Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mango88)
    What does everyone think the grade boundaries will be like?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would hope that they're lower than usual but since that was a pretty standard paper, maybe normal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    I would hope that they're lower than usual but since that was a pretty standard paper, maybe normal.
    Praying for lower ones since I made so many stupid mistakes 😭


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    Did you see the mark scheme for C2? That definitely has all the correct answers so you'll want to check that out if you haven't already before deciding anything.

    Yeah, C2 was very nice but it was especially hard not to make silly mistakes this year; I and and many others made silly mistakes (although by complete chance I managed to correct them ). Oh and the last question seemed to catch a lot more people than I expected it would (but WJEC suddenly think we care about random people's land for some reason? Sheep farming, gardening, maybe we'll see a lumberjack in S1? XD)

    You come across as very good at chemistry based on your posts, so I thought you'd have done very well on the paper! What caught you out then, or was it just silly mistakes? Don't worry if that's the case, because I made quite a few more than I usually do too.
    Well in the actual CH1 paper, nothing really 'caught me out', until I walked out the exam hall and my friends started negotiating it. It turns out the graph question showed us the yield of NO (which I knew), and when they asked us about why the reaction took place at 900 degrees C, I went blank. It turns out that the desired product isn't even NO, so 900 degrees C is to maximise yield of whatever their desired product was. It was only 2 marks and my failure to read the question led to that loss.
    The temperature rise threw me completely, I drew in my line of best fit to get a temp rise of 8. Which is definitely incorrect. All my calculations are based on that, I'm assuming worst case scenarios that I wont get ECF. It puts me in a very worrying position. I went completely blank on Molar Mass definition (idek how), which is only a mark, but still.
    I don't really know what to think of that CH1 paper tbh. Not to mention grade boundaries should be relatively higher due to the promising 4 markers such as Green Chemistry & Hydrogen Emission spectrum
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Well in the actual CH1 paper, nothing really 'caught me out', until I walked out the exam hall and my friends started negotiating it. It turns out the graph question showed us the yield of NO (which I knew), and when they asked us about why the reaction took place at 900 degrees C, I went blank. It turns out that the desired product isn't even NO, so 900 degrees C is to maximise yield of whatever their desired product was. It was only 2 marks and my failure to read the question led to that loss.
    The temperature rise threw me completely, I drew in my line of best fit to get a temp rise of 8. Which is definitely incorrect. All my calculations are based on that, I'm assuming worst case scenarios that I wont get ECF. It puts me in a very worrying position. I went completely blank on Molar Mass definition (idek how), which is only a mark, but still.
    I don't really know what to think of that CH1 paper tbh. Not to mention grade boundaries should be relatively higher due to the promising 4 markers such as Green Chemistry & Hydrogen Emission spectrum
    What??? The desired product wasn't NO??? That's it, I've screwed up this exam.
    My temp. rise thing was ALMOST correct but I had to change to graphs to fit my temp. rise that I had measure wrong (since I couldn't just change all my calculations). So even though it was almost correct I probably got the same marks as a person who put 2 for the temp. rise.
    I came out of that thinking that the majority of the paper was easy but now I realise that I've messed up a lot of questions.
    That emission spectrum question was fine, EXCEPT for when they asked why the energy levels become closer together. I looked that fact up before the exam during revision and after the exam and I still don't know why.
    Oh well, just gotta do well in CH2 .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully CH2 won't be too bad


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    What??? The desired product wasn't NO??? That's it, I've screwed up this exam.
    My temp. rise thing was ALMOST correct but I had to change to graphs to fit my temp. rise that I had measure wrong (since I couldn't just change all my calculations). So even though it was almost correct I probably got the same marks as a person who put 2 for the temp. rise.
    I came out of that thinking that the majority of the paper was easy but now I realise that I've messed up a lot of questions.
    That emission spectrum question was fine, EXCEPT for when they asked why the energy levels become closer together. I looked that fact up before the exam during revision and after the exam and I still don't know why.
    Oh well, just gotta do well in CH2 .
    Apparently so, which makes sense because the majority of people who answered the question on the 900 degrees C found themselves under contradiction (including me), it would make sense that they weren't looking to create NO but the graph simply states it's yield.

    In the hydrogen emission question, they asked why the lines in the spectrum get closer together. That would be due to the energy levels getting closer together the further away from the nucleus you get, wouldn't it? That's what I wrote anyway.

    Tbh, my friends in 2nd year have told me that CH2 is easier to gain an A in provided you have learned everything, it's nothing more than a memory test. They also said you can suffice with a B in CH1, considering you do well in CH2 and that your CH3 coursework should be near to full marks anyway.

    There is still hope
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When balancing the equation would it be okay if I wrote 2,2,(blank) 3? Or would you have to write 1 in the blank space?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HG_07)
    When balancing the equation would it be okay if I wrote 2,2,(blank) 3? Or would you have to write 1 in the blank space?
    That should be fine I think


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Phew, one mark in the bag haha!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Apparently so, which makes sense because the majority of people who answered the question on the 900 degrees C found themselves under contradiction (including me), it would make sense that they weren't looking to create NO but the graph simply states it's yield.

    In the hydrogen emission question, they asked why the lines in the spectrum get closer together. That would be due to the energy levels getting closer together the further away from the nucleus you get, wouldn't it? That's what I wrote anyway.

    Tbh, my friends in 2nd year have told me that CH2 is easier to gain an A in provided you have learned everything, it's nothing more than a memory test. They also said you can suffice with a B in CH1, considering you do well in CH2 and that your CH3 coursework should be near to full marks anyway.

    There is still hope
    Oh my god, I thought they were asking why the energy levels got closer, not why the lines got closer!! I hope I mentioned that the energy levels got closer...
    Yeah I've noticed that CH2 can be ridiculously easy once you know your notes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mango88)
    That should be fine I think


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's actually better to leave it blank, generally.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah that's what I thought so left it blank
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Was the catalyst heterogenous or homogenous?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ser_)
    Was the catalyst heterogenous or homogenous?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Heterogeneous. The catalyst was platinum/rubidium I believe, which is solid as opposed to the reactants ammonia and oxygen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Apparently so, which makes sense because the majority of people who answered the question on the 900 degrees C found themselves under contradiction (including me), it would make sense that they weren't looking to create NO but the graph simply states it's yield.

    In the hydrogen emission question, they asked why the lines in the spectrum get closer together. That would be due to the energy levels getting closer together the further away from the nucleus you get, wouldn't it? That's what I wrote anyway.

    Tbh, my friends in 2nd year have told me that CH2 is easier to gain an A in provided you have learned everything, it's nothing more than a memory test. They also said you can suffice with a B in CH1, considering you do well in CH2 and that your CH3 coursework should be near to full marks anyway.

    There is still hope
    Oh, I've just realised that the desired product must have been NO. The reaction was ammonia + oxygen --> nitric oxide (NO) + water. I mean, clearly water can't be the desired product?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    Oh, I've just realised that the desired product must have been NO. The reaction was ammonia + oxygen --> nitric oxide (NO) + water. I mean, clearly water can't be the desired product?
    You know, if you're right. You'll be my hero!!

    If we could get the hold of the paper we could tell, but I can't remember what the exact reaction was. But my friends said that they gave us the equation in such a form that the desired products was actually on the reactants end because it's a reversible reaction. Might that mean they were looking to make ammonia? (if ammonia was the reactant)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    You know, if you're right. You'll be my hero!!

    If we could get the hold of the paper we could tell, but I can't remember what the exact reaction was. But my friends said that they gave us the equation in such a form that the desired products was actually on the reactants end because it's a reversible reaction. Might that mean they were looking to make ammonia? (if ammonia was the reactant)
    Pretty sure the question said yield of NO
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Questioner1234)
    Pretty sure the question said yield of NO
    Tbf i didn't read the question properly. I'm sure it showed us a graph of the yield of NO. But does that necessarily mean that they were looking for the yield of NO?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    You know, if you're right. You'll be my hero!!

    If we could get the hold of the paper we could tell, but I can't remember what the exact reaction was. But my friends said that they gave us the equation in such a form that the desired products was actually on the reactants end because it's a reversible reaction. Might that mean they were looking to make ammonia? (if ammonia was the reactant)
    I looked it up, apparently NO "is an important intermediate in the chemical industry." So the ammonia + oxygen reaction must have been an intermediate reaction for something else, with NO the desired product.
    Also, when the question says 'the' reaction, they mean the forward reaction, so I'm pretty certain that nitric oxide was the desired product.

    EDIT: It's 100% definitely production of NO. I looked up the Ostwald process and their aim is to make nitric acid by making NO as an intermediate first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Apparently so, which makes sense because the majority of people who answered the question on the 900 degrees C found themselves under contradiction (including me), it would make sense that they weren't looking to create NO but the graph simply states it's yield.

    In the hydrogen emission question, they asked why the lines in the spectrum get closer together. That would be due to the energy levels getting closer together the further away from the nucleus you get, wouldn't it? That's what I wrote anyway.

    Tbh, my friends in 2nd year have told me that CH2 is easier to gain an A in provided you have learned everything, it's nothing more than a memory test. They also said you can suffice with a B in CH1, considering you do well in CH2 and that your CH3 coursework should be near to full marks anyway.

    There is still hope
    I thought the product was NO but you needed a high temp (900) to compromise between rate of reaction and the direction of the reaction? ?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 14, 2015

2,715

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.