Same here. I will post the questions tomoro if my teacher gets a copy of it. this paper was asking for little stuff in the book. momentum or uniform circular motion questions didnt come as i was expecting it to come up.

what did everyone get for the pendulum question did you have to divide the time divided by 20 n use the formula i got the lenggth to be 0.063 something like that. not sure if its right. This was a tricky exam paper i must say.
I just hope i have done good on this paper

Reply 166

Chriz M

10

kishan55

Same here. I will post the questions tomoro if my teacher gets a copy of it. this paper was asking for little stuff in the book. momentum or uniform circular motion questions didnt come as i was expecting it to come up.

what did everyone get for the pendulum question did you have to divide the time divided by 20 n use the formula i got the lenggth to be 0.063 something like that. not sure if its right. This was a tricky exam paper i must say.
I just hope i have done good on this paper

Hope you can get the questions up!

I got the length to be 1.95M (I think) but time/number of swings should give you the time period. So not sure what you did.

Reply 167

Recluse

This exam was pretty easy I thought. After watching people sobbing about the AQA biology & chemistry exams, I was went in expecting the worst!

Multiple choice was very easy, one of them was from the specimen too! (the one with electric potential between the two plates)

For the explain energy losses in the transformers, my two points were 1) Eddy currents & magnetic hysteresis and 2) resistance heating the wires & a. c. supply.

For the kWh part, I got 420p. This came out exact too, so I was quite confident about it. I just converted the kWh into a rate of change of energy, and multiplied by the amount of energy calculated previously.

I thought the exam was a fair test of knowledge. Those that have said it was stupid, well, that's because you didn't do enough revision. The questions were not ambiguous as I've experienced in the past with AQA.

Reply 168

trollman

12

It was a good paper but I simply didn't revise enough and ran out of time :frown:

Reply 169

Game_boy

10

Recluse

I thought the exam was a fair test of knowledge. Those that have said it was stupid, well, that's because you didn't do enough revision. The questions were not ambiguous as I've experienced in the past with AQA.

I would agree with this, but there wasn't enough time to check answers and a lot of scope for arithmetic mistakes.

Multiple choice was good.

Average grade boundaries for the previous Unit 4 (which also had inteference and diffraction) were about 70% for an A and 80% for 90% UMS. The hardest went to 65% for an A even.

Reply 170

kevtp

8

Not enough time. Felt rushed throughout.
It would have been a waste of time to attempt some of the multiple choice questions.. like qns 2 ._.

Reply 171

Ying_Ying

Im just praying that the grade boundaries are gnna be low =.='''

Reply 172

physics_fanatic

Ying_Ying

Im just praying that the grade boundaries are gnna be low =.='''

quite a lot of people seem to have found it hard...so yh grade boundaries will be low!

Reply 173

Recluse

Game_boy

I would agree with this, but there wasn't enough time to check answers and a lot of scope for arithmetic mistakes.

An extra 15 minutes would have been nice, I agree, just to check things through. I finished with about 3-4 minutes left.

A lot of scope for arithmetic mistakes? I'm not sure I see your point. There was a lot of scope for mistakes, since it's an exam! Most of the arithmetic I did was with a calculator, so I don't think your point is justified.

Reply 174

Chriz M

10

Ying_Ying

Im just praying that the grade boundaries are gnna be low =.='''

Time did seem to be an issue so could be slightly low, and also being the first paper, I guess the grade boundaries will be favourable to help make the specification popular. The June 09 AS papers were Mod 1: 44/70 Mod 2: 36/70!! For the A. So 62-52%. That is low, so if this paper follows the pattern it is an A2 though, an A could be as low as 48/75!

Reply 175

fahadalhasan

Recluse

An extra 15 minutes would have been nice, I agree, just to check things through. I finished with about 3-4 minutes left.

A lot of scope for arithmetic mistakes? I'm not sure I see your point. There was a lot of scope for mistakes, since it's an exam! Most of the arithmetic I did was with a calculator, so I don't think your point is justified.

I think there was scope for arithmetic mistakes, simply because if you typed stuff wrong in the calculator your answer would be wrong. And most people didn't have enough time to check it, like I did.

Reply 176

Game_boy

10

fahadalhasan

I think there was scope for arithmetic mistakes, simply because if you typed stuff wrong in the calculator your answer would be wrong. And most people didn't have enough time to check it, like I did.

Yes, that's what I meant. Right method, but only one opportunity to put it all into the calculator correctly with brackets and powers of ten in the right place due to time constraints.

Reply 177

Game_boy

10

Is the weighting between Sections A and B the same? As in, 40 UMS for Section A and 80 UMS for Section B since it was a 25/50 mark split?

And what was it for the previous specification?

Reply 178

Chriz M

10

On the subject of answers, how many significant figures were we supposed to use. I used 3, but it didn't say anywhere. (Although the data sheet uses 3.s.f.)

Reply 179

Chriz M

10

Game_boy

Is the weighting between Sections A and B the same? As in, 40 UMS for Section A and 80 UMS for Section B since it was a 25/50 mark split?

And what was it for the previous specification?

I don't think they work out the UMS separately. They just add all your marks up, so 25+50 then find your UMS from your score out of 75.

I think the previous spec, did treat the 2 separately, but not sure.

AQA Physics Unit 4 Thread - JAN 28th 2010 (Post Exam)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you