Conservation of momentum and energy question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the principles of conservation of momentum and energy in the context of a gun firing a bullet. It highlights that while momentum is conserved in the system, mechanical energy is not, due to energy losses during the firing process. The recoil of the gun is explained as a reaction to the forward motion of the bullet, illustrating Newton's third law of motion. The energy from the gunpowder propels both the bullet and the gun, with the gun experiencing a backward force as a result. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes that to change the momentum of one object, an equal and opposite change in momentum must occur in another object within the system.
sameeralord
Messages
659
Reaction score
3
Hello everyone,

Let's say there was gun and a bullet with a mass of 1kg at rest. The bullet and guns speeds were 2 m/s in opposite directions after firing if I right the equations.

Kinetic energy

0.5m1v12 + 0.5m2v12 = 0.5m1v22 + 0.5m2v22 Why doesn't this equation work when objects are at rest. Mathematically I can understand but why physcially. Can anyone explain what is happening to kinetic energy in this scenario. Why does conservation of momentum equation hold in in inelastic collisions but not this one. I understand some energy is lost but why is it not affecting momentum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where does the energy to propel the bullet come from?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Where does the energy to propel the bullet come from?

Ok let's say it came from gun powder. Then energy from gun powder would be given to the bullet, making it fly. Now the gun hasn't lost any energy or gained any but still it recoils. Why does it recoil?
 
sameeralord said:
Ok let's say it came from gun powder. Then energy from gun powder would be given to the bullet, making it fly. Now the gun hasn't lost any energy or gained any but still it recoils. Why does it recoil?
The point is that mechanical energy is not conserved, so your equation doesn't apply. (But you can write an equation for conservation of momentum.) The explosion of the gun powder provides energy to both the bullet and the gun.
 
Doc Al said:
The point is that mechanical energy is not conserved, so your equation doesn't apply. (But you can write an equation for conservation of momentum.) The explosion of the gun powder provides energy to both the bullet and the gun.

Thanks for the reply. Why does gun powder give a forward force to the bullet and backward force to the gun. Also why is this question not about gun powder and bullet. If gun powder provides the force, the reaction force should be towards gun powder, not the gun.

EDIT: Let me think this again. If force is rate of change of momentum. Since gun powder is part of the gun, the gun changed the momentum of the bullet. Oh so you can't change the momentum of something else without that momentum coming from you, meaning losing it. Oh so the gun retaliates. Oh so basically if you want to displace something, the person who is trying to displace the object is going to get displaced as well atleast a tiny bit. May be that is what momentum is saying. Is this r
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Average velocity as a weighted mean'

Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
View full post »

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »

Similar threads

B Conservation of momentum in a closed system
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K
B K Energy & Momentum: Driving Force or Lost Heat?
Replies
12
Views
1K
B Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy details
Replies
30
Views
2K
B Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Conservation of Momentum versus Conservation of Velocity
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Conservation of angular momentum during collisions
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Question about transfer of Energy and Momentum in Ballistics
Replies
34
Views
3K
Laws of conservation of momentum?
Replies
6
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top