The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

OCR Physics B G495 Field and Particle Pictures June 21st 2011 Exam Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheTomD
I also found that one tricky, although thought I knew what I had to do!

All-in-all not a bad paper, could have been much worse. Didn't get majorly stuck on anything and atleast I finished this time (damn you G491 resit!)! :rolleyes:


did you manage to do it in the end?
I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8
Original post by Alex.Stevens
did you manage to do it in the end?
I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8

I think you were supposed to do it using the definition of the gamma factor in terms of velocities(1/the root of (1-v^2/c^2))
Reply 622
Avatar for Larry777
Larry777
Original post by Alex.Stevens
did you manage to do it in the end?
I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8


I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7 or 10^8 ms^-1 can't remember which lol :smile: Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha :smile:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 623
Avatar for R0BMAN
R0BMAN
Thought that was about as good as we could have hoped for. I only needed 64 marks... hello Uni! Takes off heaps of pressure from my retake on Monday anyway.... so happy.
Original post by Revolution is my Name
I think you were supposed to do it using the definition of the gamma factor in terms of velocities(1/the root of (1-v^2/c^2))

yeah, and v is 2.5x10^8 ms^-1
Reply 625
Avatar for R0BMAN
R0BMAN
Original post by Larry777
I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7ms^-1 :smile: Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha :smile:


Yeh thats what I did, I got gamma to equal 1.88 or something then v to equal 2.45 x 10^8
Reply 626
Avatar for Alford
Alford
Original post by Larry777
I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7 or 10^8 ms^-1 can't remember which lol :smile: Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha :smile:


I did that tooo i got gamma to be about 1.8 if i remmeber correctly and my speed was like 2 x10^8 if that rings any bells? i think i did it right (hopefully)
Reply 627
Avatar for Sereni
Sereni
14
easily the best paper Ive had this year :smile:
oh how I hate relativistic effects.
Reply 629
Avatar for Larry777
Larry777
Original post by Alford
I did that tooo i got gamma to be about 1.8 if i remmeber correctly and my speed was like 2 x10^8 if that rings any bells? i think i did it right (hopefully)


I think it does sound familiar! :smile:
Section C was *******s, as expected.
Reply 631
Avatar for jimmeh
jimmeh
Anyone else think that was ridiculously easy O.o Can't actually think of a mark I've dropped apart from the last question, which was well confusing...
Reply 632
Avatar for Alford
Alford
Original post by jimmeh
Anyone else think that was ridiculously easy O.o Can't actually think of a mark I've dropped apart from the last question, which was well confusing...


I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

END OF SECTION C = FLOP
Ah ****, I got the relativistic factor as 1.8 or something then just divided c by 1.8; ah well.
Original post by Alford
I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

END OF SECTION C = FLOP

Increase cross-sectional area and decrease length was what I got.
Reply 635
Avatar for Larry777
Larry777
Original post by Alford
I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

END OF SECTION C = FLOP


I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit :smile: I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core :smile: So don't worry!
Original post by Larry777
I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit :smile: I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core :smile: So don't worry!


Reckon saying "make the core fatter" would get the mark for the cross sectional area point?
Reply 637
Avatar for jimmeh
jimmeh
Original post by Alford
I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

END OF SECTION C = FLOP


Increase permeance? Balls. Definitely read that wrong, could've sworn that it said increasing the flux...That's what you get for being confident :rolleyes:

I put increasing the current and number of turns, but if it said increase the permeance, then those are definitely wrong!
Original post by Larry777
I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit :smile: I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core :smile: So don't worry!

It doesn't increase permeability, it reduces the back emf, but otherwise yeah.
Reply 639
Avatar for Alford
Alford
Original post by Larry777
I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit :smile: I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core :smile: So don't worry!


yehhh i think your definatley right after i realised but yeh im hoping the mark scheme allows laminate the core because it would prevent eddy currents therefore increase total flux in the core :smile: praying im right need all the marks before section c as i can get !

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you