Mechanical Energy in Bomb Blasts: Is it Conserved?

Thread starter bilal ahmad
Start date Dec 19, 2011
Tags

Energy Mechanical Mechanical energy

AI Thread Summary

Mechanical energy is not conserved in bomb blasts due to the conversion of chemical potential energy into other forms of energy, such as thermal and kinetic energy. Before the blast, the energy is primarily stored as chemical potential energy in the explosive material. After the explosion, this energy transforms, resulting in a release of energy that causes shockwaves and fragmentation. The total mechanical energy, when accounting for all forms of energy, changes significantly during the blast. Therefore, while some mechanical energy may be present post-blast, it is not conserved in the traditional sense.

Dec 19, 2011

bilal ahmad

in bomb blast is mechanical energy conserved or not if so then why?

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 19, 2011

gsal

How would you define mechanical energy? and what is its value before and after the blast? is it the same?

...don't forget that you had a lot of chemical potential energy stored and then it was converted into...

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 »

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

View full post »