June 2011 G485-Fields, Particles and Frontiers of Physics

I got 219.23 I think so kept it at 219. It was an annoying question as I was expecting an outright number.

Yeah... I wrote 220 to two sig figs since it's usually what was written.

Mistakes in the written questions of exam papers are simply inexcusable, especially when its something so obvious.

The diagram for the electron question said the separation of the plates was 0.05 m, but the question gave 0.05 cm.

With all the "checking and rechecking and proofreading" they claim to do, how are mistakes like this left in the exam paper?

Wasn't a bad paper overall. Quite pleased.

I didn't notice this mistake... I did the question and got the right answer so - meh :s

I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol

Reply 901

Pheylan

Original post by ChoYunEL

I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol

I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong

Reply 902

Kalamari Dave

Original post by anshul96

some of my answers...anyone else agree?
q1: 219 turns on coil
yeah, i got a decimal value with that :lolwut:

q2: 5.0625 seconds and lots of 10^-4 answers...
yup
q3: 4.18 x 10^7 for something
dont remember!
q4: LOLOLOL reverse engineered, 32700 but i think it's supposed to be 29500...
:wink:

q5: 0.016 and then 4x10^-3
dont remember!
q6: 10^-17 for the density
dont remember!
q7: H0 was 2.1 x 10^-18 and pc was 7.87 x 10^-27
Yup

Did you get 18 as the angle?

Reply 903

Sail2011

Original post by anshul96

The only mistake I spotted was the 0.05m/0.05cm thing..

right, i didnt read the question - just looked at the diagram cos i dint have time to read it, so i must have usd 0.05m - will they deduct marks for that ? cos it is kinda there fault ?? (if 0.05m was the wrong one and they meant 0.05cm)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 904

supervernagirl

Original post by Pheylan

I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong

Same here! :biggrin:

Reply 905

Oh my Ms. Coffey

Original post by ChoYunEL

Yeah... I wrote 220 to two sig figs since it's usually what was written.

I didn't notice this mistake... I did the question and got the right answer so - meh :s

I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol

It asked for forces acting on protons/neutrons, the weak force is for changing quarks.

Reply 906

ziigmund

was the voltage 1.5v or 2v? idk if it was a ratio of 1:3 ie 1/4 or 1/3

Reply 907

ChoYunEL

1

Original post by Pheylan

I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong

I mentioned all four and wrote an explanation for all of them. :redface:

Reply 908

toxp

Original post by anshul96

No, it's allowed to be non-integer, that's because the values used in calculating the value were not given to a great deal of accuracy.

The only mistake I spotted was the 0.05m/0.05cm thing..

I didn't notice this, but that is unbelievable and unacceptable.

Reply 909

emlath

Spent about 15 minutes trying to get that 0.05cm/m thing right before realising it was a mistake, was so annoyed :frown:

Thought it was a horrible paper overall...

Reply 910

OneInSolidarity

10

Original post by ufochaffeuress

And the conventional current was going anticlockwise. It must be downwards.

I agree with this.
Flemming's left and rule is using the conventional current, not flow of electrons. (Though I can't exactly remember in which direction the flow of electrons, or the magnetic field, was going).

Reply 911

In the looney bin

Original post by ChoYunEL

I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol

I presume it ignored the weak interaction.

I did SNF/electrostatic/gravitational.

Reply 912

ufochaffeuress

Original post by OneInSolidarity

I agree with this.
Flemming's left and rule is using the conventional current, not flow of electrons. (Though I can't exactly remember in which direction the flow of electrons, or the magnetic field, was going).

Yes it was going anticlockwise. That's the first thing to look out for when working out the LH rule - besides, the RH rule isn't specified in the syllabus. On that premise, the LH rule should be the correct answer.

Reply 913

OneInSolidarity

10

Original post by emlath

Spent about 15 minutes trying to get that 0.05cm/m thing right before realising it was a mistake, was so annoyed :frown:

Thought it was a horrible paper overall...

I'm writing a written complaint to OCR about that question.
I'm going to say that a lot of us wasted time, trying to get the question to work with the value '0.05cm', making us have to rush/ answer the following questions inadequately.

Reply 914

yu80359

anyone got the ratio is 3?

Reply 915

OneInSolidarity

10

Original post by ufochaffeuress

Yes it was going anticlockwise. That's the first thing to look out for when working out the LH rule - besides, the RH rule isn't specified in the syllabus. On that premise, the LH rule should be the correct answer.

Do you remember the direction of the field?

Reply 916

OneInSolidarity

10

Original post by yu80359

anyone got the ratio is 3?

Someone I know got the ratio as 3. I got the ratio as 1/27 however (I'm sure this is wrong xD)

Reply 917

anttooking

1

Original post by OneInSolidarity

I'm writing a written complaint to OCR about that question.
I'm going to say that a lot of us wasted time, trying to get the question to work with the value '0.05cm', making us have to rush/ answer the following questions inadequately.

To be fair though, It wasn't that bad. We had the end answer so we were only gona be out by a factor of 10^(4). Plus: Most people didn't realise as nobody ever reads the stem properly. Not evan the Examiner by the looks of things!