AQA A Level Physics Paper 2 7408/2 - 10 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]

Sorry forgot to write percent 😂😂

Do you think if i get like 57 paper1 57 paper 2 and 56 paper3 would be an A

I can not predict the future but I think that should be an A.
Don't worry about marks now focus on your other papers
GOOD LUCK

For the electric field strength graph question, did you all draw a tangent to whatever value they mentioned, and then find the gradient? I'm just hoping it's not 1/gradient cause I only found the gradient

That's what I thought, although I think I put electron capture, but it seems like other people said the oppsiite - that they had a high nuetron to proton ratio and so decayed via beta minus decay. That seems illogical but also beta plus decay is pretty rare so

my reasoning was:
- not quite mass rich enough for alpha
- not gamma as it’s not energy rich and not really referred to as “decay”
- not b as this would require proton richness (/ neutron deficiency)
- possibly b- as the nucleus will probably be neutron rich (heavy nucleus pre-fission would have thrown out some neutrons but likely not THAT many)

ye, large enough to be neutron rich, not big enough for alpha

Can i say beta plus decay even if it had a large nucleon number because it could be proton rich and it will lie on the beta plus decay region when you plot it

It won’t be proton rich, but hopefully you’ll get some marks

It can be because if we split the F1 into its nucleons we will get about 50 protons and 55-60 neuttons how is that not proton rich

Because the original nucleus was neutron rich i assume. I put the same in the exam but if you look it up online, daughter products are most often neutron rich and decay through beta minus

The question said deduce so would i still get the marks

You can probably say literally anything as long as you give a reason

yh true, as long as their is consistency in saying above line of stability so beta minus, below line so beta plus, or large overall so alpha, then probs fine

Hi
Son's teacher suggested that the following part of the thermal spec (3.6.2.3 Molecular kinetic theory model), would never come up and it's not worth revising / remembering. Wondered whether you'd been given similar advice / what you think about that?

"Assumptions leading to pV = 1/3Nm cms2
including derivation of the equation and calculations."

Thanks.

What do you guys recon will be an A for this paper out of 85

ive put them into a google drive so now if anyone asks i can just link that