View Single Post
  #79  
Old 07-14-2012, 03:55 PM
phoenix1963's Avatar
phoenix1963 phoenix1963 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
Quite insulting... again
I wasn't trying to insult, but I do try and distinguish between those who have their preferred 'planes, argue for their merits, but are prepared to accept genuine evidence and reasoned argument (e.g. me & Klem on the red side; and I would say Kwaitek on the blue interested side); and some of those others who never seem to accept reasonably authenticated evidence.

Now I haven't checked, but I have no reason to believe Spitfire Performance would post altered or faked data. However I would fully understand if the "blue side" wished to question the context of the data, or unpublished associated data that would be relevant to what was published. But that needs to be done in a reasoned way where the participants are prepared to accept they might be wrong when presented with evidence.

It's called the scientific method.

It is to your credit that your posts here at least seem to be trying to understand the physics.

[ BTW: the conditions for detonation of the fuel-air mixture are not really to do with a particular temperature. Detonation happens because the sound-speed is higher on the high-pressure portion of a pressure pulse, so the pulse gradually sharpens-up until it becomes discontinuous - a detonation. So I'm afraid the run-length of the pressure pulse (i.e. the geometry of the cylinder) is a big factor. ]

56RAF_phoenix
Reply With Quote