The Student Room Group

AQA Physics PHYA4 - Thursday 11th June 2015 [Exam Discussion Thread]

Scroll to see replies

Reply 2000
Original post by Leonacatherine
I did this? but I kept getting 9. something ?


[br]v=6.67×1011×1.99×10301.58×1011[br][br]v = \sqrt{\dfrac{6.67 \times 10^{-11} \times 1.99 \times 10^{30}}{1.58 \times 10^{11}}}[br]


Posted from TSR Mobile
13) Let subscripts p/s denote a property of the planet/star respectively.

gMr2g\propto \frac{M}{r^2}

gsgp=gs8=MsMp(rprs)2\therefore \frac{g_s}{g_p}=\frac{g_s}{8}=\frac{M_s}{M_p}(\frac{r_p}{r_s})^2.

Moreover, ρs=ρp\rho_s=\rho_p and ρMr2\rho \propto\frac{M}{r^2}, so:

ρpρs=1=MpMs(rsrp)3=1003MpMs\frac{\rho_p}{\rho_s}=1=\frac{M_p}{M_s}(\frac{r_s}{r_p})^3=100^3\frac{M_p}{M_s}, since we are given that ds=100dpd_s=100d_p, and drd\propto r.

Solving this last equation we have MsMp=1003\frac{M_s}{M_p}=100^3 and plugging into the previous equation we get gs8=100311002=100\frac{g_s}{8}=100^3\cdot \frac{1}{100^2}=100, therefore gs=800Nkg1g_s=800\text{Nkg}^{-1}.

Edit: Sorry about the latex, I did try it's just that the latex on this site really needs fixing up.

Edit2: Removed \left and \right
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PotterPhysics
13) Let subscripts p/s denote a property of the planet/start respectively.

gMr2g\propto \frac{M}{r^2}

gsgp=gs8=MsMp(rprs)2\therefore \frac{g_s}{g_p}=\frac{g_s}{8}=\frac{M_s}{M_p}\left(\frac{r_p}{r_s}\right)^2.

Moreover, ρs=ρp\rho_s=\rho_p and ρMr2\rho \propto\frac{M}{r^2}, so:

ρpρs=1=MpMs(rsrp)3=1003MpMs\frac{\rho_p}{\rho_s}=1=\frac{M_p}{M_s}\left(\frac{r_s}{r_p}\right)^3=100^3\frac{M_p}{M_s}, since we are given that ds=100dpd_s=100d_p, and drd\propto r.

Solving this last equation we have MsMp=1003\frac{M_s}{M_p}=100^3 and plugging into the previous equation we get gs8=100311002=100\frac{g_s}{8}=100^3\cdot \frac{1}{100^2}=100, therefore gs=800Nkg1g_s=800\text{Nkg}^{-1}.


Edit: Sorry about the latex, I did try it's just that the latex on this site really needs fixing up.

13 was fine haha it was 14 i was after :smile:
Original post by Leonacatherine
I dont follow your answer :frown:
I understand this bit
so .

up to the square root but dont get how youve introduced t and another m?

It's just the appalling latex on this site, I didn't introduce any t.
Reply 2004
Original post by Leonacatherine
13 was fine haha it was 14 i was after :smile:


Kinetic energy and speed are inversely proportional to radius (and radius squared) respectively (the closer the body to the surface of a planet, the greater its KE and greater it's speed).

Potential energy and time period (squared) are proportional to the radius (and radius cubed) respectively (the closer the body to the surface of a planet, the smaller it's PE and shorter its time period).

The radius of Q is 3 times the radius of P.

This follows that the only possible correct option is A, using the above reasoning.





Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Leonacatherine
13 was fine haha it was 14 i was after :smile:

You wrote 13 -- I've just deleted my answer to 14 because CD's answer is better (more instructive).
Original post by CD223
Kinetic energy and speed are inversely proportional to radius (and radius squared) respectively (the closer the body to the surface of a planet, the greater its KE and greater it's speed).

Potential energy and time period (squared) are proportional to the radius (and radius cubed) respectively (the closer the body to the surface of a planet, the smaller it's PE and shorter its time period).

The radius of Q is 3 times the radius of P.

This follows that the only possible correct option is A, using the above reasoning.





Posted from TSR Mobile


See i thought! But if ke = 1/2 mv^2 and v =2 x pi x radius x frequency then wouldnt ke increase with radius according to that equation?
On second thoughts here's an alternative to 14.

14) Since the masses are the same, Ekv2E_k\propto v^2 and v21rv^2\propto \frac{1}{r}. Therefore Ek1rE_k\propto \frac{1}{r}. It follows that Ek(P)Ek(Q)=rqrp=3\frac{E_{k(P)}}{E_{k(Q)}}=\frac{r_q}{r_p}=3, Ek(P)=3Ek(Q)>Ek(Q)\therefore E_{k(P)}=3E_{k(Q)}>E_{k(Q)}. So the answer is A.
Original post by PotterPhysics
On second thoughts here's an alternative to 14.

14) Since the masses are the same, Ekv2E_k\propto v^2 and v21rv^2\propto \frac{1}{r}. Therefore Ek1rE_k\propto \frac{1}{r}. It follows that Ek(P)Ek(Q)=rqrp=3\frac{E_{k(P)}}{E_{k(Q)}}=\frac{r_q}{r_p}=3, Ek(P)=3Ek(Q)>Ek(Q)\therefore E_{k(P)}=3E_{k(Q)}>E_{k(Q)}. So the answer is A.


i dont get how is v squared proportional to 1/r ? which equation is this from
Ive only just realised I'm talking to two different people! haha Potterphysics and cd223 are such brainboxes I merged them into one person lol!
Original post by Leonacatherine
i dont get how is v squared proportional to 1/r ? which equation is this from

v=GMrv21rv=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}\rightarrow v^2\propto \frac{1}{r}.
Original post by PotterPhysics
v=GMrv21rv=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}\rightarrow v^2\propto \frac{1}{r}.


Ohhhhhh! So youre talking about potential! Sorry the lower case v is normally velocity I'm with you now! And i get why i cant use the 1/2 mv^2 because they arent in a uniform field so I need to use the radial equations right?

Thanks so much for all your help really appreciate it :smile:
Original post by Leonacatherine
Ohhhhhh! So youre talking about potential! Sorry the lower case v is normally velocity I'm with you now!

Absolutely not! :smile:

v is velocity -- the equation is derived from the fact that centripetal force=gravitational attraction\text{centripetal force}=\text{gravitational attraction} for an object undergoing circular motion about a mass due to the gravitational pull of the mass. Therefore mv2r=GMmr2\frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{GMm}{r^2} giving v=GMrv=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}.

Edit: I should add that Ekv2E_k\propto v^2 is from Ek=12mv2v2E_k=\frac{1}{2}mv^2\propto v^2 (because, as I said, the m's are the same for both satellites).
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 2013
Original post by Leonacatherine
Ive only just realised I'm talking to two different people! haha Potterphysics and cd223 are such brainboxes I merged them into one person lol!


Lol I'm really not :wink:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by PotterPhysics
Absolutely not! :smile:

v is velocity -- the equation is derived from the fact that centripetal force=gravitational attraction\text{centripetal force}=\text{gravitational attraction} for an object undergoing circular motion about a mass due to the gravitational pull of the mass. Therefore mv2r=GMmr2\frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{GMm}{r^2} giving v=GMrv=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}.

Edit: I should add that Ekv2E_k\propto v^2 is from Ek=12mv2v2E_k=\frac{1}{2}mv^2\propto v^2 (because, as I said, the m's are the same for both satellites).


oh gosh
right so to put it simply by equating the centripetal force to the gravitational force v^2 is inversely proportional to r so Ek is too. if Ek is inversely proportional to r a larger radius will have a smaller Ek so it has to be A
And last question for anyone out there who understands
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-PHYA4-2-QP-JUN12.PDF
question 4biii
didnt really understand the mark scheme on that one
Reply 2016
Original post by Leonacatherine
And last question for anyone out there who understands
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-PHYA4-2-QP-JUN12.PDF
question 4biii
didnt really understand the mark scheme on that one


The formula for gravitational potential is:

[br]V=()GMr[br][br]V = (-) \dfrac{GM}{r}[br]

All the mark scheme is saying is that:

the distance from the Earth to the Sun is much greater than the distance from the Earth to the Moon
As such, the change in potential due to the sun is negligible over the distance travelled between the earth and the moon
The relative movement of the moon around the earth and the rotation of earth about its axis is so small compared to the distances considered, that the Suns potential can be ignored when working out the change in potential from Earth to point X in order to work out the energy required


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by CD223
The formula for gravitational potential is:

[br]V=()GMr[br][br]V = (-) \dfrac{GM}{r}[br]

All the mark scheme is saying is that:

the distance from the Earth to the Sun is much greater than the distance from the Earth to the Moon
As such, the change in potential due to the sun is negligible over the distance travelled between the earth and the moon
The relative movement of the moon around the earth and the rotation of earth about its axis is so small compared to the distances considered, that the Suns potential can be ignored when working out the change in potential from Earth to point X in order to work out the energy required


Posted from TSR Mobile

Gotcha! Perfect thank you :smile:
I always get so stressed when I'm marking these but the grade boundaries are so low! ends up fine haha
Reply 2018
Original post by Leonacatherine
Gotcha! Perfect thank you :smile:
I always get so stressed when I'm marking these but the grade boundaries are so low! ends up fine haha


Yeah the papers are hard. Physics is hard in general haha!


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Leonacatherine
And last question for anyone out there who understands
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-PHYA4-2-QP-JUN12.PDF
question 4biii
didnt really understand the mark scheme on that one


X is the point where GM/r² is zero. You can imagine it to be a see saw. At the middle of the see saw there is no movement, but as I etch forwards towards the moon, I begin to tip towards it just as I pass the centre. This is due to being attracted to it as the gravitational field strength for the moon now exceeds the earth's field. I hope that makes sense


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending