OCR AS Salters Chemistry F332 - Wednesday 23rd May 2012 1:30pm

Scroll to see replies

the highest grade boundary for an A has been 74 and I've just looked at the paper - jan 2010 - i definitely think it was a lot easier than our one - the questions were a lot more direct - does anybody else agree?

Reply 1381

sharon800

Original post by dragonkeeper999

I got confused on the type of reaction question - I don't think it was electrophillic addition because the hydrogen atom got moved along the chain (I had to draw the whole thing out and try to work out the mechanism, but it still didn't work). I just put 'addition' because two reactants combine to make a single product :s
I think it specifically said in the question 'any polymer other than poly(ethene)'

i put copolymerisation because two different unsaturated monomers combined to give A-B+A--B+A--B, ETC
thats what i put...dont know, how they'll mark this, so ambiguous

Reply 1382

dragonkeeper999

Original post by sharon800

i put copolymerisation because two different unsaturated monomers combined to give A-B+A--B+A--B, ETC
thats what i put...dont know, how they'll mark this, so ambiguous

I think you might have been right there... oh well, at least it's only one mark. It was a rather confusing question.
How did you find the rest of the exam?

Reply 1383

Crushy10

I just put addition because as someone else said its 2 into 1 :smile:

Reply 1384

SimpleGirl

Original post by TheStudent.

No its right :wink:

its in the salters revision guide.

And its not strictly for anything.

Reply 1385

SimpleGirl

Original post by sharon800

i put copolymerisation because two different unsaturated monomers combined to give A-B+A--B+A--B, ETC
thats what i put...dont know, how they'll mark this, so ambiguous

Original post by Crushy10

I just put addition because as someone else said its 2 into 1 :smile:

I wrote addition too and have been thinking that's correct but I just realised that it can't be addition polymerisation because it wasn't two of the same monomer that combined to form the product, was it? :s-smilie:

So I think Sharon's right, it was most likely co-polymerisation.

Reply 1386

SimpleGirl

Original post by swimming002

Hm, I think you're right, Jan 2010 did have more direct questions. Our paper wasn't that difficult but I still hope the boundaries aren't too high.

Reply 1387

misspinx20

Original post by SimpleGirl

So I think Sharon's right, it was most likely co-polymerisation.

I wrote addition as well! And i actually thought of co-polymerisation as well during the exam!!! I kept changing my answer. I guess it's most likely to be co-polymerisation as well.

Reply 1388

sharon800

Original post by SimpleGirl

So I think Sharon's right, it was most likely co-polymerisation.

thank you

Reply 1389

SimpleGirl

Original post by misspinx20

I wrote addition as well! And i actually thought of co-polymerisation as well during the exam!!! I kept changing my answer. I guess it's most likely to be co-polymerisation as well.

Co-polymerisation didn't even cross my mind :s-smilie:

I did think the answer being 'addition polymerisation' would be a bit silly considering the previous question told us about it and asked us to define addition polymer; but I couldn't think of anything else to write :dontknow:

Oh, and I thought the paper was pretty good btw (you asked me before but I didn't reply, sorry).
I know I made a few silly mistakes but hopefully I've done enough to get a good grade.
How did you find it?

Reply 1390

misspinx20

Original post by SimpleGirl

Co-polymerisation didn't even cross my mind :s-smilie:

yeah same! I made a few mistakes as well- I realised after coming home and checking the revision guide. But, what did you put down for the overall dipole question? I said there is no overall dipole, because the tetrahedral arrangement suggests that the charges cancel out. I hope that's right? :s-smilie:

Reply 1391

SimpleGirl

Original post by misspinx20

Omg, that's exactly what I wrote! I said it was symmetrical so the charges cancel out. If that's wrong (which I think it is), I'll be so annoyed. It'll be all stupid chem tutor's fault for telling us that crap the day before :mad:

Reply 1392

misspinx20

Original post by SimpleGirl

Yeah i know! But it's got to be right! I mean that couldn't have been an overall dipole. Otherwise OCR are really screwing us up!

Reply 1393

dongonaeatu

Original post by misspinx20

Yeah i know! But it's got to be right! I mean that couldn't have been an overall dipole. Otherwise OCR are really screwing us up!

i said it had no dipole coz it was symmetrical m8

Reply 1394

SimpleGirl

Original post by misspinx20

Yeah i know! But it's got to be right! I mean that couldn't have been an overall dipole. Otherwise OCR are really screwing us up!

No but then fluorine is the most electronegative (which I first wrote but then crossed out :facepalm:

), so that could mean there is an overall dipole?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1395

SimpleGirl

Original post by dongonaeatu

i said it had no dipole coz it was symmetrical m8

Really?
And how confident are you with that answer?

Reply 1396

misspinx20

Original post by SimpleGirl

Really?
And how confident are you with that answer?

But it's more about the partial charges that determine if a molecule is polar. Although, now that your talking about electronegativity i think i'm getting a panic attack now! Oh well we can't change it now!