Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They will bring the grade boundaries down due to their error on that, time would have been wasted for students, it impacts overall performance. So this is a good thing

    (Original post by 96wst)
    Yes I did. If so that is poor on their behalf
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone get 1562.5 somewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Electric potential:
    Couloumbs law (2)
    Graph: constant -ve gradient so V isdirectly prop to -1/r and -ve values as -ve potential is associated with a negative charge
    27.8nC
    4.5x10^-5
    1.56x10^3
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    For the capacitor's graph I was feeling cheeky and just drew a near flat line not quite at zero. I find it hard to believe they would make a typo but w/e
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hexaneandheels)
    My first answers on MC were:

    ABCDBBCC

    Can't remember the sequence after that
    I only got two the same as you 😳
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king cobra)
    Did anyone get 1562.5 somewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k9000)
    Electric potential:
    Couloumbs law (2)
    Graph: constant -ve gradient so V isdirectly prop to -1/r and -ve values as -ve potential is associated with a negative charge
    27.8nC
    4.5x10^-5
    1.56x10^3
    SAME!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wasn't it 4.5times 10-6


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MSB47)
    I did a less steep graph because I thought with greater time constant it would discharge at a slower rate :/
    Yeah that's exactly what I thought

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jf1994)
    I think I did this too, but did you get minus 27.8 for the charge? And then just discounted because it asks for magnitude?

    I think I got 4.5x10^-3 or something for work done by same method you used, and then 1xxx (19xx?) for electrical field strength, can't remember exactly.
    yeah i remember a 4.5x10 to something, cant remember what i did for the next
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    0.12 for emf induced anyone?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    And why was it negative


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I really liked that paper, I know I got the one about which statement isn't correct about the gravitational potential wrong. Also all the damping but wrong and the curve as I forgot to use a shallower gradient but pretty sure I got the rest of the marks. What was the answer to number of electrons? I got 2.2*10^10, not sure if that's right 😊

    EDIT: I also dropped a mark on the electric field strength one as my final answer wasn't negative 😓
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king cobra)
    Did anyone get 1562.5 somewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah didn't you have to write 1600 Vm-1 cause it was 2.s.f


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes!! I was so worried but I got all those too


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king cobra)
    Did anyone get 1562.5 somewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think I got that for my electric field strength
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What did people get fir the hight lifted by the capacitor motor? Becuase i got 1.9m using mgh and the energy stored
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwerty1996)
    Yes!! I was so worried but I got all those too


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It was to the power of -6 not -5


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cudders96)
    Anyone else notice on the current graph question that the first resistance was 150Ω, but the second was 300KΩ? Think it was probably a typo on AQA's behalf, because the resulting graph would have to start with initial current 2000x lower than the original graph.
    I notice that too, I was like what the heck


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't notice any typo for the capacitor?? Maybe I just misread it, I just drew a graph of a capacitor of twice the time constant...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 22, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.