Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lissy14)
    ****
    I put sound
    I don't think it can be sound because it was in space so there are no air particle. I put heat
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SublimeOrangeUK)
    What did people put for the equipotential lines?
    The sideways snowman shaped thing
    (Not the 8 or the straight lines)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZestyX0r)
    Okay, I get the theory behind it, but the only value for density it gave you was for density of surface rocks on Earth? typo, or am I just misinterpreting what that means?
    yeah, the assumption you had to make was that the density of the surface rocks = the average density of the earth, which was the answer to the later question about why the value for G was wrong (also that the equatorial radius is not the same as the earth's radius)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanWales)
    I don't think it can be sound because it was in space so there are no air particle. I put heat
    I put heat

    For the question about why G is different could we say the methods are now more precise?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanWales)
    I don't think it can be sound because it was in space so there are no air particle. I put heat
    Yeah
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Could we say that the methods of measurement are more accurate?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What question is this for?

    (Original post by ZestyX0r)
    Okay, I get the theory behind it, but the only value for density it gave you was for density of surface rocks on Earth? typo, or am I just misinterpreting what that means?
    No you're right, and you were supposed to just use that as the average density of the Earth itself. That's the reason why the value of G calculate at the end was wrong.

    (Original post by urz13)
    I didn't calculate the final voltage - I just did Q=0.12C (whatever C was), then dQ/dt = 0.94uA I think 0.94 is about right as later in the question it said it was originally 1uA, or something!
    Ah fe. Everyone seems to have gotten that so it must be correct - I'll at least only drop 1 mark because I wrote out the formula, must've just messed up when subbing in values.

    (Original post by rapunzelsa)
    why is kinetic energy not conserved in the collision?? i know it's probably something really easy but i thought it can't be lost to sound because it said something about being in space :-(
    Yeah as other people have said, heat or sound upon collision.
    EDIT: Oh yeah I noticed that it was in space so thought 'can't be friction then'. Still I then went and wrote down sound energy, oh dear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhetorical Hips)
    What question is this for?


    No you're right, and you were supposed to just use that as the average density of the Earth itself. That's the reason why the value of G calculate at the end was wrong.


    Ah fe. Everyone seems to have gotten that so it must be correct - I'll at least only drop 1 mark because I wrote out the formula, must've just messed up when subbing in values.


    Yeah as other people have said, heat or sound upon collision.
    EDIT: Oh yeah I noticed that it was in space so thought 'can't be friction then'. Still I then went and wrote down sound energy, oh dear.
    For the G question


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by urz13)
    Horrible paper for me, I don't think I did well. I've got an A* on virtually all of the past papers but that was massively frustrating. I got G as something x10-16 and 0.45Hz, ugh
    I got G as that initially but changed it to the correct one, you would have used r as the radius of the earth from the previous page as opposed to r from r=ct/2
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asdfghi)
    I got G as that initially but changed it to the correct one, you would have used r as the radius of the earth from the previous page as opposed to r from r=ct/2
    I forgot to add the radius of the Earth. How many marks do you think I'll loose for that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asdfghi)
    I got G as that initially but changed it to the correct one, you would have used r as the radius of the earth from the previous page as opposed to r from r=ct/2
    Was it something x10^-10???


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhetorical Hips)
    What question is this for?


    No you're right, and you were supposed to just use that as the average density of the Earth itself. That's the reason why the value of G calculate at the end was wrong.
    poo :P
    oh well 3 marks gone
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Mutleybm1996;56878533]Was it something x10^-10???

    Yeah like 1.22x10^-10..some found it to be 1.28x10^-10 because of the extra distance of the earth...but it was only a two marker
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What did people get for the rate one? Where it said rate of molecules colliding on a surface area of 0.56 or something.
    I got like 1.2- x10^24 or something very big

    It was the 4 marker one
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champion1)
    What did people get for the rate one? Where it said rate of molecules colliding on a surface area of 0.56 or something.
    I got like 1.2- x10^24 or something very big
    I got ^23 or ^27 or something


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanWales)
    I forgot to add the radius of the Earth. How many marks do you think I'll loose for that?
    I didn't add the radius of the Earth as it specifically implied r=2ct/d and also because I added the radius of the Earth in a past paper and to the right it said reject/ignore if radius of the Earth is added so a similar question.

    Hope the same applies to this, it would seem that it should.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    I got ^23 or ^27 or something


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What about for the assumption? I put something like we assume all momentum is transferred to the area.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wait so some people added the radius of the Earth to the distance between the Earth and Moon when calculating G? I thought that 'r' in that equation only represents the distance between the Moon and the Earth's surface...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    I got ^23 or ^27 or something


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I also got some ^27. I think it was rate of change of momentum on face of box or w/e = 10^5 * 0.56 = 56000 N per s

    Then divide by the rate of change of momentum of ONE particle which was like 512 * 2.5x10^-26 or something (can't remember the mass of the particle)

    And that gave me an answer of something ^27. Some people got ^23 idk which one it correct.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champion1)
    What about for the assumption? I put something like we assume all momentum is transferred to the area.
    I said elastic collisions, someone I know put forces were instantaneous which also sounds good.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhetorical Hips)
    Wait so some people added the radius of the Earth to the distance between the Earth and Moon when calculating G? I thought that 'r' in that equation only represents the distance between the Moon and the Earth's surface...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Pretty sure that's wrong
    G was close, but not the same


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.