June 2011 G485-Fields, Particles and Frontiers of Physics Watch

anshul96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#901
Report 7 years ago
#901
(Original post by Pheylan)
Same, is that another mistake by OCR?
No, it's allowed to be non-integer, that's because the values used in calculating the value were not given to a great deal of accuracy.

The only mistake I spotted was the 0.05m/0.05cm thing..
0
reply
ChoYunEL
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#902
Report 7 years ago
#902
(Original post by Right Guard 3.D)
I got 219.23 I think so kept it at 219. It was an annoying question as I was expecting an outright number.
Yeah... I wrote 220 to two sig figs since it's usually what was written.

(Original post by ewen1605)
Mistakes in the written questions of exam papers are simply inexcusable, especially when its something so obvious.

The diagram for the electron question said the separation of the plates was 0.05 m, but the question gave 0.05 cm.

With all the "checking and rechecking and proofreading" they claim to do, how are mistakes like this left in the exam paper?

Wasn't a bad paper overall. Quite pleased.
I didn't notice this mistake... I did the question and got the right answer so - meh :s


I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol
0
reply
Pheylan
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#903
Report 7 years ago
#903
(Original post by ChoYunEL)
I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol
I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong
1
reply
Kalamari Dave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#904
Report 7 years ago
#904
(Original post by anshul96)
some of my answers...anyone else agree?
q1: 219 turns on coil
yeah, i got a decimal value with that :lolwut:
q2: 5.0625 seconds and lots of 10^-4 answers...
yup
q3: 4.18 x 10^7 for something
dont remember!
q4: LOLOLOL reverse engineered, 32700 but i think it's supposed to be 29500...

q5: 0.016 and then 4x10^-3
dont remember!
q6: 10^-17 for the density
dont remember!
q7: H0 was 2.1 x 10^-18 and pc was 7.87 x 10^-27
Yup
Did you get 18 as the angle?
0
reply
Sail2011
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#905
Report 7 years ago
#905
(Original post by anshul96)

The only mistake I spotted was the 0.05m/0.05cm thing..
right, i didnt read the question - just looked at the diagram cos i dint have time to read it, so i must have usd 0.05m - will they deduct marks for that ? cos it is kinda there fault ?? (if 0.05m was the wrong one and they meant 0.05cm)
0
reply
supervernagirl
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#906
Report 7 years ago
#906
(Original post by Pheylan)
I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong
Same here!
0
reply
Oh my Ms. Coffey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#907
Report 7 years ago
#907
(Original post by ChoYunEL)
Yeah... I wrote 220 to two sig figs since it's usually what was written.



I didn't notice this mistake... I did the question and got the right answer so - meh :s


I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol
It asked for forces acting on protons/neutrons, the weak force is for changing quarks.
1
reply
ziigmund
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#908
Report 7 years ago
#908
was the voltage 1.5v or 2v? idk if it was a ratio of 1:3 ie 1/4 or 1/3
0
reply
ChoYunEL
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#909
Report 7 years ago
#909
(Original post by Pheylan)
I mentioned gravitational, electrostatic and strong
I mentioned all four and wrote an explanation for all of them.
0
reply
toxp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#910
Report 7 years ago
#910
(Original post by anshul96)
No, it's allowed to be non-integer, that's because the values used in calculating the value were not given to a great deal of accuracy.

The only mistake I spotted was the 0.05m/0.05cm thing..
I didn't notice this, but that is unbelievable and unacceptable.
0
reply
emlath
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#911
Report 7 years ago
#911
Spent about 15 minutes trying to get that 0.05cm/m thing right before realising it was a mistake, was so annoyed
Thought it was a horrible paper overall...
0
reply
OneInSolidarity
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#912
Report 7 years ago
#912
(Original post by ufochaffeuress)
And the conventional current was going anticlockwise. It must be downwards.
I agree with this.
Flemming's left and rule is using the conventional current, not flow of electrons. (Though I can't exactly remember in which direction the flow of electrons, or the magnetic field, was going).
1
reply
In the looney bin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#913
Report 7 years ago
#913
(Original post by ChoYunEL)
I didn't like how it asked for 3 fundamental forces, I specificity remember 4... I probably did a horrible mistake there lol
I presume it ignored the weak interaction.

I did SNF/electrostatic/gravitational.
0
reply
ufochaffeuress
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#914
Report 7 years ago
#914
(Original post by OneInSolidarity)
I agree with this.
Flemming's left and rule is using the conventional current, not flow of electrons. (Though I can't exactly remember in which direction the flow of electrons, or the magnetic field, was going).
Yes it was going anticlockwise. That's the first thing to look out for when working out the LH rule - besides, the RH rule isn't specified in the syllabus. On that premise, the LH rule should be the correct answer.
0
reply
OneInSolidarity
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#915
Report 7 years ago
#915
(Original post by emlath)
Spent about 15 minutes trying to get that 0.05cm/m thing right before realising it was a mistake, was so annoyed
Thought it was a horrible paper overall...
I'm writing a written complaint to OCR about that question.
I'm going to say that a lot of us wasted time, trying to get the question to work with the value '0.05cm', making us have to rush/ answer the following questions inadequately.
0
reply
yu80359
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#916
Report 7 years ago
#916
anyone got the ratio is 3?
1
reply
OneInSolidarity
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#917
Report 7 years ago
#917
(Original post by ufochaffeuress)
Yes it was going anticlockwise. That's the first thing to look out for when working out the LH rule - besides, the RH rule isn't specified in the syllabus. On that premise, the LH rule should be the correct answer.
Do you remember the direction of the field?
0
reply
OneInSolidarity
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#918
Report 7 years ago
#918
(Original post by yu80359)
anyone got the ratio is 3?
Someone I know got the ratio as 3. I got the ratio as 1/27 however (I'm sure this is wrong xD)
0
reply
anttooking
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#919
Report 7 years ago
#919
(Original post by OneInSolidarity)
I'm writing a written complaint to OCR about that question.
I'm going to say that a lot of us wasted time, trying to get the question to work with the value '0.05cm', making us have to rush/ answer the following questions inadequately.
To be fair though, It wasn't that bad. We had the end answer so we were only gona be out by a factor of 10^(4). Plus: Most people didn't realise as nobody ever reads the stem properly. Not evan the Examiner by the looks of things!
0
reply
Oxmatt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#920
Report 7 years ago
#920
(Original post by yu80359)
anyone got the ratio is 3?
I did All my friends disagree with me though - they put the lower p.d. with the larger capacitor and vice versa.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19
  • University of East Anglia
    Could you inspire the next generation? Find out more about becoming a Primary teacher with UEA… Postgraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19
  • Anglia Ruskin University
    Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences; Business and Law; Science and Engineering Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (564)
37.65%
No - but I will (117)
7.81%
No - I don't want to (108)
7.21%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (709)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All