Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Edexcel - M3 - 18th May 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BBeyond)
    June 12 4b what a horrible q such retarded angles
    It's a throwback to m2 which is a severe problem for me as i was pretty **** at them at the time and that was a year ago...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    I can't think of one using normal principles. It uses FP3 the ideas I am thinking of.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I did FP3 last year and remember some of it lol. Can you explain more?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    I can't think of one using normal principles. It uses FP3 the ideas I am thinking of.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can do it with a hemisphere of radius r+delta r - one of radius r but it's ugly
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFarmerLad)
    When calculating the time in SHM between two points, remember to use x=Acos(wt) if the particle starts at the amplitude position and vice versa, use x = Asin(wt) if it starts at the equilibrium position. And always make sure x is the displacement from the origin (I sometimes make the mistake in thinking that it's the displacement from where the particle starts the SHM (which is usually the amplitude) but it's always from the origin!!).
    I know but the mark scheme gives -1= 4sin pi/6 times t
    However sin pi/6 = 1/2 which means t should equal to -1/2 but the markscheme says t= -0.482
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BBeyond)
    June 12 4b what a horrible q such retarded angles
    Haha yeh no nice numbers but still resulted in a nice k.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustDynamite)
    I know but the mark scheme gives -1= 4sin pi/6 times t
    However sin pi/6 = 1/2 which means t should equal to -1/2 but the markscheme says t= -0.482
    sin(pi/6 x t) not sin(pi/6) xt
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samb1234)
    You can do it with a hemisphere of radius r+delta r - one of radius r but it's ugly
    Ah yes that should do it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    Haha yeh no nice numbers but still resulted in a nice k.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?

    (Original post by samb1234)
    It's a throwback to m2 which is a severe problem for me as i was pretty **** at them at the time and that was a year ago...
    Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BBeyond)
    Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?



    Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to
    I actually got one in my exam but luckily had done so much practice that i was just about able to get through it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BBeyond)
    Yh true I had to do it two ways to check tho seemed dodgy to me. Did u do moments or recalc c.o.m?



    Ahahah doing m2 this year so I've got that to look forward to
    i did moments
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    i did moments
    Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)
    It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    hmm anyone done M3 Jan 16 (no spoilers to follow)? My friend asked about a method about q7 earlier and it makes sense to me but isnt covered on the markscheme. Could anyone verify this?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    hmm anyone done M3 Jan 16 (no spoilers to follow)? My friend asked about a method about q7 earlier and it makes sense to me but isnt covered on the markscheme. Could anyone verify this?
    That was the paper I sat, Q7 seemed like a normal typical circular motions question. :dontknow:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    That was the paper I sat, Q7 seemed like a normal typical circular motions question. :dontknow:
    ah nice. Yea it seems the same to me but
    Spoiler:
    Show
    they noticed the second part before doing the first where they had to show u>... so they tried to save time by looking at the tension in the rod (or whatever it was). They argued that the  T \geq 0 at the top of the circle. If this holds, it implies  u \geq \sqrt{ \frac{7lg}{5} } which satisfies the criteria in the question. Im not 100% sure they can say T>0 at the top unlike the situation with the reaction force and a particle rolling on a larger sphere but idk.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When calculating moments, do the forces have to be perpendicular to the length of the rod?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    Recalculating the COM is so much cleaner. If you use the tan addition formula then you don't even need a calculator (and therefore I've found it the marginally more useful thing for step, but ymmv)
    It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    ah nice. Yea it seems the same to me but
    Spoiler:
    Show
    they noticed the second part before doing the first where they had to show u>... so they tried to save time by looking at the tension in the rod (or whatever it was). They argued that the  T \geq 0 at the top of the circle. If this holds, it implies  u \geq \sqrt{ \frac{7lg}{5} } which satisfies the criteria in the question. Im not 100% sure they can say T>0 at the top unlike the situation with the reaction force and a particle rolling on a larger sphere but idk.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I think they are confusing the criterion for complete circles.

    Strings - tension at top > 0.

    Rods - speed at top > 0.

    This makes intuitive sense since rods cannot exactly go slack or anything, can they - so the condition is that the rod must have a velocity at the top for it to perform complete circles whereas strings can go slack so the condition is that tension at the top needs to be greater than 0.
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    It seems like it is cleaner yes. I did the instinct which is normally moments and worked first try so I didn't bother anything else. Yeh actually the tan addition formula cleans it up quite nicely. Well played lad, well played.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ty bro.
    Offline

    3
    Anyone know if Arsey does M3 model answers?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.