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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aprkrheiqkk)
    It was something along the lines of: Give one reason why background radiation has increased within the last 100 years.
    Does anybody know if Radon levels have increased due to mining? I put that
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think any sensible answer such as nuclear plants being built, nuclear disasters, tracers for medical use, technology etc would get the marks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allofthestars)
    Can anyone remmeber how many marks was in question 5 and how they were split up for each ? I`m a bit panicy as i got the first part wrong and carried my answer onto the rest, will there be marks awarded for error carried forward?

    Thanks
    Hi!

    Are you referring to the nuclear section of the paper or your chosen option?

    I'm going to assume Nuclear - Question 5 was basically first calculating the energy required to melt 0.047kg of ice (ALREADY AT 0 degrees) given it's Latent Heat of Fusion. The next part was calculating the energy used to heat the ice from -25 degrees to 0, given the total energy supplied to it.

    The final part asked you to calculate the Specific Heat Capacity of Ice using your first 2 parts, which was done by using Q = mc(delta)T, rearranging for c and using your Q value from the second part

    Hope it helps!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    Hi!

    Are you referring to the nuclear section of the paper or your chosen option?

    I'm going to assume Nuclear - Question 5 was basically first calculating the energy required to melt 0.047kg of ice (ALREADY AT 0 degrees) given it's Latent Heat of Fusion. The next part was calculating the energy used to heat the ice from -25 degrees to 0, given the total energy supplied to it.

    The final part asked you to calculate the Specific Heat Capacity of Ice using your first 2 parts, which was done by using Q = mc(delta)T, rearranging for c and using your Q value from the second part

    Hope it helps!
    Hey Thanks Bud for replying,

    So yeah can you remember the marks for each ? I think the second part was one, final part was three. First part- not sure? maybes 1 ? i put the wrong value in my calculator for part 2 , read 1550 instead of 15500 (such an idiot) hence i carried that answer onto the rest and did exactly all that method plus the correct specific heat capacity units for the final one. I got a large specifc heat that i spent ages thinking thats definitely not right but had to move on . Would I be awarded error carried forward marks do you think ?

    Im desperate for an A in physics gawd
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allofthestars)
    Hey Thanks Bud for replying,

    So yeah can you remember the marks for each ? I think the second part was one, final part was three. First part- not sure? maybes 1 ? i put the wrong value in my calculator for part 2 , read 1550 instead of 15500 (such an idiot) hence i carried that answer onto the rest and did exactly all that method plus the correct specific heat capacity units for the final one. I got a large specifc heat that i spent ages thinking thats definitely not right but had to move on . Would I be awarded error carried forward marks do you think ?

    Im desperate for an A in physics gawd
    You'd definitely get error carried forward, so long as the method behind your thinking was correct. Luckily, I looked up a few numbers before the exam to remember, and I knew that ice had a specific heat capacity of 2100. So long as for part ii) you did 18000 (I think that was the given value, but basically the value they gave you) minus your answer for part i), then used your answer from part ii) to calculate heat capacity by rearranging the equation, you'll probably get all the marks except the 1 you messed up at the start Sometimes AQA can be harsher, but I can assuredly say you'll get at LEAST 3 marks from the 5.

    Part i) was one mark, ii) was one mark and iii) was 3 marks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    It was 4 marks because the equation isn't given, so you either have to know the equation or the derivation for it. It asked you to calculate the specific charge given some values of B, r and V - it never asked anything about deriving it. They will probably give marks for derivation, but also the mark scheme will likely say "If 1.9x10^11 Ckg^-1 seen, 4 marks". They can't take marks away because you know the equation MORE than other people, that'd be completely nonsensical.
    Yeah I know, what I was trying to say was since you needed to do quite a bit of work if you didn't know the equation off by heart already, it was worth 4 marks (as it may take people longer to derive it).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by js.int)
    Yeah I know, what I was trying to say was since you needed to do quite a bit of work if you didn't know the equation off by heart already, it was worth 4 marks (as it may take people longer to derive it).
    Yeah, I understand I think they definitely expected some people to derive it, and that'll be the bulk of the marks so that if you get it wrong, you still get marks for derivation, but I think they'll just give 4 marks for seeing the answer 1.9*10^11 with the correct units.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    Yeah, I understand I think they definitely expected some people to derive it, and that'll be the bulk of the marks so that if you get it wrong, you still get marks for derivation, but I think they'll just give 4 marks for seeing the answer 1.9*10^11 with the correct units.
    Hello I just thought about it again did u use the charge and mass of the electron when u were trying find velocity? If I used it will I get zero???😥 When they said just information from the question does it mean u can't use the e and m anywhere in the question ??
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    You'd definitely get error carried forward, so long as the method behind your thinking was correct. Luckily, I looked up a few numbers before the exam to remember, and I knew that ice had a specific heat capacity of 2100. So long as for part ii) you did 18000 (I think that was the given value, but basically the value they gave you) minus your answer for part i), then used your answer from part ii) to calculate heat capacity by rearranging the equation, you'll probably get all the marks except the 1 you messed up at the start Sometimes AQA can be harsher, but I can assuredly say you'll get at LEAST 3 marks from the 5.

    Part i) was one mark, ii) was one mark and iii) was 3 marks
    Ahh thanks so much for this !! Yeah same! I was so confused at the end like "thats surely not the specific heat capacity" and checked over it a few times but astro was waiting so had to move on and thought its aqa so they might do something weird like this haha . So I put down 1550 , then did 18000- 1550 to get 16450 then divided that by ( 0.047 x 25 ) mass x temp difference and it came out with 14000.

    Also for the volume one earlier i didnt realise the temp change hence got the wrong volume. I then used that on the density part to get 1.5 but the working was the same and the mass part correct ? can you remember how many marks those questions were split into? I think it was i) 2, then ii) 1 then iii) 2 maybes 3?

    I never realized how error carried forward worked? most of our past test were just right or wrong marks. Do you have to get the right final answer for all the marks? or can you still get all the marks on say that final part of the specific heat capacity question regardless aslong as you do the method 100% correct?

    Sorry thats a lot to answer to but thank you so much
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    was the corrected rate 96?....i stupidly subtracted the background radiation rather than add it back on, I ended up with 16!!!...so annoying
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    for 2 of the assumptions of an ideal gas question in section A out of the 2 marks would this get any
    fixed mass of gas
    at a constant temperature

    (since these are the assumptions for boyles law and it says ideal gases follow boyles law completely)

    also for question about causes behind increasing radiation, i said increasing exposure to cosmic background radiation. I however didn't explain this is because of ozone depletion because the question didn't specify that you had to give a reason why this factor was increasing
    would i probably still get that mark?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ebolaboy)
    for 2 of the assumptions of an ideal gas question in section A out of the 2 marks would this get any
    fixed mass of gas
    at a constant temperature

    These are the only correct answers, of course you would get both marks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allofthestars)
    Ahh thanks so much for this !! Yeah same! I was so confused at the end like "thats surely not the specific heat capacity" and checked over it a few times but astro was waiting so had to move on and thought its aqa so they might do something weird like this haha . So I put down 1550 , then did 18000- 1550 to get 16450 then divided that by ( 0.047 x 25 ) mass x temp difference and it came out with 14000.

    Also for the volume one earlier i didnt realise the temp change hence got the wrong volume. I then used that on the density part to get 1.5 but the working was the same and the mass part correct ? can you remember how many marks those questions were split into? I think it was i) 2, then ii) 1 then iii) 2 maybes 3?

    I never realized how error carried forward worked? most of our past test were just right or wrong marks. Do you have to get the right final answer for all the marks? or can you still get all the marks on say that final part of the specific heat capacity question regardless aslong as you do the method 100% correct?

    Sorry thats a lot to answer to but thank you so much
    Hi again! Sorry I took a while to respond

    For the part about volume, I really can't say for sure if you'll get error carried forward marks - the problem was, the question asked for the initial density, so you had to use the volume they already gave you in the question, which was 0.0016m^3, if you remember. They might give you 1 mark for the correct method of calculating density (using mass divided by volume), but I think considering you've used the final volume, they won't give error carried forward marks for not calculating the initial density, unfortunately. Sorry

    Error carried forward is an absolute godsend, and as you said, I've noticed the same thing - when I've done exams in school, if I got it wrong they'll mark it so and my grade will be bad because I made a mistake in 1 question and it messed up all the rest, but in the actual exams, every question which relies on a previous calculation will say ECF from part (x) in the mark scheme, which basically means that so long as your method is correct in the next part, and the only thing wrong is your actual value from the previous part of the question, you'll get the marks.

    As an example, if there's a question split into 5 parts and it's worth 10 marks in total, each 2 marks, if you get the first part wrong and the rest all rely on that answer to calculate the answers to them, provided your method is correct on the next 4, despite the actual answers being wrong, you will certainly get at least 8 of those 10 marks.

    In Unit 2 last year, I managed to make a huge mistake in my calculations for a mechanics question, and I really couldn't see what I'd done wrong - the next 4 parts of the question required you to know the first part's answer, so I just literally put in the first section "=8ms^-1", and then used 8 in all the next parts - I got error carried forward on all the next parts and got all marks except the =8 one!

    Good luck!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ebolaboy)
    for 2 of the assumptions of an ideal gas question in section A out of the 2 marks would this get any
    fixed mass of gas
    at a constant temperature

    (since these are the assumptions for boyles law and it says ideal gases follow boyles law completely)

    also for question about causes behind increasing radiation, i said increasing exposure to cosmic background radiation. I however didn't explain this is because of ozone depletion because the question didn't specify that you had to give a reason why this factor was increasing
    would i probably still get that mark?
    Hi, sometimes AQA are picky, but on this question they definitely won't be expecting any explanations for the cause you chose - the only thing up for debate is whether they actually allow that answer on the mark scheme - but increasing cosmic radiation is a well-known cause of increased background radiation, skin cancer etc. so realistically, there is no way it won't be on there in my personal opinion - I definitely think you'll get it, no explanation needed

    Good luck!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does nobody have an unofficial markscheme for section A??
    Wouldn't mind applied either tbh
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    Hi again! Sorry I took a while to respond

    For the part about volume, I really can't say for sure if you'll get error carried forward marks - the problem was, the question asked for the initial density, so you had to use the volume they already gave you in the question, which was 0.0016m^3, if you remember. They might give you 1 mark for the correct method of calculating density (using mass divided by volume), but I think considering you've used the final volume, they won't give error carried forward marks for not calculating the initial density, unfortunately. Sorry

    Error carried forward is an absolute godsend, and as you said, I've noticed the same thing - when I've done exams in school, if I got it wrong they'll mark it so and my grade will be bad because I made a mistake in 1 question and it messed up all the rest, but in the actual exams, every question which relies on a previous calculation will say ECF from part (x) in the mark scheme, which basically means that so long as your method is correct in the next part, and the only thing wrong is your actual value from the previous part of the question, you'll get the marks.

    As an example, if there's a question split into 5 parts and it's worth 10 marks in total, each 2 marks, if you get the first part wrong and the rest all rely on that answer to calculate the answers to them, provided your method is correct on the next 4, despite the actual answers being wrong, you will certainly get at least 8 of those 10 marks.

    In Unit 2 last year, I managed to make a huge mistake in my calculations for a mechanics question, and I really couldn't see what I'd done wrong - the next 4 parts of the question required you to know the first part's answer, so I just literally put in the first section "=8ms^-1", and then used 8 in all the next parts - I got error carried forward on all the next parts and got all marks except the =8 one!

    Good luck!
    Hey thanks for replying and clearing that up for me!

    Aw thats okay , can you remember how many marks that question was split up into? sure i got the mass bit right- i honestly think im overthinking this exam now like. I`m hoping its gone okay

    Thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allofthestars)
    Hey thanks for replying and clearing that up for me!

    Aw thats okay , can you remember how many marks that question was split up into? sure i got the mass bit right- i honestly think im overthinking this exam now like. I`m hoping its gone okay

    Thanks
    It was 2, 1 and 3 for i, ii and iii respectively
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    unofficial mark scheme?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -jordan-)
    You had to add 40 back on as there would still be background detected by the detector, I think you'll only drop 1 mark
    I don't think you need to add the 40 because it didn't say his detected count rate was the corrected count rate
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ashwinderk)
    I don't think you need to add the 40 because it didn't say his detected count rate was the corrected count rate
    You definitely needed to add 40 back on. The data given was the uncorrected initial reading, and also the background count rate (40).
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.