TPU might be a viable material here, because the toroidal design kind-of loops back on itself and provides more support for the overall shape. Whereas regular TPU props would flex and flail in the wind, maybe this toroidal shape will hold stronger, despite the more flexible material. Who knows!
And recently also @QEDFPV printed and tested the design to find lower noise and more thrust (but more amps) so certainly more work to be done. Check out his video here:
czcams.com/video/qP0OPz3NgK4/video.html
One last update, I've already begun with another generation of the tri-toroidal design which tries to improve on blade shape and a shallower blade angle going out towards the tip. Doesn't look as pretty, but might yield better results and be slightly lighter in weight, plus a bi-toroidal design too:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:5832892
www.thingiverse.com/thing:5833027
waiting in realtime for people to upload der tests. i really hope this is a breakthrough and all drones can be quieter. perfect for cinewhoops if it works!
@QEDFPV already did a test - bench only, not flight, but still, so quick!
czcams.com/video/qP0OPz3NgK4/video.html
I have a flight test incoming - uploading now.
@@STRIKINGFPV have seen it :D
Let's apply the golden ratio to the design. You will have the best product.
I'm not sure how I would, in this case, but it might be worth trying to work out, yeah
oh neat!
Cheers dude
Hey Botgrinder, I'm putting these on my Demibot build just for fun.
MIT drone propeller only has two toroidal cones.... Maybe try that design as well
Oh definitely, I just liked the triblade design more so I went for that first. The community as a whole will have to give a bunch of different designs a go, but I'll probably do the MIT bi/quad blade design a go later-on.
Im away for work but getting back tomorrow. Will print as soon as possible
Ok printed 4x CW and 4x CCW for a friend. Both are 3". Will share the outcome soon! The toroidal theory sounds very interesting! Thank you!
Oh and, I'm using PET-G filament. For improved resistance against cracking. I'm sure it'll still crack - due to nature of its thinness.
I also use PETG, even carbon-PETG - definitely stronger than PLA but when it breaks it really breaks, haha. Hope it works out for you, very curious!
Incredible video! You've kinda blown up this space and I love it! Congrats on all the new subs. You've earned it man!
I was just looking at SLS printing today and it's out of reach for most, but would definitely be the machine to fabricate this on.
Excellent work, walkthrough, and content. I'm continually amazed that the creators that share everything, actually do better than those that horde content, designs or processes.
Keep up the great work!
Haha, I think MIT have more to do with blowing up this space than myself, but I'll claim partially victory if we in the open source community manage to produce our own decent-performance toroidals that can be printed comfortably at home
Thank you youtube instant subscribe cant wait for the final outcome....
Cheers!
This is great. I have tried to make a few of my own toroidal props for RC planes at 70mm radius and test them on a thrust load cell. These have been 3D printed on an old Prusa printer and have worked well so far. I will scale up and print your design and test them.on the rig as well to compare results.
Go for it, would love to see how it looks on a plane, I imagine it'll be as weird as they look on FPV drones, haha
Delete body issues. I think about it. this is better printing then classic design. not use suports and stronger
Definitely going to try this
Would love to see you try making the duel blade shown in the mock-ups, as well as 5 inch ver.
Definitely something I want to try eventually, as I suspect the bi-blade or bi-loop design I think might end up being more efficient anyway. Frustrating being on the road though, haha, limits design time!
In the slicer you can enable "detect thin walls" to allow slicer to detect these edges
It was already on for me, but I'll play around with those settings to see if it helps, cheers!
Wow! Amazing project!
Thank you for showing this project, because I did it differently and you showed me a different way of designing. I learned something new!
My pleasure! I have no idea if my way works the best, but if it works for others then that's something! I look forward to actual Fusion 360 or other CAD design pros coming up with better methods, though.
man rarely for me to sub on the first video I watch from someone new. really enjoyed listening to your design process. keep it up dude!
Kind words, cheers! Hope you dig my other stuff, too. I don't post that often, but try to get some stuff done when I can.
@@STRIKINGFPV oh I immediately went to your other designing videos! rare to see people do step by step explanation of these so I'm grateful you did.
not sure when you checked your 633+ subs but seems like you just got 100+ subs! keep on going dude!
@@im_ricebowl At the time of recording it was 633, yeah, didn't expect the immediate influx from it though. Grateful regardless 😁.
At this point I'd be a fool not to post a proper tutorial on this design, and maybe the bi/quad version that is illustrated in MIT's PDF, but gotta improve the design process first 😅.
printing right now! thank you
Hope it works out!
Very well explained! Can’t wait for the flight test of these.
Awesome, thank you very much! Resin printer running...
Ooh, would love to see how it prints in resin, must come out really smooth. I'm considering another design iteration with thinner blades for finer print methods like SLA and SLS.
great some one on yt did it( i was searching about it)
I am really interested in how the will behave once they get revd in terms of their shape. I can imagine they might grow in diameter and could possibly get in conflict with prop ducts/guards. Looking really forward to any results. Thanks for sharing the construction files and for walking us through the design process.
I remember looking up prop design online and seeing all the theory behind the blade size, length, angle and stuff - I feel like this toroidal design will need some standardised method of gauging their profile as well, and there will need to be a lot of prototyping to see what design works the best and in what way.
Then there's manufacturing - injection moulding will be ideal, but because MIT have a patent, I'm not sure how easily or quickly prop manufacturers will actually jump on these possibilities, considering the amount of R&D first needed, plus tooling. Lots of questions, but also kinda' exciting times, if these might become the next big change in the drone space.
Amazing, thanks!
Outstanding!
MIT wasn't the original creator of this infinity blade design, it came from the marine industry several years ago
As a general concept, I see where these infinity boat props are similar in terms of the loop back, but at the same time I wonder if there's enough reasonable difference that MIT were granted the patent for the toroidal props. They certainly look different enough and have a very different application.
Makes me wonder if we get to a point where people can start to manufacture, will anyone try to challenge the MIT patent based on pre-existing material, like said infinity boat props.
Hey great job, I’m definitely going to try this!!! I’ve been working hard to push the boundaries of 3D printing and drones just because most everyone says it’s a waste of time. But I don’t think it is. I believe we’re just getting started!
I’m definitely going to try this design.
Awesome dude, looking forward to it. This is certainly one of the bigger changes in the drone space, and I'm looking forward to more designs coming out and all the testing that's going to be done!
Solid Video bro
Omg you legend if only I had a 3D printer as I so want to test this.
Hope you have a local makerspace or access to a printer - frustrating for me to be on the road and away from mine, hehe
@@STRIKINGFPV all on a wish list, eventually will get there.
Awesome! Just got the files. I'll try it right away. Thanks for sharing your design, and insights into creating it.
I'll be back!
After reading your update, I've decided to print them with PCTPE. It's kinda like the "TPU" of nylon. My nylon filaments just spent 10 hours in the dryer a few days ago. Stored air tight with desiccant since then, the PCTPE should print super clean.
@@24kJames I look forward to the results!
@STRIKING FPV First two props are done, 3.5" T Mount. They weigh 3.3g, while the gemfan 3.5" tri blades weigh 1.93g. I have one 3.5" drone with 1404s, and I have another that I built with 2004s. Worth noting that the low pitch, 5" tri blades from gemfan, commonly paired with 2004 motors (at least initially,) still come in lighter at 2.9g. I had an urge to modify the design straight away, to reduce weight, but knew that I needed to get my baseline first, using the design as is. I can see I'll need to drill out the t mount holes. I have a jig for drilling 1.5mm props out to 2mm, so it shouldn't be an issue. I'll adjust the design accordingly on the next round. Okay, 2.5 more hours of print time, and I'll be taking these babies airborne! They look fantastic in black PCTPE, which printed super clean, no supports. OH, and the main reason why I came back to comment right now, is that I'm installing an octoprint plug in that should let me stream the print to youtube, so I'll come back with a link of i get it working.
@@24kJames Haha, that's cool. Interesting on the weight, though I'm not surprised since I made the blades thicker than what would be ideal to account for lower strength with 3D printed stuff.
My next iteration I'll probably thin them out a bit, but will more or less be reserved for those with SLA or SLS printers (or impeccably tuned FDMs, hehe)
@STRIKING FPV I forgot I had another 3.5" quad with 1303s, a light weight, printed frame and canopy that flies great on 3S. I decided it was best suited for the job. Unfortunately, the props aren't working for me. They don't seem to provide enough lift, but I need to verify it's not an error on my part. I'll make a video and drop a link here so you can make an assessment.
Your idea went viral i saw Quadmovr using this type of propeller and he got alot of views
There is an expired U.S. Patent 6,736,600 "Rotor with Split Blade" to Rudolf Bannasch that looks similar to the MIT toroidal propeller. Please see Figure 7 of U.S. Patent 6,736,600. I have no idea of Mr. Bannasch's propeller has good performance or not, but it would be very interesting to see a comparison between MIT's propeller and Mr. Bannasch's propeller, especially since U.S. Patent 6,736,600 expired in 2020!
Crazy yeah, that's pretty much the lofted circles idea, it's more or less what initial toroidal designs are and kind of what QuadMovr did in his video. I talk a little bit more about it in my latest video, but I believe the unique claim that the recent patent makes is specifically the leading blade intersecting with the trailing blade of a different loop, so I think that's how it was initially granted. The big question is if anyone can prove that this is a significant enough difference to grant the patent, but I also suspect that MIT are not going to be so litigious towards our community - maybe towards DJI or potential military contractors, but I think we're alright for now, haha.
loved it .. can't wait to try it
Good news they do work. I was able to fly reasonably fine with my old BOLT SpeCops 01 HD version 5" quad and modified "Tri-Toroidal_50x3..." (little down-scaling). The noise is slightly different ..the high pitch is not present. Those printed props flex, but holding well even with loops and twists. They won't survive crash.
Oh that's cool to hear, I wonder if my latest designs will work better for you like they have for Johnny at @WillItMod, he found my V3 tri-loop behaves more like a traditional prop. Indeed they won't survive crashes, props usually don't do well and if it's FDM then it'll explode I'm sure
@@STRIKINGFPV V3 They do perform so much better. The wobble is not present or I do not feel it. They noise is noticeably less present. Since I do not have 3"quad mostly 5" and if I push it they explode (at about 70-80% throttle) . I have to get some PETG otherwise they were all printed at higher temperature with PLA. For me they would be great if I can eliminate need for ducked design quad.
@@lee8org When @MoppelMat printed from nylon carbon-fibre he had much lower weight than a standard prop, so I'm wondering if I have some leeway with the prop thickness and make it stronger, but of course there's a give/take in that if it's thicker to be stronger, it becomes heavier so it's under more stress, haha.
Maybe future versions can play with the thickness more, but for now I'm quite satisfied with V3's viability. Now I'm working on the tutorial video first.
I considered subscribing... and I did. Love these props and thanks for the process... they look dope!
Thank you for the consideration!
@@STRIKINGFPV hhaha was just listening to you saying consider subscribing. Good content man! hope you grow your channel a lot more!
Jesus am def testing this out !!!! Mandalooooo
this is cool, I will give it a shot on my FDM printer. All my cinewhoops are 3 inch though so I can't actually test the props if they manage to print ok.
The original design has 3" versions available, but the latest design I'm still trying to work on the smaller sizes
This is so awesome! I want to make one for tiny whoops. If I can make it light weight enough
The angle in the middle of the prop seems much to high, normal propeller are in the range of 30 to 35 degree. Can you check if your design is at approx, 45 degrees? That forced to much power consumption for the motors, the ampere and the thrust goes up to much. I would like a design with a lower angle, similar thrust like normal props. This could be also much quieter. Thanks for your video, very great help for me as a fusion noob. Will try this to redesign your workflow
That's something I need to work out, because the design needs to eventually go vertical at the tips, part of the challenge is to try and maintain a shallower angle as far out as possible but that's kind of a difficult challenge. I have an idea on how to improve it, but have to do some more testing.
This might also be why MIT's final design favours this bi-blade/bi-loop configuration, if it allows them to keep the blade angle shallower for longer before reaching the outer edge.
Where is the flight video???
My man @QEDFPV might end up doing a flight video at some point, he already did a bench test here:
czcams.com/video/qP0OPz3NgK4/video.html
czcams.com/video/A0xnp9j_NO8/video.html
Awesome! I hope to use these one day!
Hope so too - more R&D needed to see if it's worth it over regular stuff, but would be exciting to see the usual prop manufacturers actually producing these, nice and thin and injection moulded.
I will try it in my resin printer. i would like to give this a try in my taycan , and that excepts 75mm. specs of taycan, holybro f7 mini 45A , apex 1608 2750 on 6s .
Just added a bunch of other designs ranging from 40mm up to 4", hope the 3" design will fit for you maybe?
I'll print the 2 and 4inch for my 2inch and 5inch drone. Maybe I might scale up the 4inch to 5inch. I have a dual extruder printer, so overhangs are not a problem for me. Many thanks!!!
Ah, you also using dissolvable filament for the overhangs? Always wanted to see how that stuff works, maybe one day, I can dream 😅
everybody talks about that but missed delson aeronautics low noise propellers
That's interesting, I've searched for them but their website is gone, and what little Wayback Machine has doesn't share much. No designs, no images, still only a 30 second video and nothing else. Looks very vapourware at this point, especially considering they're no longer operating. And one of the claims of "10x maximum thrust increase" seems a little much.
You seem to remember well, did you find any more info or designs back in the day? Something I'm missing or hasn't been archived or shared?
So good
😁😁😁
I don't think this 3 blade design is not the most efficient one from the paper. The blue bi blade is.
Oh I totally agree, I think it's similar to how a lot of long range drones use bi-blades, but I chose the tri-blade mainly because of looks, hehe, but also in the whoop space I think they're less "slicey", and more likely to bounce off things, so there is some kind of application there.
That being said, I will give their bi-blade design a go at some point.
@@STRIKINGFPV I also want 3 blade for my cinewhoop, they look cool and looks like we could fly without ducts or props guard.. I am checking what people are making. In the mean time I am working on a setup to measure trust, efficiency and sound so I could compare each iteration of props.
Trying this on my Ender 3 with PETG. Might be an excuse to finally try out the AnyCubic Photon Mono SQ resin printer that's been sitting there for a few months, ha ha. Just have not had the motivation or an interesting design that required it.
It seams to me very strange that this design has an inverse pitch progression. Standard propellers have a high pitch near the hub (30° or so) and the pitch is much reduced at the end of the blade (10° or so). This is because the end of the blade moves faster in the fluid than the root. The two-loops design of the MIT reproduces this, with the squashed ends. And the same for the Sharrow marine propeller: see the twist in the pitch... So why this vertical wall at the exterior of your loop? Seams conter-productive... could you try the squashed ends?
Yes no totally you're 100% correct, I did improve upon this in my latest designs. It's still not perfect, much more work to do, but I'm moving towards a direction where I would like others to continue development as I don't think I can single-handedly keep working on this. You're welcome to check out my latest video where I also address comments and suggestions that I've come across, and I also have plans to do tutorials on the design so others can continue experimenting themselves.
it is a configuration in slicer min wall width
A few others have also mentioned to me, and I've had a play around and it still gives me issues sometimes. Definitely need to look deeper into it, but II won't be printing soon anyway 😅.
Awesome, liked and subscribed!
Thanks for the sub!
Video reply and full 3" test incoming - just uploading it now. :)
Superb. Loved watching your design process. I spent several hours failing to do exactly this in Fusion360 last night 😂 I have a ProTek35 so these will drop straight on. Looking forward to doing some tests. 👍
Can't wait to see the results, hope it works out!
I just added a bunch more designs to the Thingiverse link, all scaled versions of the original but with correct shaft sizes including some T-mount. Not sure if they'll work since I've never touched a t-mount before, but if the specs online are correct then they should work.
@@STRIKINGFPV first one is on the printer now! Am printing at 0.04mm layers to keep it as smooth as possible. 🤞
@@davidpride3160 The suspense is killing me, but it's 1:30am and I gotta' sleep 😂
@@STRIKINGFPVkeep us posted!!!!
@@STRIKINGFPV Gonna wake up to loooooads of views & comments. 😁
Thanks so much for sharing the file. Are you worried that your "3 loop" design is quite different from the MIT "2 loop" version"? Seems like the pretty large change in the overall geometry wouldn't yield the same results as MIT's version? I see Lincoln Labs used both 2 loop and 3 loop designs - the best closeups I can find (and their press release) seem to show the 2-loop at least: czcams.com/video/M0nMW1E8J90/video.html
Literally the only reason why I went with the tri-blade or tri-loop design is because it looks nicer 😂. But yeah, I would actually like to try both designs to see which one works better - I dare say the bi-loop will be more efficient as we already experience this with longer range FPV drones flying with bi-blades for efficiency (and quietness), so I imagine it will come out on top.
I will say, though, that the tri-loop is potentially better in terms of safety since it's more likely to glance and bounce off obstacles (and fingers) than the bi-loop, so for Cinewhoops the tri-loop might end up being preferred for that added benefit.
yes, just add much more weight to the props. this will have a affect on changing rpm. dont forget to go up to 32768 khz in your ESC to counter act the weight. at least you made a new video.
I have a feeling that an injection-moulded design could use thinner blades to save on weight because the toroidal design, coming back in on itself, adds to its own rigidity in some ways. Certainly worth exploring. The freestylers, upon seeing the news of toroidals, don't seem interested because of xyz reasons, but I think slower steady flyers like cinewhoopers (which are also the most loud and annoying, lol) will benefit from this eventually.
@@STRIKINGFPV just guessing, never. the prop rpms they have is so high, because of the diameter. if you add just 20% more weight and i think it would be some more, they are just loose too much rpm control. this type of prop is useful when you almost never have to change rpm and if, not in a fast way like quad esc use. in this use case it has too much downsides. the prop has to be as light as possible. this is no. 1 priority in rpm control. this is more important if the prop goes down in diameter.
The toroidal fan does not have to be revolving inside a cinewhoop, the cinewhoop can be built on to the toroidal. Also the outside of the cinewhoop could be rounded for side on air flow.
This would also strengthen your design.
Saw the MIT video and didn't understand why thingiverse didn't already have a copy 😂
Well now it does, haha 😅
i really wanted to see the part where you got the wing shape from, that you used to generate the wings.
print it already :)
Hey new to the channel, love your videos man, new sunscriber for surw
Cheers!
i can Print them tomorrow .. and test them down in Bangkok ;)
Please do! Unfortunately I'm already down in Petchaburi on a trip with the family, but it's cool to see people writing in from Thailand as well, haha. But please, don't print the first generation, the second generation tri-loop design is much better (so I'm told, haha).
From an engineering perspective where one loop meets the other they could be blended in or rounded into the back of other. Just a thought, try it and see. If you decide to do this please let me know of the results.
Thank you, does anyone know if these count as " exposed blades" or if they were rounded out completely would that count as a guard? Being able to drop prop guards would be nice if it didn't make it leave little burn marks when it touched.
It is probably to early, but with my iFlight ProTek35 DJI HD in the idle motors are getting too hot. Only good news is noise is better.
Thats great! Tnx will try!
Something is wrong... You get the largest angle of attack in the "tip" of the blade and the smallest angle of attack closest to the hub... It should be the opposite.
This is a very good point - the whole purpose of the toroidal shape is to remove the wing tip, since in most aircraft the wingtip is where the most turbulence occurs, hence MIT's design removing the blade tip by coming back in on itself. Another commenter suggested that instead of the edge going vertical, make it horizontal, which would better match typical propeller design, but then that would reintroduce a blade tip, of sorts.
I'm currently working on a next generation or iteration of this design which tries to maintain more of the shallow blade angle further out before the vertical loop-back, you can check it out here, but it's still a WIP:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:5832892
What about making edges horizontal but not vertical. Normally blades angle get closer to horizontal at the edges, since speed of blade is higher there.
I think part of what makes standard props and a lot of wings so loud is the turbulence at the wing tips, and so the toroidal prop design is trying to make a wing without a tip. I have a feeling that a horizontal tip might be too similar to a regular wing, but your idea is still interesting. Might give it a go at some point.
@@STRIKINGFPV I think It would be what MIT did. Tip of first blade doesn't end thus creating vortexes, it gets thin, flat and continues and turns into tip of next blade.
This is awesome. I would like to try this out on my 5 inch quads. Could you add a version with a 130mm circumference and a 4.75mm shaft hole? I wished I knew how to work Fusion 360, I would do it myself. Thanks for sharing, this is a fun experiment.
I'm actually already working on my next generation design, you can try it out here but it's still WIP:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:5832892
@@STRIKINGFPV I was actually able to resize the 4in props up by 134% and they made the perfect size for 5inch, even the shaft hole worked out. I have my second printing now. I'll check out your new one. Thanks.
@@STRIKINGFPV I like the new design, it looks like it might be more aggressive.
@@MikeMillerDrones Technically it's actually less aggressive in terms of the blade angle, but that should hopefully reduce drag and generate more lift further out towards the edge. Only issue is that it is a fair bit thinner, so a well-tuned FDM is needed (or resin or laser sintering, hehe).
@STRIKING FPV I am printing them in pla. Will probably explode, but it wil be fun to try
You can get them made from cf from thingaverse right? I'm not sure I 100% like the design, it seems a bit inefficient especially on the vertical parts...but it seems like its definitely got potential. If they're significantly quieter even if a little less efficient it might be worth it even over normal props.
I think you could twist those outside supports top out, so they're also adding lift and not just hitting a wall of air?
cool share
Make a 5 inch version and I will upload a video using it.
I made up to a 4 inch, but literally just scaling the design so it's becoming big and thick and probably not ideal, so for larger sizes I think probably makes sense to do a fresh design, which I'll try and get around to at some point. Many issues with my current iteration which can be solved with better planning, so will get to that at some point, but I am travelling so it's a bit inconvenient at the moment.
Thanks for "biblade" 5" design i want to try that one.
I have acces to Stratasys F770 (beast of a printer) and i will print this using ASA filament. WIll let you know how it works out
Good luck, hope it works out!
@@STRIKINGFPV Tested it on Trilab Industral using PA12+CF filament. You can see it on my youtube channel.
Definitely a different sound. Lower. But at the same time much higher power consumption to the extent that the motors get warm. I'll play around with the PID a bit and try to take it outside when it stops snowing haha. I will have ASA ones printed od stratasys tomorrow probably
Testet on a NazgulV2 5 Inch Quad. at the moment cant Upload the Test Video. Ist works but the restless behavior is problematic… Does anyone have the same problem??
yeah thats kinda indonesia man... i think we talked before... and yeah... it should reduce stress...
New to Fusion 360 and can't figure out how to make those rails like that. I've been working for hours and feel dumb lol
and for some reason I can't download the files :(
Oh man, sorry - the files you need to download individually because Thingiverse sometimes corrupts the zip files. As for the profiles and rails, they're literally just planes on the flat (z) axis and then splines which. They need to intersect with points on the profiles to work. Try looking up other Fusion 360 tutorials on using the loft tool with rails, and I think you'll get a better idea of how it works. It was my first attempt with this design and was a little finicky but eventually worked out.
In future I'll probably do a real tutorial, but I'm travelling at the moment so it'll probably be a ways out.
@@STRIKINGFPV thanks for your help!
I am about eight months into fusion 360. You lost me on how you came up with the profiles that you started with. I would love it if you would do a fusion 360 tutorial you explain things very well.
@@nmfireman I would love to, but even my latest revision I've found a different way of doing the lofting, so I'm kinda' working it out as I go.
I'll be on the road for the next week or so, so I won't be able to do much, but when I get back home I'd definitely like to do a tutorial on this style of prop design.
For now, I might suggest looking at other Fusion 360 tutorials online regarding the loft feature, and related to that also the sweep feature which may also work somewhat maybe?
Check out Mark Rober video - Amazing Invention- This Drone Will Change Everything, go to 15:41 sec. This prop design is whisper quiet, need to model that,
Lol "not a tutorial" but then why am I learning so much haha
Maybe a real tutorial you'd learn more? I dunno', haha. You can check out my older actual Fusion 360 tutorials - had some commenters give me tips on using Fusion 360 as well, so even I learned quite a bit in the process 😅.
@@STRIKINGFPV def gonna check those out. Thx man
is there's any 2 inch version for this props ?
Not yet, I'll consider doing it but I'm concerned that it might not be worth it because of the thickness required and how small 2" actually is. I'll give it a go in maybe the next few days, but gotta' look up typical 2" mount - problem with 1mm holes and T-mount stuff is the holes are so small, I don't know how accurate it would come out on an FDM printer, certainly not great on mine 😬
@@STRIKINGFPV because 2-3 inch cinewhoop is very noisy . i think if you can find a way to make this props for two inch , it will be a great impact . because 3.5 - 4 inch can use 2 blade normal propellers if they want silent props.☺ . But thankyou for share the file .
@@STRIKINGFPV i have 4" Flywoo explorer , but i just realize that the motor cannot fit on that hole , it use 2 screw hole and 1 shaf hole😓
@@captaindronieversefpv So have a look now on Thingiverse, I just added a bunch more sizes with T mounts as well - I don't own any t-mount drones so I'm just going with specs on the internet, no guarantees since nothing's been tested. Hope they work for you 👍
@@STRIKINGFPV thankyou i'll try it
Resin printers rule
Subscribe and going to print for a airplane I just took from 15 years retirement.
Here you are @strikingfpv :)
czcams.com/video/TvM8Fm4odqE/video.html
Awesome sauce, and you did a flip!
@@STRIKINGFPV Indeed!
Going for another print, reducing the throttle max to 80% and changing the D gains - lets see how long they fly for!
@@phatpigcustoms Good luck, sir!
"Print on an FDM printer" 🤦♂️ Please print an traditonal prop on ur printer for comparison. .... just buy an Resin printer ...
hi, your video is greatly wondful! but there is a question about the toroidal propeller, how do you calculate the geometryical parameters of the propeller, I am studying this question, I would appreciate it if you can reply to me
Please watch the 10 Toroidal Questions video I did, as it might help a little in that regard, but not much.
Unlike traditional propellers, for which we have numerous aerofoil designs available and a known concept for calculating correct propeller pitch across the length of the blade, toroidals by their nature somewhat break the rule because they have to bend back into themselves. This bend requires that the blade angle will have to become steeper until its vertical to become the loop - traditional props need the blade angle to become shallower, further out.
I have an explanation for this roughly here:
czcams.com/video/pjZaGHKQB8Y/video.html
Beyond that, I haven't done any physics simulation or anything fancy, so can't really say much else about how to make the best or most efficient toroidal. Bit of an unknown at the moment.
@@STRIKINGFPV