xrpred
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1741
Report 6 years ago
#1741
Did people get about 28 for the density ?
2
reply
posthumus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1742
Report 6 years ago
#1742
(Original post by xrpred)
Did people get about 28 for the density ?
Yes
0
reply
xrpred
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1743
Report 6 years ago
#1743
(Original post by posthumus)
Yes
Excellent :3 I hated that last question, the radioactivity experiment one. I'm not used to practical questions in unit 5! I just waffled on about magnetic fields and safety :P
0
reply
zbubbly
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1744
Report 6 years ago
#1744
(Original post by xrpred)
Did people get about 28 for the density ?
YES!!!!
0
reply
FloydHead
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1745
Report 6 years ago
#1745
(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
I'm sure on the de Broglie question with the proton and electron that it said to ignore relativistic effects.
Did it? If it did, I didn't see it then :P
0
reply
FloydHead
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1746
Report 6 years ago
#1746
For the turning points people, what did you all put for the very last question about travelling faster than light? I think I dropped marks on it, even though it was basically a gift marks question
0
reply
kitkat19
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1747
Report 6 years ago
#1747
Anyone have the paper?
0
reply
ehtisham_1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1748
Report 6 years ago
#1748
Hey guys for the neutron causing excitation question, I mentioned gamma radiation, and that it is seen in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fragments, how many marks do you think I'll get for this.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1749
Report 6 years ago
#1749
(Original post by FloydHead)
For the turning points people, what did you all put for the very last question about travelling faster than light? I think I dropped marks on it, even though it was basically a gift marks question
As v --> c, m-->infinity (show equation as proof).
So kinetic energy tends to infinity, which is impossible to get.
0
reply
FloydHead
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1750
Report 6 years ago
#1750
(Original post by Pinkhead)
As v --> c, m-->infinity (show equation as proof).
So kinetic energy tends to infinity, which is impossible to get.
Yeah, I figured :/

I thought I was being dead clever in the exam, because it talked about exceeding the speed of light rather than approaching it, so I answered it by saying that if v>c , 1 - (v^2/c^2) is negative, so its square root is undefined. Do you reckon I'd get marks for that?

Also, nice name :P
0
reply
xrpred
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1751
Report 6 years ago
#1751
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one
1
reply
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1752
Report 6 years ago
#1752
(Original post by FloydHead)
Yeah, I figured :/

I thought I was being dead clever in the exam, because it talked about exceeding the speed of light rather than approaching it, so I answered it by saying that if v>c , 1 - (v^2/c^2) is negative, so its square root is undefined. Do you reckon I'd get marks for that?

Also, nice name :P
You actually might get a mark for that. There's technically nothing wrong with it since you used the equation to show that it isn't possible. You probably won't get the second one though since the same question in a legacy paper wanted a mention of kinetic energy.

:eek:
We have the best usernames on TSR
0
reply
TauMuon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1753
Report 6 years ago
#1753
(Original post by xrpred)
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one
Yeah I noticed that, which means high boundaries :'(

Messed up some of Q1 and all of Q3 on paper A :/


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
sports_crazy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1754
Report 6 years ago
#1754
(Original post by MSI_10)
p1v1/t1 = p2v2/t2

You have all except v2 rearrange for that.. I also added the pressures up for p2 because it was other wise too small :\ (similar to the q from the specimen paper, look at it if you don't get why I did so)

After getting v, use m=d x v to get mass..
What answer did u get with this. I used a different method and worked out the moles which were 3.3 and times that by 0.048kgmol^-1 and my answer was 0.16kg
1
reply
MSI_10
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1755
Report 6 years ago
#1755
(Original post by sports_crazy)
What answer did u get with this. I used a different method and worked out the moles which were 3.3 and times that by 0.048kgmol^-1 and my answer was 0.16
I got 4.2 :\ yeah you had to multiply by the kg per mol in prev question. I probs got the volume wrong
0
reply
ThatRandomGuy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1756
Report 6 years ago
#1756
(Original post by MSI_10)
70 something.. Actually we might be right since some other peeps got the same on here.

Was the explanation simply because the focal length was longer?
Yeah.
0
reply
Namige
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1757
Report 6 years ago
#1757
(Original post by xrpred)
Did anyone else notice how easy the applied physics paper was? I'm pretty sure the only question that made me think was the last one
I'd say it was harder last years to be honest, apart from that 6 marker on flywheels. And that was 23/35 for an A
0
reply
sports_crazy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1758
Report 6 years ago
#1758
(Original post by MSI_10)
I got 4.2 :\ yeah you had to multiply by the kg per mol in prev question. I probs got the volume wrong
I might have done it wrong. I used the same volume because volume doesnot change unless you assume the volume is the cylinder+atmosphere. Assuming volume is same I got 3.3 mol and multiply with kgmol^-1
0
reply
Ice_Occultism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1759
Report 6 years ago
#1759
Ack, that feeling when you realize you misread the 6 mark question on the Section A paper. Ah well, maybe I will have scraped 1/2 marks by mentioning some safety procedures and factoring out the background counts per second. Otherwise I completely went off on a wild panicky tangent on it. I also didn't get the "Work out the Mass of the Gas" part; it seemed like a lot of people who took Chemistry in my class seemed to find that fine however. In addition, I completely blanked out on the Binding Energy calculation despite revising that topic quite a bit.

Otherwise, I found the paper quite sweet, especially the Astrophysics Option I did. Section A however, I could've done better in.
0
reply
gandanmo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1760
Report 6 years ago
#1760
guys for the first Q on binding energy i did it right apart from the fact THAT I FORGOT TO ADD THE ELECTRON THING so all 3 marks gone? wait was it 3 or 4 marks?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

  • University of Surrey
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (1)
11.11%
No (8)
88.89%

Watched Threads

View All