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

Official OCR New Spec AS Level Physics: Depth in physics - 9th of May Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea how that exam went... I answered all but one question but wasn't too sure about some of my answered as I just wrote whatever came to mind, hate that feeling :/
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickC98)
    I have no idea how that exam went... I answered all but one question but wasn't too sure about some of my answered as I just wrote whatever came to mind, hate that feeling :/
    Yep that pretty much sums it up for me XD
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Parhomus)
    The X axis was x10^-3 so when u divide it becomes what u see
    the 6.25 is right. the 10^-3 was not in the unit and so you find a gradient for L^2/10^-3 against R, as by dividng by 10^-3 you arent finding the gradient of the line
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

    & for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digimon304)
    Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

    & for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?
    4.1% as it was l^2
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Only one I'm u certain about was describing the experiment for breaking stress of the wire. What did you guys get for that??



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i got 4.6 for the gradient
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jtmass22)
    the 6.25 is right. the 10^-3 was not in the unit and so you find a gradient for L^2/10^-3 against R, as by dividng by 10^-3 you arent finding the gradient of the line
    No. Think about the experiment for the Planck's constant using LEDs. If you use x10^14 on the freq axis, then find h without multiplying by 10^14, your answer will be wrong, fam

    (Original post by Digimon304)
    Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

    & for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?
    I got 1.02%, to the nearest millimeter means +/- 0.5 mm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digimon304)
    Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

    & for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?
    yep I got 2%
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digimon304)
    Did anyone get 7.5 for the gradient?

    & for the percentage uncertainty question did anyone get 2.04%?
    I got 4.08 since it was l^2 so I multiplied by 2
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't squaring a value double the percentage uncertainty and cubing would be multiply by 3?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    No. Think about the experiment for the Planck's constant using LEDs. If you use x10^14 on the freq axis, then find h without multiplying by 10^14, your answer will be wrong, fam



    I got 1.02%, to the nearest millimeter means +/- 0.5 mm
    I think ocr said both were acceptable since there was a lot of discrepancy in textbooks
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digimon304)
    Doesn't squaring a value double the percentage uncertainty and cubing would be multiply by 3?
    YEs
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Parhomus)
    I got 4.08 since it was l^2 so I multiplied by 2
    did you do (0.0005/reading)x2x100
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amywynn)
    did you do (0.0005/reading)x2x100
    I did 0.001 but both are acceptable apparently
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What were peoples points for the 6 mark on the photoelectric effect?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sen99)
    i got 4.6 for the gradient
    Same but I think I had x10^3 on the end since for the x-axis values it was x10^-3?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What did you guys write for the stress experiment? Same setup as youngs modulus. Using force over area, so no extension and stuff?

    And dat photoelectric effect question? I kept writing the same stuff over xD
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Parhomus)
    Oh I got 5.5 x 10^3
    I belive I got 5.6 x 10^3, and 0.100 for the bit about finding the resistivity...? Did you get something similar for that?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geo_sharrock)
    What were peoples points for the 6 mark on the photoelectric effect?
    Threshold frequency; so it showed that it was a particle as there is no way of explaining this phenomena with the wave like nature of EM radiation. Also explained it talking about how if it was explainable using the wavelike nature then continuous energy stored would eventually lead to electron emission and so the leaf would fall, but obviously it didn't. Also talked about how the intensity doesn't affect the time taken for the radiation below the threshold frequency showing the previous contradiction. Then I said that the fact that the leaf falls faster when intensity increases for uv shows the particulate nature as it means there are more photons per m^2 and so more photons for the one-to-one ratio >>>electrons escape faster so it falls faster.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.