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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I actually thought the REAL Chemistry part of the exam was easy and straightforward. They almost kind of held your hand through the questions such as the Hydrogen Peroxide and the antionnenenenene whatever.

    The GREEN chemistry though. Oh my god the amount of green chemistry ...

    Hand up, honestly, who here did about 99.9% of their revision on the alcohols, mechanisms, enthalpy ... , looked at the green chemistry, though 'yeah. That's all common sense stuff' and just basically ignored it. *Raises hand*.

    Hopefully I managed to either get 100% on the real chemistry part or managed to ******** my way through the green Chemistry enough for a high A. I need it at the moment.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TwilightKnight)
    I actually thought the REAL Chemistry part of the exam was easy and straightforward. They almost kind of held your hand through the questions such as the Hydrogen Peroxide and the antionnenenenene whatever.

    The GREEN chemistry though. Oh my god the amount of green chemistry ...

    Hand up, honestly, who here did about 99.9% of their revision on the alcohols, mechanisms, enthalpy ... , looked at the green chemistry, though 'yeah. That's all common sense stuff' and just basically ignored it. *Raises hand*.

    Hopefully I managed to either get 100% on the real chemistry part or managed to ******** my way through the green Chemistry enough for a high A. I need it at the moment.
    i do all the sciences and environmental studies, so it was a piece of cake for me
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TwilightKnight)
    I actually thought the REAL Chemistry part of the exam was easy and straightforward. They almost kind of held your hand through the questions such as the Hydrogen Peroxide and the antionnenenenene whatever.

    The GREEN chemistry though. Oh my god the amount of green chemistry ...

    Hand up, honestly, who here did about 99.9% of their revision on the alcohols, mechanisms, enthalpy ... , looked at the green chemistry, though 'yeah. That's all common sense stuff' and just basically ignored it. *Raises hand*.

    Hopefully I managed to either get 100% on the real chemistry part or managed to ******** my way through the green Chemistry enough for a high A. I need it at the moment.
    I agree! I started panicking when I saw the amount of Green Chemistry in the paper.:eek: I'm hoping I perfected the 'real chemistry' stuff enough to get a good grade, but at the moment I doubt it.:rolleyes:

    For the Hydrogen Peroxide and the antionnenenenene question I just rambled on about atom economy and the fact that the second process regenerates the starting materials, so atom economy would be higher than that for the first process, in which most of the reactant atoms were lost to by-products.I'm hoping I was on the right track...:confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TwilightKnight)
    Hand up, honestly, who here did about 99.9% of their revision on the alcohols, mechanisms, enthalpy ... , looked at the green chemistry, though 'yeah. That's all common sense stuff' and just basically ignored it. *Raises hand*.

    Ha! Spot on for me last year, hence the need for the retake

    Pretty much spent all preperation going over the green chemistry stuff and the other things we don't have to know for the January A2 exam since I know reaction pathways/mechanisms 'nd stuff like the back of my hand now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did people put down for the one about researchers are trying to develop new ways for the reduction of CO2..

    I realised after finishing my exam it had something to do with CCS >,>
    But, in the exam, I put down stuff to do with Catylst Converters.. =/ Would I get credited for this, as it does somehow help the reduction for CO2... right?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haz Shah)
    What did people put down for the one about researchers are trying to develop new ways for the reduction of CO2..

    I realised after finishing my exam it had something to do with CCS >,>
    But, in the exam, I put down stuff to do with Catylst Converters.. =/ Would I get credited for this, as it does somehow help the reduction for CO2... right?
    I talked about CCS by saying it can be injected as a liqiud into deep ocean and that you can react it with metal oxides to form stable carbonate minerals, but tbh I wasn't sure whether the question was about CCS or not...it was a bit misleading. I think catalytic converters just convert toxic gases into gases such as CO2, but i'm not sure if that would count as actually limiting CO2 production or not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmalouise1990)
    I talked about CCS by saying it can be injected as a liqiud into deep ocean and that you can react it with metal oxides to form stable carbonate minerals, but tbh I wasn't sure whether the question was about CCS or not...it was a bit misleading. I think catalytic converters just convert toxic gases into gases such as CO2, but i'm not sure if that would count as actually limiting CO2 production or not.
    hopefully it has a vague mark scheme :p:

    personally i said CCS (old oil wells, inject as liquid into deep ocean, then react with metal oxides)
    then went onto say how CO2 is used to make foam, scCO2 used to decaffeinate coffee whilst retaining the flavour, scCO2 in organic reactions and i think i may have said one more thing

    but when i said it is used to produce foam that was all i said as i didn't read how they actually do it lol
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanCarroll)
    hopefully it has a vague mark scheme :p:

    personally i said CCS (old oil wells, inject as liquid into deep ocean, then react with metal oxides)
    then went onto say how CO2 is used to make foam, scCO2 used to decaffeinate coffee whilst retaining the flavour, scCO2 in organic reactions and i think i may have said one more thing

    but when i said it is used to produce foam that was all i said as i didn't read how they actually do it lol
    lol.I really panicked in that exam, i felt like the time went really fast...I had more time in the summer
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmalouise1990)
    lol.I really panicked in that exam, i felt like the time went really fast...I had more time in the summer
    quite a few in my school felt they were pushed for time too :/
    im usually a very slow writer but i didnt have much problem with that exam
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haz Shah)
    What did people put down for the one about researchers are trying to develop new ways for the reduction of CO2..

    I realised after finishing my exam it had something to do with CCS >,>
    But, in the exam, I put down stuff to do with Catylst Converters.. =/ Would I get credited for this, as it does somehow help the reduction for CO2... right?
    Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2. [NO2 + 2CO --> 2CO2 + N2] So you are not reducing CO2 emmissions but increasing them! The point of catalytic converters is to get rid of the toxic CO in the atmosphere that is harmful to our health. The disadvantage is that the converters produce less 'harmful' CO2.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Generally, when it says "with the aid of an equation" you can get full marks by simply stating the equation. Even though it's worded as if the equation should be linked to a description/explanation.
    *head down in shame* you were right the nitrogen question was one mark. lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Presidential)
    *head down in shame* you were right the nitrogen question was one mark. lol
    I SWEAR IT WAS TWO :eek3: :eek3: :eek3:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    1,900 posts :rolleyes:
    hey why am i not overlord in training :lolwut:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanCarroll)
    I SWEAR IT WAS TWO :eek3: :eek3: :eek3:
    Lol I thought so too xD but I saw the paper again today and it was. God knows why they gave us 3 lines for 1 mark.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HotCoco.)
    Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2. [NO2 + 2CO --> 2CO2 + N2] So you are not reducing CO2 emmissions but increasing them! The point of catalytic converters is to get rid of the toxic CO in the atmosphere that is harmful to our health. The disadvantage is that the converters produce less 'harmful' CO2.
    Yes, I thought that after I wrote all that down. Urgh! And I actually learnt the CCS stuff.. just didn't occur to me at the timee!! Was only a 3 mark question though right?
    So you woulda have to say that you could inject liquid CO2 into the Ocean, or you could pipe it down into the earth, where it would react with metal oxides to form solid carbonates! Why didn't it occur to me! Urghh!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HotCoco.)
    Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2. [NO2 + 2CO --> 2CO2 + N2] So you are not reducing CO2 emmissions but increasing them! The point of catalytic converters is to get rid of the toxic CO in the atmosphere that is harmful to our health. The disadvantage is that the converters produce less 'harmful' CO2.
    For that question I also mentioned scientists trying to use alternative energy sources such as nuclear fusion/fission to generate clean, renewable energy sources with no co2 emmisions that the burning of finite sources of fossil fuels gives off.

    also mentioned pumping co2 in the sea, and use of catalytic converters, increasing the number of trees grown - which absorbs co2 and release o2 and can be burnt for energy as carbon neutral if needed. also, investigating different sources of polymers such as starch and lactic acid base, they are biodegradable ....

    think i maybe went around this question and only probs got 2/5 max...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Presidential)
    Lol I thought so too xD but I saw the paper again today and it was. God knows why they gave us 3 lines for 1 mark.
    Are you emplying you have a copy of the exam?!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haz Shah)
    Are you emplying you have a copy of the exam?!
    nah my chemistry teacher has it, why?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmalouise1990)
    For the Hydrogen Peroxide and the antionnenenenene question I just rambled on about atom economy and the fact that the second process regenerates the starting materials, so atom economy would be higher than that for the first process, in which most of the reactant atoms were lost to by-products.I'm hoping I was on the right track...:confused:
    Yeah. I basically put that it had a practical atom economy of 100% across the two equations, since the antionioleleol was regenerated in the second equation.

    I fell out with a few people over the Atom economy of the Hydrogen Peroxide from Barium (12.7% I think ... something low) - Someone thought it was 87.3% which is actually the atom economy if you were trying to make the barium by-product. Also, the Mass Spec/ IR question. Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE who I've asked put it down as a Carboxylic acid, which is baffling, especially since 99% of the people doing it are resitters who just spent 4 months learning about Ketones and Aldehydes etc.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Presidential)
    nah my chemistry teacher has it, why?
    SEE TOLD YOU THAT QUESTION WAS ONLY WORTH A MARK.....WERE YOU ONE OF THE HATERS THAT WAS DISAGREEING WITH ME??!? YOURE ALL BIATCHES
 
 
 
  • 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 rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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.