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:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top