D4rth
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#581
Report 6 years ago
#581
(Original post by iCiaran)
Just curious, how we're you guys taught the applied topic? Did you have "proper" lessons? Because we just had half an hour in a lunchtime every week... XD
Oh really? That sounds bad, we had proper lessons for it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
posthumus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#582
Report 6 years ago
#582
(Original post by smith50)
I think it is because the ice initially -14 degrees in an insulated room and after 30 s the ice is 0 degrees.But now we have an uninsulated room at 25 degrees more ice will turn into water as heat energy from the surrounding is absorbed by the ice.So the final temp will be higher as thermal energy is transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one.
I hope that makes sense if any
Smith
Thanks for the response I think I get it now I really need to think more aha... & I assumed it was a 1 marker, but I guess there's more lines for that question! All the ice turned into water anyway in the previous procedure, but it will just take less than 30 seconds this time right ? A bit more energy is being transferred each second because on addition to the heater the room is also providing heat energy.
I really hope this was like a 3 marker
0
reply
smith50
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#583
Report 6 years ago
#583
(Original post by posthumus)
Thanks for the response I think I get it now I really need to think more aha... & I assumed it was a 1 marker, but I guess there's more lines for that question! All the ice turned into water anyway in the previous procedure, but it will just take less than 30 seconds this time right ? A bit more energy is being transferred each second because on addition to the heater the room is also providing heat energy.
I really hope this was like a 3 marker
It was a 2 marker .Anyways I'm glad you get it now
Could you help me out on this question please Name:  NOPE.PNG
Views: 279
Size:  13.3 KB
Thanks,
Smith
0
reply
iCiaran
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#584
Report 6 years ago
#584
(Original post by D4rth)
Oh really? That sounds bad, we had proper lessons for it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
If that sounds bad how does having 4 changes of teacher over the 2 years sound? We're on our 5th teacher now
0
reply
Lucy-1995
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#585
Report 6 years ago
#585
(Original post by iCiaran)
If that sounds bad how does having 4 changes of teacher over the 2 years sound? We're on our 5th teacher now
Christ that sucks! My teachers have got so **** this year, they think this unit is really easy and cancelled every lesson for a month after easter!
0
reply
SpiggyTopes
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#586
Report 6 years ago
#586
(Original post by posthumus)
OMG, never thought of that Yh I think you are very right

Thanks for bringing that up, I didn't even consider the initial conditions of the procedure!
Hopefully it comes up now!
1
reply
SortYourLife
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#587
Report 6 years ago
#587
I could've potentially had 4 teachers over the two years (as it turns out I had 3)

But 2 for AS, one teaching all the mechanics for unit 2 (who I love) and one teaching all the waves and all that (who I hated)

I also had the one that I hated for all the particle physics and the one I loved for the other bit of unit 1.


Then for A2 fortunately the teacher I hated doesn't teach A2 and I kept the one I loved, as well as gaining one I had at GCSE who I loved too

1 taught all the force and gravitational fields part for unit 4 and the other all the electric fields and capacitors and all that

Then for unit 5 one teaches all the core bit and one the applied (turning points)

I spend roughly 2 and a half hours of lessons with them a week (before I finished obviously aha) and we could ask any teacher about anything

Could've easily got two new ones this year instead of keeping one of them


(This happened to me in chemistry, one of my teachers retired and I got moved groups to even out numbers and because of the subject I dropped, one of them is a pretty much new qualified teacher and I've hated her all year aha, safe to say I now suck at chemistry )


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
amish123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#588
Report 6 years ago
#588
(Original post by smith50)
It was a 2 marker .Anyways I'm glad you get it now
Could you help me out on this question please Name:  NOPE.PNG
Views: 279
Size:  13.3 KB
Thanks,
Smith
Right first work out the total mass change if one uranium atom disintegrates,

so 390.406 + 1.675 - (149.357 + 239.056 + 2x1.675)

and you get a mass difference of 3.18 x 10^-27kg.

Now, for a uranium atom, there are 235g per mole. So if you want to find the mass change for 0.5kg, you do 500/235 x (6.0 x 10^23) and this will give you the number of uranium atoms in 0.5kg. You'll get an answer of 1.276 x 10^24 atoms.

Then you just multiply the mass difference if one uranium atom disintegrates by the number of uranium atoms you have, so (3.18 x 10^-27) x (1.276 x 10^24) and you'll get a final answer of 4.06 x 10^-4kg, or 406g.

Hope that helps!
0
reply
posthumus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#589
Report 6 years ago
#589
(Original post by smith50)
It was a 2 marker .Anyways I'm glad you get it now
Could you help me out on this question please Name:  NOPE.PNG
Views: 279
Size:  13.3 KB
Thanks,
Smith
I initially thought about working with moles, but I've gone for this method...

Energy before - energy after

energy = mc^2

mc^2 - mc^2 = [0.5 x (3x108)2 + uc2] - 236u x (3x108)2

Note that u = 1.661 x 10^-27
& 236 is the number of nucleons on the other side

I ended up with 4.5 x 10^16 J

m=E/c^2

Brilliant I got a god damn mass of 0.5kg

Previously I didn't include uc^2 on the left but still got the exact same energy so maybe the calculator just rounds it up since it can't show that many figures

I'm going to use u=931.3 MeV now...

2.8125 x 10^29 MeV + 931.3 MeV - 236 x 931.3 = 2.815 x 10^29 MeV

m=2.815 x 10^35 x 1.6 x 10^-19 / (3 x 10^8)^2 = 0.5 kg

Okay I'm a moron... not getting this one right lol, hopefully someone else will be able to help. Keep getting mass difference of 0.5 kg which I'd be surprised if it was right... might have to use moles or something

EDIT: Ah I see Amish has done it already above
0
reply
jonnyb123
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#590
Report 6 years ago
#590
(Original post by zmai)
Anyone doing medical physics?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Me

How are you feeling about it? I hope they don't ask too much about the ear, that's my worst topic, and some of the lens calculations are a pretty confusing, but all in all I don't find it too hard compared to unit 5 section A and 4. Helps that the grade boundaries have been ridiculously low the last few years too!
0
reply
amish123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#591
Report 6 years ago
#591
(Original post by posthumus)
I initially thought about working with moles, but I've gone for this method...

Energy before - energy after

energy = mc^2

mc^2 - mc^2 = [0.5 x (3x108)2 + uc2] - 236u x (3x108)2

Note that u = 1.661 x 10^-27
& 236 is the number of nucleons on the other side

I ended up with 4.5 x 10^16 J

m=E/c^2

Brilliant I got a god damn mass of 0.5kg

Previously I didn't include uc^2 on the left but still got the exact same energy so maybe the calculator just rounds it up since it can't show that many figures

I'm going to use u=931.3 MeV now...

2.8125 x 10^29 MeV + 931.3 MeV - 236 x 931.3 = 2.815 x 10^29 MeV

m=2.815 x 10^35 x 1.6 x 10^-19 / (3 x 10^8)^2 = 0.5 kg

Okay I'm a moron... not getting this one right lol, hopefully someone else will be able to help. Keep getting mass difference of 0.5 kg which I'd be surprised if it was right... might have to use moles or something

EDIT: Ah I see Amish has done it already above
I keep trying what you did, and the calculator kept giving 0.5kg! I was like eh?! Then I tried using moles and it worked! Nifty question that!
0
reply
posthumus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#592
Report 6 years ago
#592
(Original post by amish123)
I keep trying what you did, and the calculator kept giving 0.5kg! I was like eh?! Then I tried using moles and it worked! Nifty question that!
Yh it should have worked, the value you got 0.406kg was quite small & the calculator does round up a lot because the numbers are so large :/ like I forgot to add the mass of the neutron on the left the first time but it didn't even make a difference to the value on my calculator

EDIT: Also may I ask where you got the more accurate values for atomic mass from? Are they given to us in the exam in some form of table or something.. ? Thanks
0
reply
cooldudeman
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#593
Report 6 years ago
#593
(Original post by posthumus)
Not so great, but I think the paper in general was okay... I just didn't really prepare for it, and wasn't expecting to improve anyway... I've had way too many exams

Was busy preparing for C3 as well, but that turned out to be a frickin' disaster lol

How'd you find PHYA4?
Ahh sad to hear. Just focus on unit 5 yeah. My one went kinda well. Aduno but defo wayyy more than what I got in jan. And c3 was a joke.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
fayled
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#594
Report 6 years ago
#594
(Original post by amish123)
I keep trying what you did, and the calculator kept giving 0.5kg! I was like eh?! Then I tried using moles and it worked! Nifty question that!
Do you reckon there was further information given in that question with all the masses in terms of u? Would have made it a lot easier, as you could just find the mass change in u for one fission event, convert it to kg. Find mass of uranium in kg from given mass in terms of u, divide 0.5kg by mass of uranium to get number of uranium nuclei, and multiply this by mass change per event...
0
reply
smith50
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#595
Report 6 years ago
#595
(Original post by posthumus)
I initially thought about working with moles, but I've gone for this method...

Energy before - energy after

energy = mc^2

mc^2 - mc^2 = [0.5 x (3x108)2 + uc2] - 236u x (3x108)2

Note that u = 1.661 x 10^-27
& 236 is the number of nucleons on the other side

I ended up with 4.5 x 10^16 J

m=E/c^2

Brilliant I got a god damn mass of 0.5kg

Previously I didn't include uc^2 on the left but still got the exact same energy so maybe the calculator just rounds it up since it can't show that many figures

I'm going to use u=931.3 MeV now...

2.8125 x 10^29 MeV + 931.3 MeV - 236 x 931.3 = 2.815 x 10^29 MeV

m=2.815 x 10^35 x 1.6 x 10^-19 / (3 x 10^8)^2 = 0.5 kg

Okay I'm a moron... not getting this one right lol, hopefully someone else will be able to help. Keep getting mass difference of 0.5 kg which I'd be surprised if it was right... might have to use moles or something

EDIT: Ah I see Amish has done it already above

(Original post by amish123)
Right first work out the total mass change if one uranium atom disintegrates,

so 390.406 + 1.675 - (149.357 + 239.056 + 2x1.675)

and you get a mass difference of 3.18 x 10^-27kg.

Now, for a uranium atom, there are 235g per mole. So if you want to find the mass change for 0.5kg, you do 500/235 x (6.0 x 10^23) and this will give you the number of uranium atoms in 0.5kg. You'll get an answer of 1.276 x 10^24 atoms.

Then you just multiply the mass difference if one uranium atom disintegrates by the number of uranium atoms you have, so (3.18 x 10^-27) x (1.276 x 10^24) and you'll get a final answer of 4.06 x 10^-4kg, or 406g.

Hope that helps!
Thanks a bunch for your responses understand it now
0
reply
milliezhao
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#596
Report 6 years ago
#596
Hi, is anyone here who does the applied option and has done the June 10 paper? On question 4 a) the applied section, it asks you to estimate the work done by the air, In the AQA booklet it says that you need to find out the area under the graph between the 2 volumes, so in this case it will be between the volume of 1.2 and 3.0, and pressure between 0 and 3.6, but if you do that according to the marks scheme you will only get 2 marks, you get 3 marks if you do it between the pressure if 1.0 to 3.6!! I asked my teacher he has no idea why the mark scheme is inconsistent to book so can anyone here help me out? Thanks
0
reply
franko06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#597
Report 6 years ago
#597
For those doing Astrophysics,

I'm struggling with magnitudes! Please can someone give me a simplified definition for both apparent and absolute? And applications on how it can be tested on you in the exam?

It's very difficult, AQA's notes are appalling! (too much unnecessary information!)
0
reply
zmai
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#598
Report 6 years ago
#598
(Original post by jonnyb123)
Me

How are you feeling about it? I hope they don't ask too much about the ear, that's my worst topic, and some of the lens calculations are a pretty confusing, but all in all I don't find it too hard compared to unit 5 section A and 4. Helps that the grade boundaries have been ridiculously low the last few years too!
Thank god for the grade boundaries! I like those chapters! I don't like X-rays thou! I think the tough thing is that the syllabus is big despite there only being a few questions in the exam!

For the eye calculations just say that for example a diverging lens for a myopic eye will make a point at infinity appear to be at the near point of that eye (eg 10m) so the eye can see it, so make u=infinity and v=-10 ? Does that help?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#599
Report 6 years ago
#599
(Original post by franko06)
For those doing Astrophysics,

I'm struggling with magnitudes! Please can someone give me a simplified definition for both apparent and absolute? And applications on how it can be tested on you in the exam?

It's very difficult, AQA's notes are appalling! (too much unnecessary information!)
you using the kerboodle stuff? (the pdf files)

apparent magnitude is how bright the stars appear to be

absolute magnitude is an objective measurement of brightness, it is the how bright the stars would appear if they were at 10 parsecs away from the earth
0
reply
jethacan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#600
Report 6 years ago
#600
(Original post by posthumus)
I think it'd be much lower than 40 degrees Celsius because since it's not insulated... it will reach thermal equilibrium with the room... so the water will reach room temperature (or a little bit above it), but definitely lower than 40 degrees I would have thought.

(Original post by laser174572)
It would be lower as your calculations take no account for heat loss to the environment


Posted from TSR Mobile

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
Wouldn't it be higher, because the average temperature of the ice/water throughout the experiment is below the room temperature, and so there will be a net flow of heat into the water/ice?
It would be higher but I don't understand! Shouldn't the heat from the heater go to the surroundings as well as the ice, since the air is colder than the heater? The water surely won't reach 40 degrees since the heat is lost to surroundings from the heater?

Although I kind of understand that since the temperature of the water is mostly under 25 degrees, heat will be transferred from surroundings to water as well as from the heater, but it doesn't explain why thermal equilibrium wouldn't be at around 25 degrees. Once the water exceeds 25 degrees, wouldn't it just start losing heat instead of gaining temperature?
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 Hertfordshire
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Nov '19
  • University of Roehampton
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Nov '19
  • Swansea University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Nov '19

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (48)
18.82%
Labour (105)
41.18%
Liberal Democrats (52)
20.39%
Green Party (15)
5.88%
Brexit Party (7)
2.75%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (0)
0%
SNP (4)
1.57%
Plaid Cymru (5)
1.96%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (0)
0%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (0)
0%
UKIP (2)
0.78%
Other (2)
0.78%
None (15)
5.88%

Watched Threads

View All