The Student Room Group

Edexcel - M3 - 18th May 2016

Scroll to see replies

Original post by BBeyond
June 12 4b what a horrible q such retarded angles


It's a throwback to m2 which is a severe problem for me as i was pretty **** at them at the time and that was a year ago...
Original post by physicsmaths
I can't think of one using normal principles. It uses FP3 the ideas I am thinking of.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I did FP3 last year and remember some of it lol. Can you explain more?
Original post by physicsmaths
I can't think of one using normal principles. It uses FP3 the ideas I am thinking of.


Posted from TSR Mobile


You can do it with a hemisphere of radius r+delta r - one of radius r but it's ugly
Original post by TheFarmerLad
When calculating the time in SHM between two points, remember to use x=Acos(wt) if the particle starts at the amplitude position and vice versa, use x = Asin(wt) if it starts at the equilibrium position. And always make sure x is the displacement from the origin (I sometimes make the mistake in thinking that it's the displacement from where the particle starts the SHM (which is usually the amplitude) but it's always from the origin!!).


I know but the mark scheme gives -1= 4sin pi/6 times t
However sin pi/6 = 1/2 which means t should equal to -1/2 but the markscheme says t= -0.482
Original post by BBeyond
June 12 4b what a horrible q such retarded angles


Haha yeh no nice numbers but still resulted in a nice k.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JustDynamite
I know but the mark scheme gives -1= 4sin pi/6 times t
However sin pi/6 = 1/2 which means t should equal to -1/2 but the markscheme says t= -0.482


sin(pi/6 x t) not sin(pi/6) xt
Original post by samb1234
You can do it with a hemisphere of radius r+delta r - one of radius r but it's ugly


Ah yes that should do it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by physicsmaths
Haha yeh no nice numbers but still resulted in a nice k.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?

Original post by samb1234
It's a throwback to m2 which is a severe problem for me as i was pretty **** at them at the time and that was a year ago...


Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to
Original post by BBeyond
Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?



Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to


I actually got one in my exam but luckily had done so much practice that i was just about able to get through it
Original post by BBeyond
Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?



Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to


i did moments
Original post by physicsmaths
i did moments


Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)
Original post by Krollo
Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)


It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


Posted from TSR Mobile
hmm anyone done M3 Jan 16 (no spoilers to follow)? My friend asked about a method about q7 earlier and it makes sense to me but isnt covered on the markscheme. Could anyone verify this?
Original post by EnglishMuon
hmm anyone done M3 Jan 16 (no spoilers to follow)? My friend asked about a method about q7 earlier and it makes sense to me but isnt covered on the markscheme. Could anyone verify this?


That was the paper I sat, Q7 seemed like a normal typical circular motions question. :dontknow:
Original post by Zacken
That was the paper I sat, Q7 seemed like a normal typical circular motions question. :dontknow:


ah nice. Yea it seems the same to me but

Spoiler

When calculating moments, do the forces have to be perpendicular to the length of the rod?
Original post by Krollo
Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)


It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by EnglishMuon
ah nice. Yea it seems the same to me but

Spoiler



Spoiler

Original post by physicsmaths
It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Ty bro.
Anyone know if Arsey does M3 model answers?

Quick Reply