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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gozatron)
    Wasn't it e/z isomers not optical isomers?
    I actually remember when reading the question whether my understanding of enantiomers was correct. Since the question before asked about E/Z isomers and then it suddenly brought up enantiomers. It seemed pretty odd
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Great Lord Xenu)
    They're definitely going to raise the grade boundaries for this one. It was pretty easy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    alright sick i definately wrote bromine as the reducing agent i just cant remember what i put as my reasoning? i think i wrote something really wrong for it. just need to hope i was thinking clearly haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I actually remember when reading the question whether my understanding of enantiomers was correct. Since the question before asked about E/Z isomers and then it suddenly brought up enantiomers. It seemed pretty odd
    Why odd? The whole paper was a sherlock holmes intelligence test. They purposefully brought in the other type of isomerism mid way through a question not related to that type of isomerism!

    Now it all makes perfect sense!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)
    I'm not trolling. Most people in my school came out saying that it was easy. I'm glad if everyone on here thinks it was hard though, because it means I might be wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i think its ****ing pathetic that we are studying A2 chemistry and learning about complex molecular interactions and get asked a question on ****ing nappies? by this point i had lost my patience with the paper and wrote something really sarcastic and dumb.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)
    Why odd? The whole paper was a sherlock holmes intelligence test. They purposefully brought in the other type of isomerism mid way through a question not related to that type of isomerism!

    Now it all makes perfect sense!
    I tend not to use past papers for revision so I don't really have anything to compare it to.

    I thought the sneaky question about recharging the battery was pretty nifty though, if mean.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Great Lord Xenu)
    I'm not trolling. Most people in my school came out saying that it was easy. I'm glad if everyone on here thinks it was hard though, because it means I might be wrong.
    Sorry then but thats surprising to me, at my school general consensus was "hard".

    (Original post by del1rious)
    i think its ****ing pathetic that we are studying A2 chemistry and learning about complex molecular interactions and get asked a question on ****ing nappies? by this point i had lost my patience with the paper and wrote something really sarcastic and dumb.
    What did you write for the nappies one?

    I wrote as its only one polymer recycling will mean a better quality product will be formed unlike the other thing that was a mixture of 2 polymers.


    (Original post by Keckers)
    I tend not to use past papers for revision so I don't really have anything to compare it to.

    I thought the sneaky question about recharging the battery was pretty nifty though, if mean.
    Speaking of that question, what did you write for the equation? did you do it the other way round from how it would normally be?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    yeah i said some bull**** about how you need to waste energy separating the one that is a mixture of polymers?? i got it wrong hahahaha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    i think its ****ing pathetic that we are studying A2 chemistry and learning about complex molecular interactions and get asked a question on ****ing nappies? by this point i had lost my patience with the paper and wrote something really sarcastic and dumb.
    I don't generally read much into the question background. The fact that it annoys you is pretty stupid though, afterall, it demonstrated the aspect of chemistry fairly well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    the girl in my class with an offer from oxford for material sciences found this paper really difficult. i found that comforting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)
    Sorry then but thats surprising to me, at my school general consensus was "hard".



    What did you write for the nappies one?

    I wrote as its only one polymer recycling will mean a better quality product will be formed unlike the other thing that was a mixture of 2 polymers.




    Speaking of that question, what did you write for the equation? did you do it the other way round from how it would normally be?
    I wrote something along those lines to. Hope we get credit for it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I don't generally read much into the question background. The fact that it annoys you is pretty stupid though, afterall, it demonstrated the aspect of chemistry fairly well.
    oh **** off mate
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)



    Speaking of that question, what did you write for the equation? did you do it the other way round from how it would normally be?
    Yeah, at least I meant to. Unless I had a mental block when I was answering it and double bluffed myself haha
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)
    I wrote as its only one polymer recycling will mean a better quality product will be formed unlike the other thing that was a mixture of 2 polymers.
    It was just that you have to sort out the mixture of polymers before recycling them, I think.
    (Original post by Darthdevidem)
    did you do it the other way round from how it would normally be?
    Yep.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I put that it would be easier to isolate the nappy polymer (or whatever it was) than by using a mixture of other polymers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zahre)
    I wrote something along those lines to. Hope we get credit for it.
    at least 1 method mark would be comforting!


    (Original post by Keckers)
    Yeah, at least I meant to. Unless I had a mental block when I was answering it and double bluffed myself haha
    lol I hope I didn't do that either. Knowing this horrible paper they probably put the more positive electrode potential higher than the negative one in the electrode potential table (j/k don't think they were that mean)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i found this paper ok. it was really synoptic, but it fitted into the A2 material quite well... which revision guides do you use?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What did you guys put for the Reaction? How the concentration could be found?
    it was 3 marks, split into method, what measured and cant remember the fiirst one..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManPowa)
    What did you guys put for the Reaction? How the concentration could be found?
    it was 3 marks, split into method, what measured and cant remember the fiirst one..
    the colorimetry one?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.