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

AQA Physics PHYA4 - Thursday 11th June 2015 [Exam Discussion Thread] Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did people write for the ammeter questions?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amanzz)
    The added mass doesn't effect damping. Of course damping affects the time period, but the mass added has not increased the damping force, as the time period is independent to the mass added, vmax is independent, and this equation here, the 'drag force' which is what the damping force in this instance is, is denoted below. It is true a damping force changes the time period, but changing the mass doesn't change the maximum velocity , assuming the ring has no significant area, which is a fair assumption. Attachment 425463


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Approximately everything you said there is wrong

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Disney0702)
    What other one?
    Lol, a lot of confusion (CD)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    For the capicitance Discharge question, what did people get for how long capacitor could be used before needing to recharge


    I got 1000
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by QueNNch)
    Yep emf is 0.12V

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Dont you divide by square root of 2 due to avergae, for 2 marks part ii divided by time seems too generous
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amanzz)
    The added mass doesn't effect damping. Of course damping affects the time period, but the mass added has not increased the damping force, as the time period is independent to the mass added, vmax is independent, and this equation here, the 'drag force' which is what the damping force in this instance is, is denoted below. It is true a damping force changes the time period, but changing the mass doesn't change the maximum velocity , assuming the ring has no significant area, which is a fair assumption. Attachment 425463


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Isn't Stokes' law is for spherical objects?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lau14)
    What was the typo, don't think I noticed!
    The first part of the question used a 150Ω resistor, and the second part a 300,000Ω resistor. This lead to a graph that could not be drawn accurately, as it had to start at 1/2000th of the height of the original line! Clearly they missed a 'kilo' off the 150Ω, or added one in on the 300kΩ
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ssargithan)
    Dont you divideutby square root of 2 due to avergae, for 2 marks part ii divided by time seems too generous
    No idea
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AR_95)
    For the capicitance Discharge question, what did people get for how long capacitor could be used before needing to recharge


    I got 1000
    YES
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NEWT0N)
    YES
    YES MAN FINALLY A QUESTION I ACTUALLY GOT RIGHT LOOOOOOL

    i was stuck on this one for 20 minutes. Was kicking myself because I had done it before in a past paper!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone get 1.4 for the height of the mass raised by the energy supplied by the capacitor?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lau14)
    No, there has been a very similar question to this in a previous year (identical but with different numbers) and what they put for 20 is right
    Okay so since when did scales read -ve values? you can't get negative mass?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NEWT0N)
    The point charge is negative
    Yes! Thats what i wrote too
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salicional)
    The first part of the question used a 150Ω resistor, and the second part a 300,000Ω resistor. This lead to a graph that could not be drawn accurately, as it had to start at 1/2000th of the height of the original line! Clearly they missed a 'kilo' off the 150Ω, or added one in on the 300kΩ
    I haven't heard anyone else notice this yet, but it would be bad if they had messed up!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amanzz)
    The added mass doesn't effect damping. Of course damping affects the time period, but the mass added has not increased the damping force, as the time period is independent to the mass added, vmax is independent, and this equation here, the 'drag force' which is what the damping force in this instance is, is denoted below. It is true a damping force changes the time period, but changing the mass doesn't change the maximum velocity , assuming the ring has no significant area, which is a fair assumption. Attachment 425463


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The formula booklet gives equations that assume damping is negligible. Damping doesn't affect the time period it just decreases the velocity as it always acts opposite to velocity, damping will have a greater effect on something which is light as it has a larger impulse. As I said go do the experiment and see for yourself.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazley123)
    Okay so since when did scales read -ve values? you can't get negative mass?
    If you've got some digital scales, go put something on them, zero them and then take it off. It's not about what mass actually is, it's about how the scales measure it and magnetic fields.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Disney0702)
    Yes! Thats what i wrote too
    Nice. I will admit that the first thing I put was (approximately): "the potential increases with distance away from the force"

    I don't see why this wouldn't be right as well. But I changed it immediately after doing part 2ci
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NEWT0N)
    Isn't Stokes' law is for spherical objects?
    That's true, I was illustrating that stokes' law depends on velocity, which doesn't change what a new mass is added provided that there isn't a large change in surface area.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazley123)
    Okay so since when did scales read -ve values? you can't get negative mass?
    Your argument is valid but I've also done Q 20 in past papers and it's definitely -322

    Change in direction of current, making force apply in opposite direction. (Flemings LHR)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazley123)
    Okay so since when did scales read -ve values? you can't get negative mass?
    We literally had thousand hours of discussion about such a question


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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.