Edexcel IAL Physics Unit 3 WPH03 May June 2016 Discussion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

MrBioBombastic

Original post by don't cry-craft

how can there be a parallax error since the protractor would be flat against the paper to measure the angle?

There could be parallex error when taking reading from protractor

Reply 81

NNB_Herath

I got the percentage as 7.89 %(i guess)
I did not multiply by 2

Is it correct

Reply 82

MrBioBombastic

Original post by NNB_Herath

I got the percentage as 7.89 %(i guess)
I did not multiply by 2

Is it correct

Yes absolutely correct

Reply 83

hasi.99

Hey guys can someone send me the questions along with the marks
Thanks

Reply 84

AlonsoAMG

mark scheme for a past paper said DO NOT allow parallax for protractor

Reply 85

AlonsoAMG

Did some of ur answers look like this?:

multiple choice: A,D,A,B,D (directly proportional, velocity, 10.27, can't remember the other 2)

7.9%
gradient: 4.5
resistivity: 1.1 x10^-6

I didn't think it was too bad wbu

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 86

hasi.99

Original post by AlonsoAMG

The resistivity was ***x10^-6 something

Reply 87

OnTheHorizon

Original post by AlonsoAMG

It's not directly proportional,It's linear relationship and the other two mcqs were finding g and mean value
I got 4.73 for gradient and 1.17x10^-6 for resistivity and 7.9% for uncertainty.

Reply 88

userk 12

is parallax error wrong

Reply 89

joose_99

Original post by tejsanghavi

did anyone get their gradient as 4.5?
I made a major error.... i used the diameter on its own as area. how much do you guys think ill get out of 4?
For keeping current constant i mentioned using a power pack set at 0.11A. Any chance its correct?

I got the same gradient.

Reply 90

joose_99

It is velocity, as pascal is a derived unit.

Reply 91

AlonsoAMG

Original post by OnTheHorizon

It's not directly proportional,It's linear relationship and the other two mcqs were finding g and mean value
I got 4.73 for gradient and 1.17x10^-6 for resistivity and 7.9% for uncertainty.

why not proportional? it went through 0,0 didn't it?

Reply 92

AlonsoAMG

Original post by iWant.A

For her plan I calculated the percentage uncertainty which was about 12% and said that it was too high, also to keep current constant with a variable resistor
What did you answer for the vernier calliber question

i guessed 33% :frown:

Reply 93

AlonsoAMG

Original post by Sunethra

I got gradient at 4.91, I did again using different figures and it came to 4.88.

line should go through 0, urs probably didn't tho the probe won't take off marks as they didn't get a result for 0m

Reply 94

MrBioBombastic

Original post by AlonsoAMG

it was linear

Reply 95

MrBioBombastic

Original post by AlonsoAMG

why not proportional? it went through 0,0 didn't it?

no it didnt pass through origin

Reply 96

OnTheHorizon

Yeah it had a negative gradient as well.

Reply 97

AlonsoAMG

Original post by MrBioBombastic

no it didnt pass through origin

if you extrapolated it it would cos x-axis started at 2, not 0

Reply 98

MrBioBombastic

Original post by AlonsoAMG

i guessed 33% :frown:

uncertainity was 7.8

Reply 99

SaadKaleem

Original post by Hiyoriiki

For the comment on time q I multiplied 0.38×2 and then divided by 3 x 100So rxn time is 25% of actual time.Is it wrong😢😢😢?

Original post by bibliosmia

I got the same as Hyyoriiki!

Wrote the same answer, as both of you.

Original post by NNB_Herath

I got the percentage as 7.89 %(i guess)
I did not multiply by 2

Is it correct

The %Uncertainty, had to be given in 2 s.f rather then 3 s.f because the data given in the question was 2 s.f max.

I think, I remember writing 7.9 (%) as the answer.

Original post by OnTheHorizon

Yeah it had a negative gradient as well.