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

AQA Physics PHYA5 - Thursday 18th June 2015 [Exam Discussion Thread] Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone mind showing me how this would look please?


    Mark scheme doesn't have an image to check against
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  Untitled.png
Views: 154
Size:  48.1 KBHey can anyone help me with this. Basically why is the answer to 1c 'Objective because as m=fo/fe so for magnification fo>fe'

    Following that explanation, isnt it dependant on the focal length of the other eyepiece used so if you had a lens of focal length was 80cm wouldnt you use that as the objective. How can they ask us which one is the objective if they dont give us any details about what would be used as the eyepiece? Thanks so much

    Oops that pic cuts the last line, but you can see the main part of the question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    hi, could someone help with core 2014 question 1b ii. I know its a simple question im just getting myself confused, just not sure how to deal with the neutrons either side, thanks!

    http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...1-QP-JUN14.PDF
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobHunter97)
    Does anyone mind showing me how this would look please?


    Mark scheme doesn't have an image to check against
    Diverging lenses aren't even on the spec. Where did you get that paper?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CD223)
    Diverging lenses aren't even on the spec. Where did you get that paper?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Medical Physics section of the June 2010 paper
    Unit 5B
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Specter)
    Name:  Untitled.png
Views: 154
Size:  48.1 KBHey can anyone help me with this. Basically why is the answer to 1c 'Objective because as m=fo/fe so for magnification fo>fe'

    Following that explanation, isnt it dependant on the focal length of the other eyepiece used so if you had a lens of focal length was 80cm wouldnt you use that as the objective. How can they ask us which one is the objective if they dont give us any details about what would be used as the eyepiece? Thanks so much

    Oops that pic cuts the last line, but you can see the main part of the question.
    I know what you mean, the question isn't nice. Only think I can think of is in terms of ratios for the distances given.

    For magnification the focal length of the objective has to be much greater than that of the eyepiece - for a telescope in normal adjustment the ratio of fo:fe should be about 5:1 when drawing diagrams for three non axial rays.

    Given the distances considered, it wouldn't be feasible for the lens of focal length ~70cm to be the eyepiece as this would mean an objective is needed that has a focal length of approximately ~350cm for the same sharp image to be produced when the telescope is in normal adjustment.

    Given the distances mentioned (200cm between screen and object), it makes more sense that the lens is used as the objective, as this would mean that the eyepiece only needs a focal length of ~14cm.

    If you think that the length of the telescope is fo + fe as well, then a telescope of length 84cm in normal adjustment sounds more sensible than one of 420cm for this application.

    I can't think of another way of explaining it - I totally agree that it's not a nice question though. I tripped up on it too and wasn't happy with the mark scheme.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobHunter97)
    Medical Physics section of the June 2010 paper
    Unit 5B
    Sorry! I mistook it for Astro - do ignore me - we only deal with converging!



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CD223)
    Sorry! I mistook it for Astro - do ignore me - we only deal with converging!



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No worries Hoping somebody knows. I think I'm right, but the fact it's a diverging lens makes me think I've done it wrong
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why does an alpha particle cause more ionisation that a beta particle of the same initial kinetic energy?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CD223)
    Diverging lenses aren't even on the spec. Where did you get that paper?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm after the answer to this too, so stupid that they basically just say 'diagram drawn correctly' for full marks...

    I drew horizontal line from tip of object to lens line, then projected it back onto the focal point BEFORE the lens, then drew another line from tip of object to the point of intersection of the axes and drew the image where these two lines intersected, between -F and lens axis
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcsestuff)
    Is this the general idea of the inversion tube experiment:

    Lead spheres are heated to a certain temperature.

    They are then put in a tube and the tube is rotated a certain number of time.

    Due to energy loss from gravity, mgh and the total no. Of rotations we can say that mcT=mghn

    Which cancels to give us c= gln/T


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do we need to know how to measure it using electrical methods aswell ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sumz.96)
    Why does an alpha particle cause more ionisation that a beta particle of the same initial kinetic energy?
    Charge of an alpha particle is greater in magnitude (think it's 2e) where as a Beta is just 1
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sumz.96)
    Why does an alpha particle cause more ionisation that a beta particle of the same initial kinetic energy?
    Because it has more momentum and would 'knock' another atoms particles more of a distance (I think thats basically ionising) Its also much larger in size so way more likely to hit another atom
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sumz.96)
    Why does an alpha particle cause more ionisation that a beta particle of the same initial kinetic energy?
    Alpha particles have a greater mass. For the same kinetic energy this means their speed must be slower.

    This means that there is a greater probability of collisions with molecules, ionising them by stripping them of outer electrons.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is an assumption of the change of state of matter that this happens at a constant mass? In other words, there is no mass lost when a liquid is vaporised?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AR_95)
    Charge of an alpha particle is greater in magnitude (think it's 2e) where as a Beta is just 1
    (Original post by kevincarreira)
    Because it has more momentum and would 'knock' another atoms particles more of a distance (I think thats basically ionising) Its also much larger in size so way more likely to hit another atom
    (Original post by CD223)
    Alpha particles have a greater mass. For the same kinetic energy this means their speed must be slower.

    This means that there is a greater probability of collisions with molecules, ionising them by stripping them of outer electrons.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thank you!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CD223)
    Is an assumption of the change of state of matter that this happens at a constant mass? In other words, there is no mass lost when a liquid is vaporised?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, I think so, if mass was lost then you're losing energy as well
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  q1.png
Views: 140
Size:  115.6 KB

    Q4 (c). June 2011. Why is the temperature higher and not lower? MS doesn't make sense to me that much :/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So charge has nothing to do with the fact that alpha is more ionising then Beta?

    Isn't Alpha positive 2 charge, so more likely to attract the electrons out of the atom it collides with if we put aside momentum for now
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CD223)
    Name:  q1.png
Views: 140
Size:  115.6 KB

    Q4 (c). June 2011. Why is the temperature higher and not lower? MS doesn't make sense to me that much :/
    It's exposed to a higher temperature so I think it gains more energy
 
 
 
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.