peetzakilla: as someone who usually enjoys reading your posts let me say that
rsgraebert is absolutely correct. Law of conservation of energy simply says that the energy released by burning powder is equal to sums of the energy of all involved components thereafter, such as kinetic energies of bullet and rifle. Law of conservation of energy by itself
makes absolutely no implications as to how exactly this energy is distributed between the objects. In ideal, zero-friction environment, this last thing is controlled by the law of conservation of momentum which is completely, completely different story. As bullet exits the barrel, the momentum of bullet is equal in value to the momentum of the rifle. Which, among other things, means that the bullet (as the lighter object) carries a lot, lot more kinetic energy than the rifle.
Edit:
In case you want to pinpoint the flaw in your reasoning, let's go back to this statement:
Quote:
|
Conservation of energy is an absolute, indisputable law of physics. Conservation of momentum can not be violated. The total energy of the system is a constant. The energy transfered by the bullet to the target is identical to the energy transfered to the gun and shooter, discounting loses than can all be essentially traced to friction and/or noise.
|
This is where the problem is. You are right in that "Conservation of energy is an absolute, indisputable law of physics. Conservation of momentum can not be violated." But then you make this assumption -- "the energy transfered by the bullet to the target is identical to the energy transfered to the gun and shooter" -- as something derived from the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's not. Conservation of Energy means that combined energies of all moving parts plus energy the went into heat is exactly equal to the energy released by the powder. Once you start comparing mass/velocities of bullet and rifle, you've switched to the law of conservation of momentum.
And this:
Quote:
|
Momentum IS energy. It's not mathematically the same as KINETIC energy but it most certainly IS energy.
|
this really got me scratching my head ))
Just my 2 cents. As I mentioned earlier, I enjoy reading your posts.