What determines the minimum quench distance?

[panic]

Not all tuners agree that "as close as possible" is desirable. Bill Jenkins found that a properly working SBC chamber LOSES a bit of power by going from .060" to .050" because of increased pumping loss, since the chamber did not need more quench for turbulence or knock suppression.
Why larger? Because the real quench distance is only the minimum figure @ TDC (which is not the point of maximum risk), and there is measurable pumping loss getting those few molecules in and out of that small space, and as the clearance expands the loss is reduced. The original intent was to have only semi-combustible gas present in the quench band during the "at risk" period, which begins (after ignition) @ TDC and beyond to about 14° (roughly the location of peak pressure), since the entire mix is not burning until at least 20 degrees (?) ATDC. A motor with 4" stroke and 6.2" rods (n = 1.55) has moved about 4% of its stroke @ 20 ATDC, or .160".
When the motor is running, the quench area is as wide as .160" during the critical flame propagation period around TDC, in which secondary ignition will cause knocking. This means that in a motor built to .040" clearance (cold), almost .000" (hot & running) STILL has .160" or more quench distance during its gas pressure rise period, but the trapped gas burns very slowly (if at all), and the flame does not spread to the main chamber to cause knocking.
Doesn't this mean that the stroke and rod ratio affect the width of the quench area during the high pressure period immediately after TDC up to 14 ATDC? A motor with a very long stroke and very short rod will have big movement (5" stroke, 1.5 ratio = .099") by 14 ATDC; how are these motors safe? Is there a point where the piston movement makes the quench area so big during the high pressure period that quench doesn't work?
Can a motor with very short stroke and long rods (quench area still very small @ 14 ATDC) get away with looser quench?
If this is so (and I can't see how else), then isn't the quench distance a function of piston movement during that period, rather than a fixed figure?
I have a feeling that there are several more factors involved here, and they may be invisble not because they're small or inconsequential, but because they work in opposite directions and mostly zero each other out, leaving only the common fixed distance range.

Please: not to be hostile in advance, I appreciate all responses, but spare us the cut-n-paste textbook PHR etc. definitions of quench.

[blownzoom440]

if i may i would like your thaughts on my quench.open chamber heads346's 95cc .100 to quench on head,.040 gasket,.060 deck height,8.3/1 8-71 w/8 to 14 lbs.any q's comments accepted.

[mike_belben]

i was under the impression (or illusion?) that detonation was a function of fuel flashpoint and chamber temps- the centrally propogated flame (pentroof 4 valve in my case) attempts to compress, heat and burn each "onion layer" of fuel one by one, prior to the outermost layers reaching their autoignition temperature conducted from the chamber walls. perhaps im wrong already.

i assume the process is dependant on pressure rise and chamber volume nearing peak pressure. it seems as though low rod ratio engines have a rapidly growing chamber volume that may reduce/slow this heating effect (lower chamber psi= lower temp) in the outer "rings," therefore more forgiving in terms of autoignition. most sources i have seen agree that increased rpms reduce detonation due to a shorter period of time per cycle. i assume the time was a factor in the fuels tendency to "heatsoak"