studiot

No one has said your interpretation is not correct, and you are as entitled as anyone to have one. Mine is different, which is not suprising since although couched in pretty good English the OP was woefully lacking in detail. But that is not reason for you to attempt to deny me my interpretation or lay into my comments the way you have. Furthermore I ask you can it be said that the OP has a successful briquette making industry if he needs this boost? Nor have I precluded the sale to domestic users, the old 'phurnacite' nodules are/were as much for domestic as industrial consumption. I still stand by my comment that users want an efficient, but long burning fuel after ignition and that adding accelerants willy nilly is not the best approach.

Granite is an essentially intrusive rock, so is not exposed anyway. Hard to tell what role the atmosphere might have. It carries the dust clouds from extrusive rocks. But both types need the internal magmas to happen.

Yes indeed and whatsmore we have the phrase "Hard Cheddar" +1

Especially if you add potassium nitrate and sulphur to it.

Several questions arise about this idea, not least being Where does all the water come from? Worlds with tectonic activity (as we know it) get that way because there is sufficient trapped heat in the core, created as the heavier material 'sinks' to the centre during the planet's formation and early history. The planet then spends billions of years trying to slough off this heat, creating the driving conditions for tectonics in the process. This will not happen if the planet is just not big enough - and of course those are the most likely to be totally submerged ones. So the end result is, as always, a balance of competing factors.

There are several thing the OP could do. He has two marketing opportunities for instance. No one who buy logs as basic fuel would buy ones which burned too quickly. They buy miniature 'logs' as matchwood for lighting the fire. In the same way, small pellets catch fire more easily since they have a large surface area to mass/volume ratio and smaller heat capacity. So the OP could market lighting pellets and/or gas pokers and bottled gas supplies. This would be far cheaper in the long run as well. I am far from conviced that introducing extra incendiary chemicals into the main bulk fuel is the way to go. Further all current furnaces are designed for maximum efficiency with current fuel types, not extra flammable ones.

You need to answer the comment in Janus' opening line. What do you mean by see? Can you describe the mechanism by which you propose the travelling observers monitors the Earth Clock?

I have come to really look forward to Janus' clarity of response. +1

Are you suggesting that they currently manufacture briquettes that don't burn? Yes gas pokers were a Victorian invention. But bottled gas is available pretty well everywhere. Because they said so.

Isn't this the (recent) second thread on this subject? Edit Yes I thought so

Why would they wish to burn their product? Surely the industrial buyer has gas pokers?

What industrial use would this be? Gas pokers are usually used to promote rapid combustion industrially so this has never been a problem.

Any half ways decent Engineering course will incorporate the necessary Maths and Physics as a matter of course (pun intended). Most have 'common core' subjects with many different branches of Engineering. Remember to concentrate on the underlying basics / fundamentals. This is because of the pace of change, particularly in your chosen area. Water will still boil at 100oC in one hundred year's time, but I doubt that the OPV302 laser diode will still be around, except in museums. Go well in your future studies and career.

Yes. +1

A few paragraphs. Considering the first one ( or should I now say 0/0? ) in the OP are you encouraging more? Gulp! Allkey, please take a breath (preferably many) and approach this a bit at a time. You have too many concepts mixed up with too many non standard usages of words for people to read and respond too. I will take only one of your points and one of your words. What makes you thing the old sailors' meaning of cardinal as applied points of the compass is the same, or even related to, the very specific meaning of cardinal in mathematical number theory? The mathematical expression 0/0 is neither 1 nor 0. It is indeterminate without context and maybe not even determinate then. Please also be aware that zero and nothing are not the same in mathematics, although colloquially they are. So discussion based on mixing these is fruitless. I am giving you a balancing upvote so you can start with a clean sheet to try and save your thread before the moderators close it altogether.

You should read this book The attacking Ocean by Brian Fagan I see it can be obtained very cheaply second hand or perhaps your local library will have it.

This nicely embodies my comment, which is not about the general correctness, but about the detail or presentation. I prefer the phrase "for every point in that small region." I think it can be confusing for many to be emphasising the thermodynamic idea of a state function which is a single representation for a whole system, and then considering something like a tensor function which varies from point to point within a system and has no overall single representation. Indeed zero may feature as an overall average. I know this and you know this but... Sorry to be so pedantic.

But as you pointed out elsewhere, we work with continuous manifolds which means there are no boundaries between the points. So all your 'systems' have no boundaries and are therefore ill defined as systems.

No of course not. Have you not considered open systems or quasi closed systems?

Only 500 hundred years? Caeser came to Somerset over 2000 years ago, for just that purpose, and he wan't the first. We have had many more since.

This tensor (like all of them) is a point function/property so isn't it stretching it a bit to call a point a system?

But I wasn't speaking of 'indeterminate'. It was concerning the relative bit. Our units and plus/minus sign convention is just that a convention. Somewhere else they will use different 'units' but these will still be the same multiples of their fundamental units of charge as ours, in any given situation.

Hello Steven and welcome to SF. I take it this was an artificial scenario constructed for instructional purposes. Have you thought about the sampled population ? Two things stand out a mile about it.

No, charge is absolute. The field lines radiate outwardly from what we call a positive charge and inwardly for what we call a negative one. Note it is one of the physical properties unaffected by relativistic transforrmations. I'm pretty sure we have mentioned all this before.

Well I offered you discussion and you chose to reject it. Thank you for the lecture, it is clear that you only wish to push your own views. I'm sorry you will never know the correct Physics definition for the words Power and Energy, which unlike some words, have only the one meaning all across the different Sciences. And nowhere is it equated with a force, though that is a very common beginner's error.