Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeStinks)
    I was thinking that too but then I thought that it said briefly change orbit, so I wasn't sure if that could be classed as temporary.

    How did you find the paper on the whole?
    I thught June's paper in which there were TWO marks for Brownian motion was cruel, but FOUR!? That was ridiculous in my opinion. However, I though the rest of the aper was nice, I did however get the KWh definition wrong . Was that one Mark or two?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    I thught June's paper in which there were TWO marks for Brownian motion was cruel, but FOUR!? That was ridiculous in my opinion. However, I though the rest of the aper was nice, I did however get the KWh definition wrong . Was that one Mark or two?
    was only one but thankfully got the next one £1.41 i hope!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swond03)
    Seriously though after about 15 mins i was checking the front of the paper to make sure it was Newtonian, it was hardly what i've been studying since September
    This

    I feel like I wasted so long covering all the content actually in the unit...I know you had to sometimes apply things learnt from AS but seriously?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sc0307)
    was only one but thankfully got the next one £1.41 i hope!!
    Me too but the Brownina motion! What did you put for the first and second parts of that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don't mean to be pedantic, but was the speed of nitrogen roughly 449.something.

    I take it people rounded off.

    I did my version a very long way.

    I combined 3/2KT with .5mv^2, making T the subject.

    Found T, then used it in the next equation where V was the subject.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    Me too but the Brownina motion! What did you put for the first and second parts of that?
    For the observing question i put that it shows that the smoke particles move in random direction with different velocities.

    for the next 4 marker i think it was, i put that the air molecules are smaller than smoke particles and collide with the smoke particles, this shows that they also move and collide with each other randomly at different velocities...something like that, i wasn't sure what else there was to mention for 4 marks! Damn OCR
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharleyChester)
    Not gonna lie, saw the helicopter through the front of the exam paper and my first thought was: fml.
    :rofl: SAME!

    Ahh im laughing now, will be crying later Although im mostly laughing at how long I spent revising for this and this is what happens..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    can people please post a mark scheme of this if they can..it will be really appreciated and it will help everyone a great deal! as we are all losing our mind over the SHm and many more qsns!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masderchef)
    Don't mean to be pedantic, but was the speed of nitrogen roughly 449.something.

    I take it people rounded off.

    I did my version a very long way.

    I combined 3/2KT with .5mv^2, making T the subject.

    Found T, then used it in the next equation where V was the subject.
    It was 450 exactly, you're forgetting that the temperature was the same with both gasses, there was no need to equate it to 1.5kt, just 0.5mv^2= 0.5mu^2... Youll have got the less perfect answer in using an approximation for k perhaps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masderchef)
    Don't mean to be pedantic, but was the speed of nitrogen roughly 449.something.

    I take it people rounded off.

    I did my version a very long way.

    I combined 3/2KT with .5mv^2, making T the subject.

    Found T, then used it in the next equation where V was the subject.
    I did that too, but I can't remember if my answer matched yours. Pretty confident there's an easier method that I missed out on!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The way i did it was i guessed a temperature cos they said it was at room temperaure which i assumed to be 25 C which is 298 K, the standard temperature in chemistry lol.

    I then combined the two equations to get 3/2kT=1/2mv^2 to find the velocity of O2, i got it to be something like 470ms-1

    Do you think I'll get any marks for this??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    It was 450 exactly, you're forgetting that the temperature was the same with both gasses, there was no need to equate it to 1.5kt, just 0.5mv^2= 0.5mu^2... Youll have got the less perfect answer in using an approximation for k perhaps.
    surely full marks right?

    I must have rounded my intermediates to at least 5 sig figs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    I thught June's paper in which there were TWO marks for Brownian motion was cruel, but FOUR!? That was ridiculous in my opinion. However, I though the rest of the aper was nice, I did however get the KWh definition wrong . Was that one Mark or two?
    This paper had it's ups and downs. It's downs were very cruel though.

    The KWh defin. bit I got wrong too. I think it was because when I read the question I was like...'WTF why is this here? What kind of paper is this? Why should I know this when it's obviously AS stuff..'. So I can understand why I wasn't in the right state of mind.

    Synoptic my bum!

    And the def. was 1 mark so don't worry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masderchef)
    surely full marks right?

    I must have rounded my intermediates to at least 5 sig figs.
    I think that you adding the EXTRA working of making up a temperature makes it more difficult, and as you got the same answer... One'd hope that the examiner would see your method was more complicated so give you the marks anyway, unless they take one away for an incorrect method in assuming a temperature? Depends on the mood of the examiner probably . Sad but true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeStinks)
    This paper had it's ups and downs. It's downs were very cruel though.

    The KWh defin. bit I got wrong too. I think it was because when I read the question I was like...'WTF why is this here? What kind of paper is this? Why should I know this when it's obviously AS stuff..'. So I can understand why I wasn't in the right state of mind.

    Synoptic my bum!

    And the def. was 1 mark so don't worry.
    I thought the helicopter question took time to think about. It wasn't exactly a normal mechanics question.

    "Newtonian World"? More like "Physics: All Aspects of".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    I think that you adding the EXTRA working of making up a temperature makes it more difficult, and as you got the same answer... One'd hope that the examiner would see your method was more complicated so give you the marks anyway, unless they take one away for an incorrect method in assuming a temperature? Depends on the mood of the examiner probably . Sad but true.
    The temperature wasn't made up.

    I used V^2=3KT/m.

    I appreciate temp can essentially be disregarded in this context but the temp isn't an assumption, it's fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rob...)
    I thought the helicopter question took time to think about. It wasn't exactly a normal mechanics question.

    "Newtonian World"? More like "Physics: All Aspects of".
    Very true, but I'm getting the feeling that OCR are trying to be the unpredictable exam board.

    Jan 10 had a projectile question that had no correlation to Newtonian world. Even my teacher was confused as to why they put a mechanics question in this paper.

    I guess now I have to be prepared for absolutely anything in the june exam.

    Well hopefully the grade boundaries will be sympathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At first it seems like a really hard paper but I'm sure if we look back at it in a weeks time we will realise that it was asking relatively easy questions and most of the paper was number crunching. Saying that, the June 2010 paper was stupidly easy... the people who had that exam can count themselves very lucky.

    The question on the planet/satellite orbiting the planet. Was this me mis-reading the question or is all you do apply the equation v^2 = GM/r ...? I thought this is what the 4 mark question just after it was asking aswell? Why did everyone have such trouble with it?

    Lastly I thought some of the questions were very cheeky, such as asking about SHM and circular motion in a situation never used before. Also I know it is a synoptic paper but if I hadn't been resitting Unit 2 I would never have got the KWh question. I was lucky there. I'm also very lucky that I did chemistry last year and so was comfortable with calculating moles as there were 3 or 4 questions on this...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben Adams)
    At first it seems like a really hard paper but I'm sure if we look back at it in a weeks time we will realise that it was asking relatively easy questions and most of the paper was number crunching. Saying that, the June 2010 paper was stupidly easy... the people who had that exam can count themselves very lucky.

    The question on the planet/satellite orbiting the planet. Was this me mis-reading the question or is all you do apply the equation v^2 = GM/r ...? I thought this is what the 4 mark question just after it was asking aswell? Why did everyone have such trouble with it?

    Lastly I thought some of the questions were very cheeky, such as asking about SHM and circular motion in a situation never used before. Also I know it is a synoptic paper but if I hadn't been resitting Unit 2 I would never have got the KWh question. I was lucky there. I'm also very lucky that I did chemistry last year and so was comfortable with calculating moles as there were 3 or 4 questions on this...

    I can't understand myself why the v^2=GM/r was worth 4 marks. My only guess is that they wanted us to derive the equation first, (as it's not on the data sheet). So I did.

    What did you get for your amplitude in the tide question? and the last moles question too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben Adams)
    At first it seems like a really hard paper but I'm sure if we look back at it in a weeks time we will realise that it was asking relatively easy questions and most of the paper was number crunching. Saying that, the June 2010 paper was stupidly easy... the people who had that exam can count themselves very lucky.

    The question on the planet/satellite orbiting the planet. Was this me mis-reading the question or is all you do apply the equation v^2 = GM/r ...? I thought this is what the 4 mark question just after it was asking aswell? Why did everyone have such trouble with it?

    Lastly I thought some of the questions were very cheeky, such as asking about SHM and circular motion in a situation never used before. Also I know it is a synoptic paper but if I hadn't been resitting Unit 2 I would never have got the KWh question. I was lucky there. I'm also very lucky that I did chemistry last year and so was comfortable with calculating moles as there were 3 or 4 questions on this...
    i rearranged the equation wrong for the planet/satellite orbiting the planet! i put r= v^2/GM instead of r=GM/v^2 i should get a couple of marks for the equation i wrote at least
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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