The Student Room Group

AQA Physics PHYA5 - Thursday 18th June 2015 [Exam Discussion Thread]

Scroll to see replies

Anyone got a link for the old spec past papers?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 1001
Original post by BoigaDendrophila
Anyone got a link for the old spec past papers?


Posted from TSR Mobile


They're in the first post :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile
What does it mean by certain radioactive isotopes are easier to screen? Where can I find information on this in the nelson thornes book
Original post by AR_95
What does it mean by certain radioactive isotopes are easier to screen? Where can I find information on this in the nelson thornes book

I assume it's referring to the various penetrating powers (of alpha, beta +-, gamma) of the radioactive emissions. For example, alpha would be easier to screen than gamma because alpha has a lower penetrating power.
Reply 1004
Original post by AR_95
What does it mean by certain radioactive isotopes are easier to screen? Where can I find information on this in the nelson thornes book


Original post by PotterPhysics
I assume it's referring to the various penetrating powers (of alpha, beta +-, gamma) of the radioactive emissions. For example, alpha would be easier to screen than gamma because alpha has a lower penetrating power.


Yeah screening is an alternative to "shielding" :smile:

Hence why lead aprons are often worn etc.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by CD223
Yeah screening is an alternative to "shielding" :smile:

Hence why lead aprons are often worn etc.


Posted from TSR Mobile

That makes sense.

In the cgp book it says that a nuclear reactor is surrounded by a thick concrete casing which acts as a shield. Nuclear fission produces gamma radiation. On another page, it says that gamma radiation can be blocked by several meters of concrete. Does that mean nuclear reactors are cased in several meters of concrete?! (Edit: What I was thinking is it would be more practical (due to size considerations, etc.) to use a lead casing, as then it would only be a few cm thick.)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by CD223
Does anyone know when you do and don't you take into account the mass of a particle/atom when considering binding energy? Is it when they're on their own? Ie: 1 electron/neutron/proton?


Posted from TSR Mobile


You can't have a binding energy between 1 thing. I considered a hadron comprised of quarks but they can't be classed as binding energy due to gluons and whatnot, anyway, tangent.
The binding energy is the energy required to break up a nucleus into its consistent protons and neutrons. Hence, the mass difference times is the binding energy. We always account for the mass for a particle. It's important to note for these questions you use the different masses for the proton and neutron unless otherwise stated (as the 3rd decimal place is important). If a particle is solitary binding energy=0 as it cannot be broken down further :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Funny enough I was talking about the topic yesterday but...


How am I supposed to work out the mass of the left hand side ffs

EDIT :
Nevermind I didn't realise it was in the data sheet
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AR_95
Funny enough I was talking about the topic yesterday but...


How am I supposed to work out the mass of the left hand side ffs

EDIT :
Nevermind I didn't realise it was in the data sheet

Energy is released from the nucleus so we only need to consider nuclear mass. Nuclear mass of left hand side is just 4 times the mass of a hydrogen nucleus, that is, 4 times the mass of a proton, i.e. 4u. This is because a lone proton doesn't have any mass defect.

Regarding edit: Is my answer incorrect?

Oh wait, yes, sorry. The proton rest mass isn't exactly 1u, we have to take it up to 5 decimal places since that is what the He one is given to. Silly oversight :redface:
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PotterPhysics
Energy is released from the nucleus so we only need to consider nuclear mass. Nuclear mass of left hand side is just 4 times the mass of a hydrogen nucleus, that is, 4 times the mass of a proton, i.e. 4u. This is because a lone proton doesn't have any mass defect.

Regarding edit: Is my answer incorrect?


4u yes but you're not supposed to consider it as 4u. I realised it was 4 protons beforehand, but I couldn't find anywhere that the mass of proton = 1.00728U which is usually given in these types of questions. After a while and constant staring at the formula sheet, I found that the mass (1.00728u) for proton is actually in the list of all the constants (it's just under proton rest mass). The same is given for neutron and electron which is quite frankly wonderful
Original post by AR_95
Funny enough I was talking about the topic yesterday but...


How am I supposed to work out the mass of the left hand side ffs


Assume that the electron neutrino has zero mass.
u is a constant. It would be wise to convert to kg for simplicity.
u=1.661x10^-27
Mass after=(4.00150u=6.646915x10-27kg)+2(9.11x10-31)
Mass before=4(1.673x10-27)
change in mass=4.3263x10-29
E=mc^2
E=3.89367x10-12J
Converting to electron Volts is to divide by the magnitude charge of the electron (1.60x10-19)
In MeV=24.34MeV
(edited 8 years ago)
It took so long for me to type I didn't see you'd solved :tongue:
Btw I saw and have done most of the past papers from the "OLD PPQ's" link, however I did see some people mentioning 2002/2003 questions. where are these from?
Original post by Amanzz
Assume that the electron neutrino has zero mass.
u is a constant. It would be wise to convert to kg for simplicity.
u=1.661x10^-27
Mass after=(4.00150u=6.646915x10-27kg)+2(9.11x10-31)
Mass before=4(1.673x10-27)
change in mass=4.3263x10-29
E=mc^2
E=3.89367x10-12J
Converting to electron Volts is to divide by the magnitude charge of the electron (1.60x10-19)
In MeV=24.34MeV


I always knew how to do the question. My only problem (a small one) was finding the value of Mp (mass of proton in U) which I found was given on the formula sheet

Your way of doing it brings you close to the final answer but it wouldn't of been accepted in the mark scheme, which specifies 24.7 MeV

The way I did it/mark scheme suggested was

(4x1.00728u) - [ (4.00150u) + ( 2 x 5.4x10^-4u)

Which gave a remainder of 0.02652 u
Simply multiplying it by 931.3 gives 24.69 IE 24.7

I think you'd get 1 or 2 marks for the right method though
(edited 8 years ago)
Do we use 931.3MeVu^-1 (as given in teh cgp book) or 931.5MeVu^-1 (as given in the aqa data booklet)? I'm thinking the latter but everyone uses 931.3...
Also guys I just want reassurance. Heard a dreadful rumour from my teacher last year that they weren't giving you an equations sheet in the exam this year? Is that even remotely true?
Original post by PotterPhysics
Do we use 931.3MeVu^-1 (as given in teh cgp book) or 931.5MeVu^-1 (as given in the aqa data booklet)? I'm thinking the latter but everyone uses 931.3...


Oh wow, I didn't even realise this haha. The mark scheme for that question included 931.5 initially, but in brackets next to it said allow 931.3. In this question using both values you still end up rounding to 24.7 so it wouldn't have mattered. I think both are just as acceptable but I'll keep an eye out from now on, on what they prefer.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AR_95
Also guys I just want reassurance. Heard a dreadful rumour from my teacher last year that they weren't giving you an equations sheet in the exam this year? Is that even remotely true?

I highly doubt it they would suddenly change the data booklet when the specification is the same. Perhaps he was referring to next year's new spec?
Original post by AR_95
Also guys I just want reassurance. Heard a dreadful rumour from my teacher last year that they weren't giving you an equations sheet in the exam this year? Is that even remotely true?


Nope, completely wrong. They may be removing them or decreasing how much is on them for the new syllabus (I've heard rumours), but nothing to affect us.
Reply 1019
Original post by PotterPhysics
That makes sense.

In the cgp book it says that a nuclear reactor is surrounded by a thick concrete casing which acts as a shield. Nuclear fission produces gamma radiation. On another page, it says that gamma radiation can be blocked by several meters of concrete. Does that mean nuclear reactors are cased in several meters of concrete?! (Edit: What I was thinking is it would be more practical (due to size considerations, etc.) to use a lead casing, as then it would only be a few cm thick.)


Yeah they use concrete.

Purely due to structural engineering it's less practical to use lead due to container fatigue etc.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending