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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Any guesses on the full ums boundary?


    Posted from the TSR iPad app
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeneralOJB)
    The RMS value - 45v.

    I had the RMS as 45.3V.

    Do you think that will be okay, because all my derived data which gave non exact answers were given to 3 significant figures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious544d)
    For the oscilloscope question, I did 20v per division not 16v. Will they both be accepted, so like in the mark scheme, will it say 'accept any sensible value?' I'm guessing the main thing about the question was that you had to write that the time base had to be set at 2ms per division so that the two cycles can be seen. Hmm...
    i was going to put 16 but then put 20 because i wrote this way the oscillation can be viewed whilst still having a suitable scale or something like that. I think its possible they could reject 16 and only allow 20 because of that but im not sure
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For the question where it asked to say how you would change the time base blah blah blah, I wrote that I would half the time base as frequency is inversely proportional to the time period and so by halving the time period, the frequency would be doubled. Anyone know if that's the right answer or if it was just a load of crap. Seeing you guys talking about 2ms is making me nervous :eek:

    Also, where was the line for the rms thing supposed to go? I put it at 46...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuya)
    Any guesses on the full ums boundary?


    Posted from the TSR iPad app
    i think 67-68
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CR95)
    i think 67-68
    Mhm, I agree.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    I had the RMS as 45.3V.

    Do you think that will be okay, because all my derived data which gave non exact answers were given to 3 significant figures.
    Yeah I got 45.25, I just rounded down.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ryejd)
    mass of electrons is negligible, not once have I seen you have to include their masses.
    Isn't that because they usually ask you to find the specific charge of the nucleus??? Today they asked you to find the specific charge of the ion...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    Mhm, I agree.
    66 No? ;(
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm guessing 69-70 for full UMS.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For the oscilloscope question, I said adjust the time base so that the period is 5ms. Would this get me any marks?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ouch, I hope 67 and I don't lose any other marks! As the oscilloscope bit was pathetically worded


    Posted from the TSR iPad app
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Surf)
    Isn't that because they usually ask you to find the specific charge of the nucleus??? Today they asked you to find the specific charge of the ion...

    You're right. What's funny though is that even if you include the mass of the electrons, the difference in mass is almost infinitesimal. So you'd yield the same answer as if someone included it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali_Ludley)
    I did that as well, 20Vdiv-1 but I stupidly put 0.5msDiv-1 instead of 2msDiv-1 :argh:
    I did that too

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeneralOJB)
    I'm guessing 69-70 for full UMS.
    No it's never even been above 66, doubt we will have a change, I'm guessing 67 maybe?


    Posted from the TSR iPad app
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lebron_23)
    That's what wave theory would say, but if the frequency were to remain above the threshold frequency, surely the emission of electrons wouldn't be affected at all? I mean, the only thing that ever changes anything is the intensity, and it only changes the rate of emission at that.
    I thought the reason it was maximum kinetic energy was because the ones further from the metal's surface would need to absorb higher frequency photons to escape so the ones with maximum KE are near surface. Surely decreasing frequency meant the ones in the metal deeper in would need more energy to escape and so their emission would be more frequent for higher frequencies?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Surf)
    Isn't that because they usually ask you to find the specific charge of the nucleus??? Today they asked you to find the specific charge of the ion...
    Well if you found the specific charge of the nucleus the charge wouldn't be -3.2x10^-19, it would be +3.2x10^-18.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeneralOJB)
    Both. The question that asked you to draw on figure 2 the equivalent DC with the same rate of energy dissipation yadda yadda, was just asking you to draw the RMS line.
    Ah, thanks for clearing that up! I did that eventually but I remember seeing like this thing on salters or Antonine that said that the DC line would be above the crest of the wave and it really confused me.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamHedges)
    I thought the reason it was maximum kinetic energy was because the ones further from the metal's surface would need to absorb higher frequency photons to escape so the ones with maximum KE are near surface. Surely decreasing frequency meant the ones in the metal deeper in would need more energy to escape and so their emission would be more frequent for higher frequencies?
    The frequency of the photons are all the same, it was monochromatic light. There's a max KE as the electrons nearest to the surface only require the work function (minimum energy) to be removed. The one's deepest in the metal will require more energy and have a lower KE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuya)
    No it's never even been above 66, doubt we will have a change, I'm guessing 67 maybe?


    Posted from the TSR iPad app
    62/70 for June 2010 PHYA1

    Look at AQA's UMS Converter?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.