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

How was Edexcel physics?? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mockel)
    yeah i didn't really get that either, but they said the exact same thing later on in the question, so it couldn't have been a typo, could it?
    i guessed that they meant a "small, massively dense nucleus", surely its a typo!!

    theyll probably cancel the question, since it was badly written
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think the density question was...
    an air bubble of volume 2.00cm^3 is released by a diver 30.0m below the sea. What is the voume when it reaches the surface?

    You were told that increase in pressure=decrease in height x density x gravity
    and also u were told that the density of the red sea was somehthing like 1170kgm^3 and that atmospheric pressure was 101000 Pa

    (Original post by crana)
    "massive" means it has lots of mass, not that it is very big

    rosie
    lol, "lots" of mass being relative to the electrons etc, i should have said
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    "massive" means it has lots of mass, not that it is very big

    rosie
    but it doesnt have a lot of mass - the nucleus is rather dense though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    lol, "lots" of mass being relative to the electrons etc, i should have said
    surely they would have to explain that it is comparitively massive - dumb edexcel :mad:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lgs98jonee)
    i think the density question was...
    an air bubble of volume 2.00cm^3 is released by a diver 30.0m below the sea. What is the voume when it reaches the surface?

    You were told that increase in pressure=decrease in height x density x gravity
    and also u were told that the density of the red sea was somehthing like 1170kgm^3 and that atmospheric pressure was 101000 Pa
    oh yeah, no i remember...

    (Original post by neosyko)
    surely they would have to explain that it is comparitively massive - dumb edexcel :mad:
    no it's a common way of describing the nucleus.

    It's like "small" - obviously it's not just "small" in relation to most things, its absolutely titchy tiny miniscule. "small" and "massive" are accepted as relative terms.

    on reflection i think massive means more... lots of mass for its size... than just lots of mass.

    rosie
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    no it's a common way of describing the nucleus.

    It's like "small" - obviously it's not just "small" in relation to most things, its absolutely titchy tiny miniscule. "small" and "massive" are accepted as relative terms.

    on reflection i think massive means more... lots of mass for its size... than just lots of mass.

    rosie
    that assumption would mean that the nucleus is both small and massive compared with the other atomic components - therefore this question does not make sense

    (Original post by neosyko)
    that assumption would mean that the nucleus is both small and massive compared with the other atomic components - therefore this question does not make sense
    YES IT DOES

    It is small.
    It has lots of mass for its size.

    What is wrong with that?!

    Rosie
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    no it's a common way of describing the nucleus.

    It's like "small" - obviously it's not just "small" in relation to most things, its absolutely titchy tiny miniscule. "small" and "massive" are accepted as relative terms.

    on reflection i think massive means more... lots of mass for its size... than just lots of mass.

    rosie
    they would have to differentiate between the two descriptive terms, by using comparitive examples.
    "massive" would be the wrong word to use to describe "lots of mass for its size" - why not just say dense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how did you get a thickness for the lead. i just guessed that the mass of the lead must be 20kg as it said estimate

    (Original post by neosyko)
    they would have to differentiate between the two descriptive terms, by using comparitive examples.
    "massive" would be the wrong word to use to describe "lots of mass for its size" - why not just say dense?
    why would "massive" be the wrong word to use?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neosyko)
    they would have to differentiate between the two descriptive terms, by using comparitive examples.
    "massive" would be the wrong word to use to describe "lots of mass for its size" - why not just say dense?
    They used these 2 words so that you had to make 2 distict points, one for each word.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tennis)
    how did you get a thickness for the lead. i just guessed that the mass of the lead must be 20kg as it said estimate
    The mass of metal must be the same per unit area. In the first, you have 8.1kg which is 1m^2, so the mass per meter square is 8.1.

    Now, the mass of lead per meter square must be the same, so use a sheet 1m^2, and then you get
    8.1 = volume * density = (thickness*1*1)*density

    So the thickness = 8.1/11.3*10^3 = 7*10^4 m
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how many marks was that question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesF)
    The mass of metal must be the same per unit area. In the first, you have 8.1kg which is 1m^2, so the mass per meter square is 8.1.

    Now, the mass of lead per meter square must be the same, so use a sheet 1m^2, and then you get
    8.1 = volume * density = (thickness*1*1)*density

    So the thickness = 8.1/11.3*10^3 = 7*10^4 m
    yep well dun james f u smacked it
    i got that too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tennis)
    that doesnt make sense cause firstly if that was to the power of 10 to the power of -4 that would be smaller than the original thickness of aluminium which doesnt make sense. secondly if that is 10 to the power of plus 4 that is the thickness of 10 houses.
    exactly of course it has to be smaller than aluminium
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathematician)
    exactly of course it has to be smaller than aluminium
    the thickness was 7x10^-4m
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how many marks was that question 2 or 3.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tennis)
    how many marks was that question 2 or 3.
    3 i think
 
 
 
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.