Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by olliecass1)
    questions 5 im pretty sure is wrong as it can also accelerate upwards
    But the weight of the particle was far more than 1.2N, so there would never be any upward acceleration
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yeh that's what I got . How is it 9.74?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That paper was amazing
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My answers.

    28
    6.38
    0.598
    6
    0.2
    5
    7
    50
    9.74, 35.4 deg
    ?
    ?
    1.04
    1.06
    0
    0
    68
    78
    132
    7
    Proof done with calculator
    1.26
    -3.15
    0.525
    0.735
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by olliecass1)
    im pretty sure your q 5s are wrong as it can also accelerate upwards
    The maximum upward force was 1.2N, and the weight was 0.4g = 3.92, so weight is always greater and so it never accelerates upwards.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by olliecass1)
    im pretty sure your q 5s are wrong as it can also accelerate upwards
    I dont think so cause the resultant force was towards the surface
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wat a wizard)
    I did that too, did you get 13.3 ish?
    Yeah
    Than I used tan = O/A for the angle??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I got k as 96 and for 6i) I got 32. Anyone agree?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanicsonejune)
    My answers.

    28
    6.38
    0.598
    6
    0.2
    5
    7
    50
    9.74, 35.4 deg
    ?
    ?
    1.04
    1.06
    0
    0
    68
    78
    132
    7
    Proof done with calculator
    1.26
    -3.15
    0.525
    0.735
    I got different answers for question 7 iirc. Think T was 1.2 for me? (Instead of 0.525)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of m friends are saying that the 1.2 force was pushing down onto the block. I thought it was pulling
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanicsonejune)
    My answers.

    28
    6.38
    0.598
    6
    0.2
    5
    7
    50
    9.74, 35.4 deg
    ?
    ?
    1.04
    1.06
    0
    0
    68
    78
    132
    7
    Proof done with calculator
    1.26
    -3.15
    0.525
    0.735
    Agree with you there. The ones that stumped you got me too
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattniemier)
    I dont think so cause the resultant force was towards the surface
    I got an upwards acceleration of 1.2/mass because the weight and reaction cancelled out and then there was 1.2 left??
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by olliecass1)
    im pretty sure your q 5s are wrong as it can also accelerate upwards
    What everyone else said about the weight is correct, it wouldn't accelerate up.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smoothER)
    Yeah
    Than I used tan = O/A for the angle??
    I think iused the sine rule to get 36 or 37
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why would the acceleration = 0 for questions 5iii and 5iv??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xsanda)
    Xsanda's solutions:

    Falling question
    1i) v=28 [2]
    1ii) s=6.384 [2]
    1iii) t=0.598 [3]

    Collision question
    2i) u=6 [4]
    2ii) m=0.2 [4]

    Cycling question
    3i) 20km, 5hrs [3]
    3ii) 7 hrs [3]
    3iii) 50km [2]

    110° tick
    4i) 9.74N, 35.4° [6]
    4ii) 10.3N [1]
    4iii) 54.6° [2]

    θ force
    5i) 1.04 [3]
    5ii) 1.06 [3]
    5iii) a=0 [3]
    5iv) a=0 [2]

    Coalescing
    6i) v=68 [4]
    6ii) s=78 [4]
    6iii) k=132 [1]
    6iv) v=7 [5]

    Prism
    7i) a=0.7 (show that), T=1.68 [5]
    7ii) v=1.26 [2]
    7iii) -a = 0.9 [2]
    7iva) T=1.2 [3]
    7ivb) Fr = 1.12 [3]
    Got all of them apart from 5)iii and 5)iv). How come they were both 0 :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanicsonejune)
    My answers.

    28
    6.38
    0.598
    6
    0.2
    5
    7
    50
    9.74, 35.4 deg
    ?
    ?
    1.04
    1.06
    0
    0
    68
    78
    132
    7
    Proof done with calculator
    1.26
    -3.15
    0.525
    0.735
    I disagree on the question 7, here are my solutions:

    (Original post by xsanda)
    Xsanda's solutions:
    Falling question
    1i) v=28 [2]
    1ii) s=6.384 [2]
    1iii) t=0.598 [3]

    Collision question
    2i) u=6 [4]
    2ii) m=0.2 [4]

    Cycling question
    3i) 20km, 5hrs [3]
    3ii) 7 hrs [3]
    3iii) 50km [2]

    110° tick
    4i) 9.74N, 35.4° [6]
    4ii) 10.3N [1]
    4iii) 54.6° [2]

    θ force
    5i) 1.04 [3]
    5ii) 1.06 [3]
    5iii) a=0 [3]
    5iv) a=0 [2]

    Coalescing
    6i) v=68 [4]
    6ii) s=78 [4]
    6iii) k=132 [1]
    6iv) v=7 [5]

    Prism
    7i) a=0.7 (show that), T=1.68 [5]
    7ii) v=1.26 [2]
    7iii) -a = 0.9 [2]
    7iva) T=1.2 [3]
    7ivb) Fr = 1.12 [3]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    S un
    U 1.26
    V 0
    A
    T 0.4

    v = u+at
    v/t - u/t = a
    a = -3.15

    everyone seems to have gotten a different answer and i've got a feeling that i used the wrong value for time
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xsanda)
    I disagree on the question 7, here are my solutions:
    I agree on 7
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliah4666)
    Why would the acceleration = 0 for questions 5iii and 5iv??
    ^^^
 
 
 

1,047

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.