The Student Room Group

PHYA5 ~ 20th June 2013 ~ A2 Physics

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1740
Did people get about 28 for the density ?
Original post by xrpred
Did people get about 28 for the density ?


Yes :smile:
Reply 1742
Original post by posthumus
Yes :smile:


Excellent :3 I hated that last question, the radioactivity experiment one. I'm not used to practical questions in unit 5! I just waffled on about magnetic fields and safety :P
Reply 1743
Original post by xrpred
Did people get about 28 for the density ?

YES!!!!
Original post by SpiggyTopes
I'm sure on the de Broglie question with the proton and electron that it said to ignore relativistic effects. :s-smilie:


Did it? If it did, I didn't see it then :P
For the turning points people, what did you all put for the very last question about travelling faster than light? I think I dropped marks on it, even though it was basically a gift marks question :frown:
Anyone have the paper?
Hey guys for the neutron causing excitation question, I mentioned gamma radiation, and that it is seen in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fragments, how many marks do you think I'll get for this.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by FloydHead
For the turning points people, what did you all put for the very last question about travelling faster than light? I think I dropped marks on it, even though it was basically a gift marks question :frown:


As v --> c, m-->infinity (show equation as proof).
So kinetic energy tends to infinity, which is impossible to get.
Original post by Pinkhead
As v --> c, m-->infinity (show equation as proof).
So kinetic energy tends to infinity, which is impossible to get.


Yeah, I figured :/

I thought I was being dead clever in the exam, because it talked about exceeding the speed of light rather than approaching it, so I answered it by saying that if v>c , 1 - (v^2/c^2) is negative, so its square root is undefined. Do you reckon I'd get marks for that?

Also, nice name :P
Reply 1750
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one
Original post by FloydHead
Yeah, I figured :/

I thought I was being dead clever in the exam, because it talked about exceeding the speed of light rather than approaching it, so I answered it by saying that if v>c , 1 - (v^2/c^2) is negative, so its square root is undefined. Do you reckon I'd get marks for that?

Also, nice name :P


You actually might get a mark for that. There's technically nothing wrong with it since you used the equation to show that it isn't possible. You probably won't get the second one though since the same question in a legacy paper wanted a mention of kinetic energy.

:eek:
We have the best usernames on TSR :biggrin:
Original post by xrpred
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one


Yeah I noticed that, which means high boundaries :'(

Messed up some of Q1 and all of Q3 on paper A :/


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MSI_10
p1v1/t1 = p2v2/t2

You have all except v2 rearrange for that.. I also added the pressures up for p2 because it was other wise too small :\ (similar to the q from the specimen paper, look at it if you don't get why I did so)

After getting v, use m=d x v to get mass..


What answer did u get with this. I used a different method and worked out the moles which were 3.3 and times that by 0.048kgmol^-1 and my answer was 0.16kg
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 1754
Original post by sports_crazy
What answer did u get with this. I used a different method and worked out the moles which were 3.3 and times that by 0.048kgmol^-1 and my answer was 0.16


I got 4.2 :\ yeah you had to multiply by the kg per mol in prev question. I probs got the volume wrong
Original post by MSI_10
70 something.. Actually we might be right since some other peeps got the same on here.

Was the explanation simply because the focal length was longer?


Yeah.
Reply 1756
Original post by xrpred
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one
I'd say it was harder last years to be honest, apart from that 6 marker on flywheels. And that was 23/35 for an A
Original post by MSI_10
I got 4.2 :\ yeah you had to multiply by the kg per mol in prev question. I probs got the volume wrong

I might have done it wrong. I used the same volume because volume doesnot change unless you assume the volume is the cylinder+atmosphere. Assuming volume is same I got 3.3 mol and multiply with kgmol^-1
Ack, that feeling when you realize you misread the 6 mark question on the Section A paper. Ah well, maybe I will have scraped 1/2 marks by mentioning some safety procedures and factoring out the background counts per second. Otherwise I completely went off on a wild panicky tangent on it. I also didn't get the "Work out the Mass of the Gas" part; it seemed like a lot of people who took Chemistry in my class seemed to find that fine however. :frown: In addition, I completely blanked out on the Binding Energy calculation despite revising that topic quite a bit.

Otherwise, I found the paper quite sweet, especially the Astrophysics Option I did. Section A however, I could've done better in.
Reply 1759
guys for the first Q on binding energy i did it right apart from the fact THAT I FORGOT TO ADD THE ELECTRON THING so all 3 marks gone? wait was it 3 or 4 marks?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending