Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

OCR Twenty First Century Science Physics P1-7 Official Thread 2016

Scroll to see replies

I put CBA although I'm not confident that it was correct

I can't remember what I got but that sounds familiar. My friend definitely put that. 'can't be ar----' is exactly how i felt

Reply 81

kendo9

Yeah I got the power of 307.2 as well.

Reply 82

username1454260

Original post by bmgaic

The intensit six marker was awkwardly worded, not sure why I needed the height of the room and everything but I guess it's OCR tricking us as it as only the distance that they gave you that as needed I think. I thought that explaining the changing intensity wasn't too bad, just photons and stuff.

I was surprised parallax made an appearance, considering that's P7.

I didn't get that stupid formula in the question. I just said that there's a higher concentration of photons with closer distance. I defined what a photon was. Then it said like "why do they need to be low intensity" and i literally just guessed and said if it's too intense that will be more expensive cos they have to pay for electricity, dangerous and more heat energy will be wasted???
yeah ikr!!! And I haven't even learnt all of P7 yet. Uhh. They asked why it was hard to draw to scale so i just said the distance is too large so they won't have the right equipment/ not precise. That's probably wrong :frown:

Reply 83

username1454260

Original post by bmgaic

I didn't get that stupid formula in the question. I just said that there's a higher concentration of photons with closer distance. I defined what a photon was. Then it said like "why do they need to be low intensity" and i literally just guessed and said if it's too intense that will be more expensive cos they have to pay for electricity, dangerous and more heat energy will be wasted???

yeah ikr!!! And I haven't even learnt all of P7 yet. Uhh. They asked why it was hard to draw to scale so i just said the distance is too large so they won't have the right equipment/ not precise. That's probably wrong :frown:

Reply 84

Ben.M

Original post by bmgaic

I'm fairly confident it's right, because B was most efficient and that was the one with the smallest 'waste arrow'. A had the highest output so it was the one with larger arrows in general, and C had the same efficiency, but a lower output? I think that was it. I was confused at the time, but hopefully it's alright.

I was surprised parallax measurements made an appearance, considering that's P7. I thought it was harder than 2015's paper, but that's just me. Parts were great, others were just confusing.

I agree with your reasoning there for the Sankey diagrams. I thought the same about parallax; calculations involving parallax are P7, I thought P1 parallax was just explanation.

Original post by Ella_08

That was awful. I don't think I'll fail but I hated that intensity 6 marker!!

Original post by bmgaic

not sure why I needed the height of the room and everything

I don't think the height or width of the room were needed, it was probably just to put us off.

Reply 85

bmgaic

Original post by Ella_08

I didn't get that stupid formula in the question. I just said that there's a higher concentration of photons with closer distance. I defined what a photon was. Then it said like "why do they need to be low intensity" and i literally just guessed and said if it's too intense that will be more expensive cos they have to pay for electricity, dangerous and more heat energy will be wasted???

yeah ikr!!! And I haven't even learnt all of P7 yet. Uhh. They asked why it was hard to draw to scale so i just said the distance is too large so they won't have the right equipment/ not precise. That's probably wrong :frown:

Did it say something about low intensity?! I read it as 'why do they need to do plan it out' so I mentioned stuff about need to reach every part of the room so less energy costs, omg :s-smilie:

Also I did mention the distance being large, I also mentioned something about parallax angles being extremely tiny but idk.

Reply 86

Ben.M

Original post by Ella_08

They asked why it was hard to draw to scale so i just said the distance is too large so they won't have the right equipment/ not precise. That's probably wrong :frown:

Original post by bmgaic

I also mentioned something about parallax angles being extremely tiny but idk.

I put that the angle is less than 1/3600 of a degree so it's too small to measure and draw.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 87

username1454260

Original post by Ben.M

I put that the angle is less than 1/3600 of a degree so it's too small to measure and draw.

that makes sense. My brain just doesn't work that way :/ I hope i still get a mark for talking about equipment and accuracy/preciseness

Reply 88

bmgaic

Original post by Ben.M

I put that the angle is less than 1/3600 of a degree so it's too small to measure and draw.

Oh right, yeah I didn't manage to do any calculations on that and I probably should have known considering they gave us that extra bit about angles. Hopefully I get a mark for it being small or something but maybe I'm pushing my luck :colondollar:

Reply 89

username1454260

Original post by bmgaic

Did it say something about low intensity?! I read it as 'why do they need to do plan it out' so I mentioned stuff about need to reach every part of the room so less energy costs, omg :s-smilie:

Also I did mention the distance being large, I also mentioned something about parallax angles being extremely tiny but idk.

I think they did but i'd need someone to confirm it because i'm not sure. But i think there were several parts of the question, maybe we just did different bits. I'm glad you talked about distance too - that's the only thing i said. other people are talking about small angles

Reply 90

Ben.M

Original post by Ella_08

I hope i still get a mark for talking about equipment and accuracy/preciseness

Original post by bmgaic

You'll probably both get a mark, it was only 2 marks anyway I think. I found it odd how they gave that 1° = 60 x 60 = 3600

'Second of arc' also sounded weird...

Reply 91

bmgaic

Original post by Ben.M

You'll probably both get a mark, it was only 2 marks anyway I think. I found it odd how they gave that 1° = 60 x 60 = 3600

'Second of arc' also sounded weird...

Do you think grade boundaries will change much from last year's (40/60, I think...)
I'm still annoyed at the appearance of parallax with more than just describing how it happens, considering the spec suggested it was only the methodology rather than actually figuring it out.

Reply 92

louisemayorx

everyone is saying they got 307.2 for the power omg, how did i get 48??

Reply 93

Ben.M

Original post by bmgaic

I think it was a difficult paper so hopefully the grade boundaries will be a little bit lower. I also think that the parallax question was unfair, as the specification specifically said 'Qualitative Only'

Reply 94

kendo9

For the intensity 6 marker it asked why do you need a minimum intensity when planning.

Reply 95

kendo9

The parallax question didnt really require any knowledge of P7 because you didnt have to do the 1/angle calculation, you just had to use the information in the question and the fact that it said inversely proportional to work out the values. So technically, it was still part of the spec. What did you guys get anyways for that question?