The Stoic Engine

Fuel in. Clean electricity out.

An opposed free-piston linear generator (FPLG). No crankshaft, no conrods, no gearbox, no valvetrain, no cylinder head. Two pistons fire against each other inside one cylinder and push a magnet straight through a coil. It never turns a wheel — it feeds a DC bus, and the vehicle runs on that.

250kW
Continuous electrical, TM-250 module
42.9%
Fuel→electricity, defensible baseline
20kh
Design life to overhaul
5
Fuels on one hardware set

Architecture

Two movers, one combustion chamber, zero rotating parts.

Combustion happens between the two piston crowns. Each piston carries a permanent-magnet tube that slides through a stator wound both inside and outside it — a dual-airgap linear alternator. A gas spring, not a crank, returns each piston. Nothing mechanical fixes top-dead-centre, so the compression ratio is a software variable.

±96 mm travel Gas spring Stator (dual airgap) Combustion between crowns Permanent-magnet mover Piston crown (Al-MMC)
FPLG schematic. The alternator is also the starter (motors the engine to resonance in milliseconds) and the sensor (pole counting reads stroke, velocity and compression every cycle). FIG. 01 · SECTION
  • No crankshaft, rod or valvetrain — deletes piston side-thrust (~45% of engine friction), big-end and main bearings.
  • Opposed pistons, no cylinder head — removes the hottest, leakiest surface; ~30% less heat-loss area.
  • Software-variable compression ratio — nothing fixes TDC, so CR is tuned per load and per fuel, and enables HCCI.
  • Dual-airgap tubular alternator — stator inside and outside the magnet tube; quasi-Halbach, 800 V DC bus.
  • Runs on one fuel point — fixed optimal BMEP; load is set by frequency and by switching modules on/off, never by throttling.
  • Consumables by design — liner and rings are replaceable; everything else can last indefinitely (the marine-engine model).

The module, in motion

A live cutaway of the running engine.

The same opposed free-piston module, animated — movers in matched opposition, combustion between the crowns, with live stroke, velocity and output readouts. Drag to orbit, scroll to zoom, toggle components.

FPLG module — dual-airgap cutaway. A procedural model of the Stoic engine's core cycle. Open fullscreen ↗

Module variants

Two builds, one architecture, scaled.

Power scales as the square of linear size (P ∝ k²); mass as the cube; frequency as 1/k — holding mean piston speed at 13 m/s. Bigger and slower always buys efficiency and life, and pays in mass.

TM-180 vs TM-250 — side by side
ParameterTM-180TM-250
Bore143 mm170 mm
Piston travel (each)±80.5 mm±96 mm
Swept volume5.17 L8.72 L
Cycle frequency (max)40.5 Hz34 Hz
Peak acceleration531 g446 g
Electrical output180 kW250 kW
Mechanical equivalent262 hp364 hp
Fuel at full output (full spec)36.3 L/h50.4 L/h
Overall length1,109 mm †1,840 mm
Mass212 kg †600 kg
Specific mass1.18 kg/kW †2.40 kg/kW
Cycles to 20,000 h2.9 billion2.4 billion
Prototype recommendation

2 × TM-180. Lighter for the same total power, redundant, fits a Ram 2500 rail gap side by side, and 143 mm bore is a more forgiving first scale to get the control system right.

GRIP proposal

2 × TM-250 = 500 kW continuous. The vehicle integration document's starting point for the hypercar power plant. Module count and battery size remain open.

Reconciled · TM-250 package

Two sources disagreed on the TM-250's size. The lighter 1,322 mm / 360 kg pair (spec sheet, echoed in the GRIP doc) can't physically house two opposed 540 mm stators plus their gas springs — the stators alone are 1,080 mm. The 1,840 mm / 600 kg pair (engine handoff §3) fits that packing and matches the project's own car → truck → locomotive scaling ladder (length ∝ bore, mass ∝ bore³), so it is adopted here as the figure of record; 360 kg stands as an aggressive mass-optimised stretch target. † TM-180's package figures use the same light convention and likely need the same correction.

Where the efficiency comes from

42.9% is the design case. 49.9% is the programme.

Fuel-to-electricity at the DC bus, built up feature by feature. The baseline is defensible from published opposed-piston diesel results. The additions are individually demonstrated effects that have never been combined in one machine — a development ladder, not a spec.

Mechanical & electrical stack → baseline
StepΔCumulative
Modern 4-stroke HD diesel (best point)—42.0%
Opposed piston (no head)+3.045.0%
Long stroke (high expansion)+1.546.5%
Free piston (no crank/valvetrain)+1.548.0%
Fixed-point operation+0.548.5%
Linear alternator (95%)−2.446.1%
Active rectifier (97%)−1.444.7%
Scavenge blower parasitic−1.842.9%
Development additions → target
AdditionΔCumulative
Baseline module—42.9%
HCCI / lean premixed combustion+2.545.4%
Software-variable compression ratio+1.046.4%
Electric turbocompound (MGU-H)+3.549.9%
Ceiling

Further levers held in reserve — ORC bottoming cycle (+5–10), lower piston speed (+2–3), larger scale (+2–4) — put the combined ceiling near 55–58%, the territory of large marine two-strokes, reached by different means.

Load control

Don't throttle. Change the beat.

Throttling collapses efficiency at part load. Here, every cycle stays at optimal BMEP — only the rate changes. Efficiency versus frequency is a peak, not a slope: heat loss worsens as cycles slow, friction improves, and the two meet at a sweet spot.

Rule of thumb

The curve is asymmetric — from the design point up to max costs only 0.5 points; down to 12 Hz costs 4.5. When in doubt, run higher, not lower. Below the floor, pulse: run at 75 kW for a duty fraction and shut down between. Restart is nearly free.

TM-250 — efficiency vs frequency (approx.)
FrequencyOutputEfficiencyDominant loss
34 Hz256 kW46.0%friction, gas exchange
28 Hz211 kW46.5%balanced — design point
24 Hz180 kW46.0%—
17 Hz128 kW45.0%heat loss rising
12 Hz90 kW42.0%heat loss
~10 Hz75 kW~39.0%floor

One hardware set, every fuel

Fuel flexibility & the hard problems.

Software-variable compression ratio means a single engine runs diesel, LPG, methanol, ammonia or hydrogen — the primary commercial argument for the architecture.

Fuel map
FuelEfficiencyMJ/LUsable MJ/LNotes
Diesel46%35.816.5Primary. Best usable density, right cetane for CI
LPG43–45%26.011.4RON ~110; needs spark assist or diesel pilot
Methanol48%15.87.6Best pure efficiency; half the range per litre
Ammonia43%12.75.5Zero-carbon option
Hydrogen @700 bar50%4.72.4Highest efficiency, worst density

The control system

the reason no FPLG has shipped
LoopRateFunction
Position / collision10–20 kHzNo mechanical stop exists — piston-to-piston contact is catastrophic
Force / current10–20 kHzPer-mover, local
Cycle allocation~1 kHzCompression ratio, injection, frequency
Supervisor~100 HzLoad demand → module on/off/frequency

Mover position must be sensed to micron resolution. Symmetry is not mechanically enforced — control holds the two movers in matched opposition, or residual shaking force appears at the mounts. This is the "imbalance" problem that stalled single-mover designs.

Materials

chosen, not defaulted
ComponentMaterialReason
Piston crownForged Al-MMC160 W/m·K — not titanium, which would cook the crown
Mover webTi-6Al-4VStructural; hot strength, low expansion
LinerCompacted graphite ironGraphite = solid lubricant; survives ring-over-port
RingsNitrided steelDissimilar to liner — never pair identical metals
Fatigue partsSteelOnly steel has a true endurance limit
MagnetsSm₂Co₁₇Stable to 350 °C; magnet temp is the binding constraint

Drawings & models

Geometry of record.

Parametric CAD in CadQuery (exports STEP, no external software dependency). Interactive 3D viewers open in any browser.

TM-250 isometric drawing
TM-250 · isometricISO
TM-250 side elevation drawing
TM-250 · sideSIDE
TM-250 end view drawing
TM-250 · endEND

Open problems · build sequence

What's left, in order of risk.

  • Control system — position sensing, collision avoidance, mover symmetry. Prototype first, single low-power module.
  • Magnet thermal management — Sm₂Co₁₇ at 350 °C against a crown at 400 °C.
  • Ring / port interaction — rings traversing scavenge ports, the classic two-stroke failure mode.
  • Mover mass to 16 kg — Halbach array, Ti web, Al-MMC crown, CFRP support tube.
  • Electric turbocompound — phase 2; highest efficiency payoff, second hard control problem.
  1. Single-mover rig, motored — validate position control and alternator force loop.
  2. Add combustion, single module, dyno, fixed frequency.
  3. Frequency sweep + turndown map, measure efficiency.
  4. Opposed pair — validate momentum cancellation and symmetry.
  5. Endurance run at 60–80% load.
  6. Vehicle integration.