The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

CCEA M1 13th May 2013

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Avatar for louise14
louise14
1
Original post by jashfield730
Same here data analysis wasn't too bad

last question in data analysis was bad.. couldn't get it at all but the rest of it was okay
Original post by game well and truly over
Absolutely spot on.

(Though I got 59.1 degrees to the pole!)


Thanks man :smile: As for the .1 difference for the degrees, I might have rounded at one point or something like that, but either way, thanks for reassuring me :biggrin:
Original post by amandaliu816
Any idea how the UMS is worked for this paper?

Sorry I don't have the faintest notion
Reply 83
Avatar for NeilKelly
NeilKelly
Speaking for the M1 paper, I honestly didn't think it was too bad. The questions were tricky, but doable. Had second attempts at Q6 and 7, and when i got out all my answers seemed to match with the popular opinion. Just out of interest, how did everyone do Q7? I took moments about A to find the component of Q perpendicular to the pole, and the because there was no reaction at A, the 4gcos20 of the weight had to be cancelled by the competent of Q acting parallel to the pole. Used Pythagoras to find the resultant, and the cos rule for the internal angle - then took away from 90 degrees to give the angle between the pole and Q. I'm working from memory here, because my teacher took my paper to check my answers, but I got P=48.3N, Q=71.8N and acting at 59.2 degrees to the pole.

The physics practical went okay as well, answers were all logical. Definitely lost a couple marks for general retardedness in squaring the units of V (didn't square m as well), and carried that the whole way through. It'll be interesting to see how the follow through marks work out.
Original post by GingerCodeMan
Thanks man :smile: As for the .1 difference for the degrees, I might have rounded at one point or something like that, but either way, thanks for reassuring me :biggrin:


I think all your answers are correct.

As to the angle.. I was doing the arctan of the 2 components, and kept in all my figures; when I clicked it was almost exactly halfway between 39.1 and 39.2 degrees (before adding the 20 to get the angle to the pole). The more figures I used the more it seemed to favour .1... but that was naff. It would have been nice to see the angle = 39.19 or something easy rather than 39.150001 or whatever it was!
Original post by NeilKelly
Speaking for the M1 paper, I honestly didn't think it was too bad. The questions were tricky, but doable. Had second attempts at Q6 and 7, and when i got out all my answers seemed to match with the popular opinion. Just out of interest, how did everyone do Q7? I took moments about A to find the component of Q perpendicular to the pole, and the because there was no reaction at A, the 4gcos20 of the weight had to be cancelled by the competent of Q acting parallel to the pole. Used Pythagoras to find the resultant, and the cos rule for the internal angle - then took away from 90 degrees to give the angle between the pole and Q. I'm working from memory here, because my teacher took my paper to check my answers, but I got P=48.3N, Q=71.8N and acting at 59.2 degrees to the pole. .


Err.. resolve horizontally and vertically??
Reply 86
Avatar for NeilKelly
NeilKelly
Original post by game well and truly over
Err.. resolve horizontally and vertically??


took one look at it and went into panic mode, this was the only way my brain connected them. Made work for myself, but it worked! So either way, I'm happy
Original post by NeilKelly
took one look at it and went into panic mode, this was the only way my brain connected them. Made work for myself, but it worked! So either way, I'm happy


:biggrin:
Fair enough!

Strangely, the question I had most bother with was the momentum one... I hate signs/impulse etc :redface:
Reply 88
Avatar for JasonH27
JasonH27
OP
1
Original post by TheSilentFez
I can't believe I did this, but instead of dividing 18 by 1.5 and 4.5 to give 12kg and 4kg, I divided 28 by 1.5 and 4.5. I must have copied down the mass wrong and got 20 instead of 10! No!! How could I have done this!?
Anyway, aside from this sheer stupidity, my method was correct. How many marks do you think I will lose? 2,3, or 4? I'm hoping it's only 3 and not more.


To be honest, CCEA are becoming ruthless with their marking as they've been told off for giving out too many A's, so I wouldn't be surprised if they only gave you 1/2 marks for using the correct method e.g. the conservation of momentum formula, and nothing else :/
Good luck with everyone who's doing the physics practical tomorrow! 😁


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 90
Avatar for ktkinnes
ktkinnes
Original post by GingerCodeMan
Yeah, these are my own answers.

I was really surprised that they took the question paper off us, did that happen to anyone else?


They always take our question papers off us in case people have clashes in their timetable and we manage to magically give the papers to them in isolation
Original post by ktkinnes
They always take our question papers off us in case people have clashes in their timetable and we manage to magically give the papers to them in isolation


That makes sense; I hadn't considered that.
Original post by TheSilentFez
I can't believe I did this, but instead of dividing 18 by 1.5 and 4.5 to give 12kg and 4kg, I divided 28 by 1.5 and 4.5. I must have copied down the mass wrong and got 20 instead of 10! No!! How could I have done this!?
Anyway, aside from this sheer stupidity, my method was correct. How many marks do you think I will lose? 2,3, or 4? I'm hoping it's only 3 and not more.


I think I made a similar mistake here :frown: how many marks are available for part ii in all?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you