Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Official OCR New Spec AS Level Physics: Depth in physics - 9th of May

Scroll to see replies

I have no idea how that exam went... I answered all but one question but wasn't too sure about some of my answered as I just wrote whatever came to mind, hate that feeling :/

Reply 161

yelash

Original post by NickC98

I have no idea how that exam went... I answered all but one question but wasn't too sure about some of my answered as I just wrote whatever came to mind, hate that feeling :/

Yep that pretty much sums it up for me XD

Reply 162

jtmass22

Original post by Parhomus

The X axis was x10^-3 so when u divide it becomes what u see

the 6.25 is right. the 10^-3 was not in the unit and so you find a gradient for L^2/10^-3 against R, as by dividng by 10^-3 you arent finding the gradient of the line

Reply 163

Digimon304

Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

& for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?

Reply 164

jtmass22

Original post by Digimon304

Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

& for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?

4.1% as it was l^2

Reply 165

dodgewc25

Only one I'm u certain about was describing the experiment for breaking stress of the wire. What did you guys get for that??

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 166

sen99

i got 4.6 for the gradient

Reply 167

h3rmit

Original post by jtmass22

the 6.25 is right. the 10^-3 was not in the unit and so you find a gradient for L^2/10^-3 against R, as by dividng by 10^-3 you arent finding the gradient of the line

No. Think about the experiment for the Planck's constant using LEDs. If you use x10^14 on the freq axis, then find h without multiplying by 10^14, your answer will be wrong, fam

Original post by Digimon304

Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

& for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?

I got 1.02%, to the nearest millimeter means +/- 0.5 mm

Reply 168

amylazze

Original post by Digimon304

Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

& for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?

yep I got 2%

Reply 169

Parhomus

Original post by Digimon304

Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

& for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?

I got 4.08 since it was l^2 so I multiplied by 2

Reply 170

Digimon304

Doesn't squaring a value double the percentage uncertainty and cubing would be multiply by 3?

Reply 171

Parhomus

Original post by h3rmit

No. Think about the experiment for the Planck's constant using LEDs. If you use x10^14 on the freq axis, then find h without multiplying by 10^14, your answer will be wrong, fam

I got 1.02%, to the nearest millimeter means +/- 0.5 mm

I think ocr said both were acceptable since there was a lot of discrepancy in textbooks

Reply 172

Parhomus

Original post by Digimon304

Doesn't squaring a value double the percentage uncertainty and cubing would be multiply by 3?

YEs

Reply 173

amylazze

Original post by Parhomus

I got 4.08 since it was l^2 so I multiplied by 2

did you do (0.0005/reading)x2x100

Reply 174

Parhomus

Original post by amywynn

did you do (0.0005/reading)x2x100

I did 0.001 but both are acceptable apparently

Reply 175

geo_sharrock

What were peoples points for the 6 mark on the photoelectric effect?

Reply 176

Rachy128

Original post by sen99

i got 4.6 for the gradient

Same but I think I had x10^3 on the end since for the x-axis values it was x10^-3?

Reply 177

maryamkhawaja

What did you guys write for the stress experiment? Same setup as youngs modulus. Using force over area, so no extension and stuff?

And dat photoelectric effect question? I kept writing the same stuff over xD

Reply 178

voltz

Original post by Parhomus

Oh I got 5.5 x 10^3

I belive I got 5.6 x 10^3, and 0.100 for the bit about finding the resistivity...? Did you get something similar for that?

Reply 179

Parhomus

Original post by geo_sharrock

What were peoples points for the 6 mark on the photoelectric effect?

Threshold frequency; so it showed that it was a particle as there is no way of explaining this phenomena with the wave like nature of EM radiation. Also explained it talking about how if it was explainable using the wavelike nature then continuous energy stored would eventually lead to electron emission and so the leaf would fall, but obviously it didn't. Also talked about how the intensity doesn't affect the time taken for the radiation below the threshold frequency showing the previous contradiction. Then I said that the fact that the leaf falls faster when intensity increases for uv shows the particulate nature as it means there are more photons per m^2 and so more photons for the one-to-one ratio >>>electrons escape faster so it falls faster.