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

AQA Physics PHYA5 - 28th June 2016 [Exam Discussion Thread] watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone remember the questions and/or have the paper?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manam786)
    Depends on what option you did. I found last year's astro paper difficult

    what was last year's astro grade boundary
    25 for an A on the astro section. I've noticed that the astrophysics boundary is typically the highest. A* was 62-60 depending on option, whereas usually it's about 57-59 for an A* aside from astrophysics which always seems to be about 60
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by particlestudent)
    For Medical I'd say 53 for an A*
    was medical really that hard
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    55/75 would be an A, hopefully? i did astro btw
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manam786)
    was medical really that hard
    I didn't find it hard at all but that's how low they've been in one period. June 2010 was 56 for an A* and that one was much easier than this one. Again June 2011 was 57 for an A* and it was very easy.

    5 sub questions from June 2012 was repeated (closely) on this paper, and 4 from June 2013. The parts that weren't repeated were very weird unusual calculations

    June 2012 boundaries were 53 for an A*
    June 2013 boundaries were 54 for an A*

    That's why I think it will be 53. June 2014 was 52 for an A* and it wasn't even that hard
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For question 5 on section A, to find the pressure was the correct way using boyle's law? P2 = P1V2/V1?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slb971)
    For question 5 on section A, to find the pressure was the correct way using boyle's law? P2 = P1V2/V1?
    No it was more complicated because that only works at constant temperature. They told you that the pressure, volume and temperature all changed.

    So it was P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 - From pV = nRT your constant becomes nR so that's what you need to equate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    what did people put for where fusion and fission nuclei are placed on the graph?

    i just said that fusion nuclei are found when A<50 and fission when A>50, because fusion nuclei are smaller and more stable and fission nuclei are large and unstable?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by -jordan-)
    No it was more complicated because that only works at constant temperature. They told you that the pressure, volume and temperature all changed.

    So it was P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 - From pV = nRT your constant becomes nR so that's what you need to equate.
    Did you get a volume of 4140 or something or 5140. How did you find the exam and what do you expect the GB to be ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    Did you get a volume of 4140 or something or 5140. How did you find the exam and what do you expect the GB to be ?
    No, my volume was 0.00044, very similar order to the other volumes it gave.

    Found it reasonable, think 58 for an A* on 2D (turning points)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Was the angle you needed to use in the electron diffraction question 42.5 degrees?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    ohh **** when you found the distance of the object with 1/f=1/u+1/v it was a virtual image wasnt it>?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhyM23)
    Was the angle you needed to use in the electron diffraction question 42.5 degrees?
    I used 42 degrees, anything around that I assume they'll accept.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucabrasi98)
    For the distance question in turning points I just did wavelength/2. What were you supposed to do?
    that's right because the distance between two nodes is 1/2 wavelength which is the same as the distance between a maxima and minima
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aprkrheiqkk)
    that's right because the distance between two nodes is 1/2 wavelength which is the same as the distance between a maxima and minima
    I think it's 1/4 since that's the distance from an antinode to a node
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a4567)
    3)c) I got 0.0375m, as I got the wavelength as 0.15m and it asked for the distance between a maximum and a minimum recording, i.e. the distance between an antinode and a node, which is a quarter of a wavelength (0.15/4) = 0.0375m

    Anyone else do it this way?
    The wavelength wasn't 0.15m. They gave you 2.2GHz as the frequency (2.2*10^9), so 3*10^8 / 2.2*10^9 = wavelength - this gives 0.136m, which you then divide by 4 to get 0.341m between a node and antinode - your method was right, I think you must have miscalculated wavelength though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    The wavelength wasn't 0.15m. They gave you 2.2GHz as the frequency (2.2*10^9), so 3*10^8 / 2.2*10^9 = wavelength - this gives 0.136m, which you then divide by 4 to get 0.341m between a node and antinode - your method was right, I think you must have miscalculated wavelength though.
    the distance between a maxima and minima is not the same as the distance between a node and antinode.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhyM23)
    I think it's 1/4 since that's the distance from an antinode to a node
    the node is not a minima, its the point with zero displacement
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay1421)
    The wavelength wasn't 0.15m. They gave you 2.2GHz as the frequency (2.2*10^9), so 3*10^8 / 2.2*10^9 = wavelength - this gives 0.136m, which you then divide by 4 to get 0.341m between a node and antinode - your method was right, I think you must have miscalculated wavelength though.
    I think it's half a wavelength because you were moving the reflector not the detector. So the position of the nodes changes due to more nodes being made. This caused the difference to be half a wavelength from the original node to a newly formed antinode. Not entirely sure though, it was a weird question.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirRaza97)
    I think it's half a wavelength because you were moving the reflector not the detector. So the position of the nodes changes due to more nodes being made. This caused the difference to be half a wavelength from the original node to a newly formed antinode. Not entirely sure though, it was a weird question.
    This is what I thought too.

    This is 1/4 of a wavelength:
    Name:  1:4.png
Views: 322
Size:  20.2 KB

    This is 1/2 a wavelength:
    Attachment 557587557589
    Attached Images
     
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 19, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.