I suspect that the Lotka–Volterra equations would be applicable in this case.

Torqued bolts/screws exist to provide a certain amount of clamping force. You do not choose a torque spec based on the threads, you choose the bolt size, material, and thread profile based on the clamping force requirements.

Anyways, I prefer angle control over torque control since it's much more repeatable, assuming your bolts are to spec.

I used to work for a fastener company in QA.

The purpose of torquing is to apply a specific(ish) amount of preload to the screw. It has nothing to do with protecting the threads.

In many applications, a bolt can only be used once anyways because it stretches during torquing the first time it is used.

Yes. In chemistry, the general term is "redox reaction" where one subastance is reduced while another is simultaneously oxidized. With fire, oxygen is reduced, while carbon, hydrogen, sulfer, etc are oxidized to produce compounds like CO, CO2, H2O, SO2, etc.

Other redox reactions that you might consider similar to burning without oxygen use other reactive oxidizers like Chlorine, Bromine, Fluorine, etc.

This is inaccurate.

The hydrostatic pressure gradient is 40x as extreme, so it's more like being submerged in something 40x as dense, not 40x deeper. For reference, molten lead is only 10x as dense as water.

The buoyant force is equal to your weight, to kee you stationary. No matter the depth, on earth, it's always about 200lb. Under 40g, it would be 8000lb.

No, because the force of acceleration is still transmitted through the outer surfaces of the body into the inner ones. Some kind of hydraulic fluid could help distribute the load, but ultimately this is an issue of compression and a pressure gradient forming.

A similar analogy is "magic armor" that is indestructible. If you wear the armor and hold a detonating nuclear bomb, the force of the blast will fling you away and all that will be left is a pile of goop inside the intact armor shell.

I suspect it's effectively impossible to produce the kind of answer you are looking for. In order to make a determination that a species went extinct solely due to predation, we would need to have observed it very closely, which effectively excludes your qualifier "free of human interference." Also, you can't really attribute extinction solely to any one factor, unless you mean, "was the last individual killed by as predator, in its natural environment without human interaction of any kind?", or some other really specifically qualified question.

I guarantee that many species have gone extinct in large part due to pressure from predation. The Lotka–Volterra equations describe an idealized predator-prey dynamic where the populations have a stable oscillation without a possibility of extinction. In reality, many predation dynamics come so close to prey extinction that small fluctuations at the right time can reduce the prey population below a viable size.

Keep in mind, that natural selection can only act on existing variation in a population, so a prey species likely won't even have the ability to respond in a meaningful way to a significant predatory adaptations. This will normally just alter the dynamic and result in more extreme oscillations, but not necessarily result in extinction.

I love when economists join a conversation to remind everyone that the free market can solve any problem, even physical reality.