Specific question about octane rating with respect to compression ratio

And it's relevance to normal automobiles is nil.

Yup. But since it's an utterly different chemistry than the gasoline/air mixture in normal automobiles, it's hardly surprising that what constitutes "extreme compression" would be different.

Fine. But the basic rule of Usenet is: If YOU make a claim, YOU provide the references.

Since you (say) you won't (but perhaps that should really be "can't"), we'll just say your claim is unsupported and leave it at that.

:-)

You're arguing semantics and missing the point:

Much time and effort has been expended to improve compression ratio a relatively small amount. Call it "research" if you want, but that research doesn't change the basic fact that it's compression vs. resistance of the fuel to detonation.

And you never dealt with this.

Nope. Your claim is out of date. It's not my job to find information for your claims.

From your own cite (you did read it, right?):

'Octane? Lilley explains that an F1 fuel's Research Octane must lie between 95 and 102, roughly 9198 by our pump standards. Octane isn't as big a concern as other characteristics like volatility, density and individual hydrocarbon composition. In fact, it has been suggested that, with its soaring revs, F1 combustion occurs so quickly there's hardly time for "preignition."'

Let me quote the salient (you do know what that means, right?) sentence again:

'In fact, it has been suggested that, with its soaring revs, F1 combustion occurs so quickly there's hardly time for "preignition."'

There's a reason that detonation typically first shows up when an engine is running at WOT at or just below its torque peak.

oh, sorry, when you said: "a dragster running nitro-methane which has its own oxygen for combustion bound in it" followed by: "because the cylinder is nearly filled with liquid to begin with", i thought you meant that it had its own oxygen bound in it and all you had to do was fill the cylinder with that liquid. i was merely pointing out that in fact it needed /more/ oxygen to be able to combust - it can't do it on its own.

phase diagram???

no, that's you putting false words in my mouth and totally dishonest. the numbers are right there on the first google return if you can be bothered to look it up. don't hide behind such a childish response.

raising compression from 7.5 to 12 is a gigantic amount. don't try to trivialize what doesn't suit you. [see dishonesty above]

well it's not witchcraft or superstition, what you're apparently stuck with.

that's not a correct characterization - apparently you're unteachable.

i don't "deal" with nonsense.

it is if you want to refute them without resorting to dishonesty!

did you get that bit???

if "soaring revs" is to you a technical argument, then that explains a lot.

??? that's something you've made up, not fact.

My point was that you offered up a nonsensical, non-comparable combustion engine.

You seem to think you're saying something.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

You think that that's what it was raised from: 7.5?

Quick question: what was the last production engine from an automobile manufacturer to use a 7.5:1 compression ratio?

It is EFFORT

It's an absolutely correct characterization.

How is the fact that I note that there's more to the story than you're telling "nonsense"?

Nope. Sorry.

Yup. But unlike you, I got WHY.

You think that because the language was flowery there was no point being made?

You insisted that because the actual detonation event was very short, RPM didn't matter.

YOUR OWN CITE DISAGREES.

"The torque output of a given engine is proportional to average cylinder pressures, so the full throttle ignition timing advance that is used should relate to the torque curve rather than power curve. The maximum ignition timing that can be used at peak torque is usually limited by the occurrence of detonation."

"allowing advance at part throttle and removing advance under boost and in the peak torque range where detonation is most prevalent."

"It appears, and I think most agree, that most general detonation generally occurs in the peak torque range of the motor when cylinder pressures are the highest. In most of our marine applications this rpm range is somewhere around the 3400-4200 rpm range. "

Is that enough cites for you? Because I can do more...

hmm, do i "respond" to the delusional and dishonest wasting electrons trying to explain how his cites actually work against him because he clearly doesn't understand - or do i simply let him keep picking similarly retarded fights with everyone else on this group? tough call.

You've clearly chose ducking out of the debate while losing...

Get back to me when you actually understand a few of the concepts we're discussing.

no, i'm not wasting electrons on someone dishonest, delusional and unteachable when the facts are right in front of their face. have a nice day!

The facts are clearly right in front of your face.

It was right in front of your face that your own citation supported my point.

It IS right in front of your face that there is an important relationship between volumetric efficiency and detonation...

...but you go on keeping your eyes shut.