AQA - Unit 5 - Energetics, Redox and Inorganic Chemistry

Yeah I thought it was alright. What worries me is that the grade boundaries are going to be a fair bit higher than say January's paper.

Reply 1262

Original post by Van_der_Waals

haha yeah rite been reciting them for weeks then only last question was half about them :tongue:

it was quite a good paper :smile:

i see your applying for physics too did you enjoy the 6 marks for energy level changing and E=hf :wink:

I was loving that page :cool:

Reply 1263

Stirlo

Wasn't a bad paper, found it slightly harder than the past papers If I'm being honest. I know I've dropped most of the marks from the percentage question as I had a mind blank over which equation to use for potassium dichromate :frown:

Realised as my paper was taken off of me. Hoping to pick up a mark or two for my moles calculations though :/.

Some nasty electrode potential questions too, but other than that it was an alright paper

Reply 1264

IFondledAGibbon

What did people get for the titration?

I got 53.9% I think...

Reply 1265

^^^Yeah I found the potentials question the hardest. What did everyone put for graph X?

Reply 1266

Original post by IFondledAGibbon

What did people get for the titration?

I got 53.9% I think...

Think I got 53.66% so 53.7% ish :tongue:

something like that.

Reply 1267

Original post by Seasick Steve

^^^Yeah I found the potentials question the hardest. What did everyone put for graph X?

A hydrogen fuel cell? Constant reaction happening because of constant input of oxygen and hydrogen?

Reply 1268

Original post by mrppaulo

A hydrogen fuel cell? Constant reaction happening because of constant input of oxygen and hydrogen?

That's what I put too :3

Reply 1269

Original post by mrppaulo

A hydrogen fuel cell? Constant reaction happening because of constant input of oxygen and hydrogen?

Thank God for that. Yeah, that's what I put - almost makes up for my stupid mistake on the first question: me giving the definition of delta H formation instead of lattice enthalpy :colondollar:

Reply 1270

SirMuffin

What did you guys get for the conventional cell representation of Zn/Zn2+ and AgO/Ag?

Reply 1271

Joe D

Original post by Seasick Steve

Thank God for that. Yeah, that's what I put - almost makes up for my stupid mistake on the first question: me giving the definition of delta H formation instead of lattice enthalpy :colondollar:

... oh no... I'm gonna pretend I never read this :/

Reply 1272

MrLukee

Original post by M | k e

Think I got 53.66% so 53.7% ish :tongue:

something like that.

yeah, that sounds right.. I would've got the same.. if I REMEMBERED TO MULTIPLY BY 6!!

Haha, exam fail :argh:

Reply 1273

Original post by SirMuffin

What did you guys get for the conventional cell representation of Zn/Zn2+ and AgO/Ag?

Can't remember exactly but something like Zn(s)|Zn2+(aq)||AgO(s),Ag(s)

Reply 1274

Mazii

No more chemistry !!!!!

Reply 1275

Original post by SirMuffin

What did you guys get for the conventional cell representation of Zn/Zn2+ and AgO/Ag?

Zn / Zn2+ // AgO / Ag Then I calculated the EMF as being +1.1V

Reply 1276

Original post by SirMuffin

What did you guys get for the conventional cell representation of Zn/Zn2+ and AgO/Ag?

That was one which I really wasnt sure on :s-smilie:

I put:

Zn l Zn2+ ll H+ l AgO,Ag

However i have a feeling i should have included the water :s-smilie:

Reply 1277

Original post by Mazii

No more chemistry !!!!!

no more anything for me now :biggrin:

Reply 1278

Original post by Seasick Steve

Zn / Zn2+ // AgO / Ag Then I calculated the EMF as being +1.1V

Okay I was thinking that I should leave out the H+ and H20 parts in the cell do you think I'll lose a mark for putting H+ in? I know in one past paper it said ignore H+ if used?

Reply 1279