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 luuucyx)
    just had a look at the paper again
    **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
    just gonna kiss goodbye to my place at uni
    You say you've had a look at the paper AGAIN ! How ? If possible may I see as well e.g. scan a copy - thankyou very much (I'm new).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foxymoron)
    You say you've had a look at the paper AGAIN ! How ? If possible may I see as well e.g. scan a copy - thankyou very much (I'm new).
    im really sorry i had the wrong thread :| (dont know how, but you can i didnt do well in my exam hahaha)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    was the answer to the electron one 9x10^7 or 9x10^9.?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh darn - I was looking forward to destroying it. Ahh well - I will substitute that with the results slip :s
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry-AA)
    I got 5kg for for the mass or uranium :/ must have put it into my calculator wrong or something
    i think youl only lose one mark? cause i think this is right so far, but then you multiply it by the number of nucleons in the uranium nucleus (236 i think it was)

    = 1180kg.

    but i think it was slightly less than this, as it wasnt actually 5kg it was slightly below. What you've worked out is the energy released per second for a year by 1 nucleon so you times it by the number of nucleons in the uranium nucleus.


    this is what i did not sure if it is right, but a lot of people seem to have got an answer around about this depending on what they calculated the mass (~5kg) to be. I had 5kg initially too but i thought this cant be right for a whole year!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Frick, was it really the radius/diameter they gave you? Really? Could've sworn I checked that. Though, I'm fairly sure from previous mark schemes that you wouldn't lose any marks on subsequent questions due to making that error on that question.
    Though, maybe boundaries might not be as low as people are expecting; I mean, the initial posts were that it was an alright paper, but then every question discussed has had several possible answers mentioned, so...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I need 128/150 UMS to get an A* overall which is roughly 5 raw marks over the A grade boundary. Now I know I've lost 17 raw marks but I've probably lost a few unnoticed marks elsewhere. Hoping for grade boundary in the low 70s. Reasonable?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kingbradley6)
    I need 128/150 UMS to get an A* overall which is roughly 5 raw marks over the A grade boundary. Now I know I've lost 17 raw marks but I've probably lost a few unnoticed marks elsewhere. Hoping for grade boundary in the low 70s. Reasonable?
    I'm really not sure. Some people are saying higher boundaries than Jan and last June, but you'll find very little consensus here on the last two questions of Section C, and a few other questions dotted throughout, so it's maybe possible, but :dontknow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41jms)
    i think youl only lose one mark? cause i think this is right so far, but then you multiply it by the number of nucleons in the uranium nucleus (236 i think it was)

    = 1180kg.

    but i think it was slightly less than this, as it wasnt actually 5kg it was slightly below. What you've worked out is the energy released per second for a year by 1 nucleon so you times it by the number of nucleons in the uranium nucleus.


    this is what i did not sure if it is right, but a lot of people seem to have got an answer around about this depending on what they calculated the mass (~5kg) to be. I had 5kg initially too but i thought this cant be right for a whole year!
    Yeah I just didn't realise the energy released they gave was per nucleon. I can't believe it, so annoyed :/ I just thought, radioactive fuels give off a lot of energy so I thought 5kg was a lot. Obviously not :/ nvm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So what is the general feeling everyone has on this paper? Also, what grade do you think you got?

    Personally, I thought the paper could've been a lot worse so I'm happy in that respect but not knowing what you wrote down is 100% correct for the majority of the paper worries me =/ But I think I got a B.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I hope I did well enough to meet the A overall in physics :s
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Summerdays)
    I hope I did well enough to meet the A overall in physics :s
    Heh currently I'm 3 UMS off an A from my first year, would quite like to get one =D
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stuffedfigs)
    Heh currently I'm 3 UMS off an A from my first year, would quite like to get one =D
    Haha. Only Lord know how far away from the A (or if I exceeded it) I am. I resat every module in hopes of meeting the A. Only one more physics exam left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Last one for me as well, YES
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    im 3 ums into an A from last year really really hope/need to have got an overall A this year! anyway good luck for results everyone.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    thought i would flop it since I only had one night to revise, but didn't go too shabbily. Although everyone in here says it went alright, which is worrying because i thought it went alright considering i only had one nights worth of revision....

    Guess im looking at like a D then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rggregrgr)
    That's why I found it weird it would be worth 3 marks. :confused:

    What was the correct method?
    I'm not sure whether any working out was needed. I just drew arrows going up from n=1 to n=2,n=1 to n=3 and from n=2 to n=3, and explained that these energies were all different and so frequencies would also be different given that f = E/h.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallyoriginalusername)
    I'm not sure whether any working out was needed. I just drew arrows going up from n=1 to n=2,n=1 to n=3 and from n=2 to n=3, and explained that these energies were all different and so frequencies would also be different given that f = E/h.

    might lose a mark for not drawing them going down... it would be pretty harsh but if theres three marks then its possible with ocr :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i drew double ended arrows, because it didnt mention emission or absorbtion, just like energy transition or something :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kttt101)
    might lose a mark for not drawing them going down... it would be pretty harsh but if theres three marks then its possible with ocr :/
    Possible, but now that I remember there was one similar Q where the MS said "ignore arrow direction", we could be alright as long as we've drawn 3 different transitions. Or at most get penalized 1-2 marks for the wrong direction.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.