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

OCR Physics B G495 Field and Particle Pictures June 21st 2011 Exam Thread Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTomD)
    I also found that one tricky, although thought I knew what I had to do!

    All-in-all not a bad paper, could have been much worse. Didn't get majorly stuck on anything and atleast I finished this time (damn you G491 resit!)! :rolleyes:
    did you manage to do it in the end?
    I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex.Stevens)
    did you manage to do it in the end?
    I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8
    I think you were supposed to do it using the definition of the gamma factor in terms of velocities(1/the root of (1-v^2/c^2))
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex.Stevens)
    did you manage to do it in the end?
    I tried finding the mass with E=mc^2, then using KE = 1/2 mv^2?! but V was something like 3.8x10^8
    I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

    I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
    Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
    So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7 or 10^8 ms^-1 can't remember which lol Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thought that was about as good as we could have hoped for. I only needed 64 marks... hello Uni! Takes off heaps of pressure from my retake on Monday anyway.... so happy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    I think you were supposed to do it using the definition of the gamma factor in terms of velocities(1/the root of (1-v^2/c^2))
    yeah, and v is 2.5x10^8 ms^-1
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larry777)
    I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

    I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
    Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
    So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7ms^-1 Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha
    Yeh thats what I did, I got gamma to equal 1.88 or something then v to equal 2.45 x 10^8
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larry777)
    I think you couldn't use KE= 1/2 mv^2 because the particle was moving at relativistic speeds to time dilation screws that approximation up.

    I did Erest +Ek = Etotal then Etotal/Erest= Gamma
    Gamma =1/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)
    So used the value of gamma rearranged the equation and got a velocity that was of the magnitude 10^7 or 10^8 ms^-1 can't remember which lol Probably wrong but the velocity came out to allow my gamma factor so I might get some marks haha
    I did that tooo i got gamma to be about 1.8 if i remmeber correctly and my speed was like 2 x10^8 if that rings any bells? i think i did it right (hopefully)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    easily the best paper Ive had this year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh how I hate relativistic effects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alford)
    I did that tooo i got gamma to be about 1.8 if i remmeber correctly and my speed was like 2 x10^8 if that rings any bells? i think i did it right (hopefully)
    I think it does sound familiar!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Section C was *******s, as expected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else think that was ridiculously easy O.o Can't actually think of a mark I've dropped apart from the last question, which was well confusing...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmeh)
    Anyone else think that was ridiculously easy O.o Can't actually think of a mark I've dropped apart from the last question, which was well confusing...
    I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

    END OF SECTION C = FLOP
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ah ****, I got the relativistic factor as 1.8 or something then just divided c by 1.8; ah well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alford)
    I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

    END OF SECTION C = FLOP
    Increase cross-sectional area and decrease length was what I got.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alford)
    I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

    END OF SECTION C = FLOP
    I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

    I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core So don't worry!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larry777)
    I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

    I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core So don't worry!
    Reckon saying "make the core fatter" would get the mark for the cross sectional area point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alford)
    I thought it was easyish.... but if u think u smashed it what did u put for the increasing permeance of the iron core? I put about increasing cross sectional area and laminate the core? wondering if thats right :/

    END OF SECTION C = FLOP
    Increase permeance? Balls. Definitely read that wrong, could've sworn that it said increasing the flux...That's what you get for being confident :rolleyes:

    I put increasing the current and number of turns, but if it said increase the permeance, then those are definitely wrong!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larry777)
    I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

    I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core So don't worry!
    It doesn't increase permeability, it reduces the back emf, but otherwise yeah.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Larry777)
    I said increase the cross sectional area and reduce the length of the magnetic circuit I pretty sure they are both correct as permeance= Permeability*Area/Length

    I think laminating the core would also possibly increase the permeability as it would decrease the eddy currents in the coil that reduce the overall magnetic flux passing through the iron core So don't worry!
    yehhh i think your definatley right after i realised but yeh im hoping the mark scheme allows laminate the core because it would prevent eddy currents therefore increase total flux in the core praying im right need all the marks before section c as i can get !
 
 
 
  • 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.