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

Unit 6 - Synoptic Physics - Edexcel (Salters) - How was it? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i ****ed it up! - lucky to get 25% - couldn't have imagined a worse paper - tested all my weakest areas. I even messed up the graph. There goes my chances of an A or B grade and probably university place with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't ave put it betta..... I fought i was goin UCl....looks like UEl
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i too agree with you, that was stupidly hard, some of the stuff on there i didnt even recognise??? i needed a B in phys but with PSA4,5,6 goin so bad i'll be lucky if i get a C!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I completely messed up! Don't really know what happened. I wasn't thinking clearly from the start and I just broke down in tears half way through and then couldn't concentrate on the rest. I half heartedly answered a few bits and couldn't interpret the rest let alone think and answer the questions. I won't get my A now which I have worked so hard for, so I'm rather upset.
    Never handed in such a blank paper!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think I did OKies
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    sweet, we all ****ed up...which means we're all going to get reasonably good grades..Ill just keep telling myself that lol. I could barely do the graph stuff meh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    I think I did OKies
    *blinks* Do many cambridge engineering graduates sit Alevel physics? =P
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    *blinks*
    Just messing with you guys!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    *blinks* Do many cambridge engineering graduates sit Alevel physics? =P
    Yeah, to bump up the grade boundaries for the rest of us poor souls.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    Yeah, to bump up the grade boundaries for the rest of us poor souls.
    The synoptic I did (back in 2000) went okies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know this sounds bad but i'm so glad to hear that other people found it as difficult as i did. I needed a B in Physics and will not get this now. I completely messed up the paper.

    The first and last question were the only ones i really had an attempt at. Even saying that, it wasn't much of an attempt.

    The particle reaction was a pretty easy few marks. I guessed the next few about needing to change the atom to an ion and how the differnet energy ions are seporated out. The questions kept asking you to back up what you were saying with equations and i just blanked and couldn't think of any ones that would fit in. I didn't get the question about temperature - left it mostly blank apart from working out kinetic energy. Can't remember any more of this question but overall i'll be lucky to have got 40% on it.

    I'm am so pissed off with myself about the graph question. Just drawing the graph was worth 9 marks. As the table only gave one column for workings i thouhgt it would be a log-linear graph so did this and it wasn't a straight line - decided it must be 'ln' instead of 'log' - still didn't work. Panic set in and i had to move on with the intention of getting back to it. Never had the time so lost all 9 marks for the graph and didn't even attempt the follow on questions that required you to use the graph - i am just pissed that i know with 5 more mins i would have been able to plot a log-log graph and got the 9 marks. Would have made such a big difference. Probably scored no marks for this question.

    Question 3 was the earth-quake one i think. I just made up and tried to blag answers to all the parts of this. Thought the questions were so random. Again blanked on equations and will be lucky to get 30% for this question.

    Question 4 was the one about the 'light show' from jupiters mooon. - This was alright ish. Just talked about induced emf when flux lines are cut and photons and energy levels. Should get about 4-5/7 for this question.

    All in all - lucky to get an E at 40% - infact seriously doubt i will.

    I'm just hoping that the grade boundaries are going to be low.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm surprised that people found it quite difficult - most of my group thought it wasn't too bad. I couldn't believe the graph question was worth 9 marks!

    Sorry to worry anyone but it had absolutely nothing to do with logs. r = r0 A^(1/3). y=mx+c. Use blank column to calculate A^(1/3) values. Plot r on y-axis and A^(1/3) on x-axis. Since no + c graph goes through (0,0). r0 came out around 1.25.

    The rest of the paper was pretty straightforward. As long as you had some basic knowledge about magnetic fields, particles, earthquakes etc. then it was OK - certainly compared to Unit 4.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 85ah11)
    I'm surprised that people found it quite difficult - most of my group thought it wasn't too bad. I couldn't believe the graph question was worth 9 marks!

    Sorry to worry anyone but it had absolutely nothing to do with logs. r = r0 A^(1/3). y=mx+c. Use blank column to calculate A^(1/3) values. Plot r on y-axis and A^(1/3) on x-axis. Since no + c graph goes through (0,0). r0 came out around 1.25.

    The rest of the paper was pretty straightforward. As long as you had some basic knowledge about magnetic fields, particles, earthquakes etc. then it was OK - certainly compared to Unit 4.
    yea i did the A^(1/3) bit got 1.25x10^-15

    on the last question i wrote nothing about magnets .

    and the stupid temp one, i used E=mcD(theta) and the speed of light!!!! how could i be so stupid!!!!!!!!

    but i blaged the rest so...here's hoping i still get da A required.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I actualy think I did quite well though all my mates said they found it impossible. I'm pritty sure I havn't ****ed up 2 coz I checked sum of my answers with my teacher.

    For the temperature one I think you needed to rearrange eV=3kT and the last question was the electrons moving up and then down energy levels and givin off their energy in the form of a photon (f=E/h then wavelength=v/f).

    Anyone else get them?

    Think I srewed up on the graph question though.

    Having said that though, I thought I'd done well last summer and I got 2Es :eek: (though I retook them and got a C and an A) - I need a C or a B (I need 1 B and 2 Cs for comp sci at Bham)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did everyone talk about for the earthquake question.

    I think the first question was something like 'why was it a suprise that the waves hit a town 20km away with the same intensity they had at the epicentre? - use equations'

    I talked about the energy of the wave being absorbed by the material in which it's travelling through (kinda damped) and so amplitude and intensity would be decreased with distance. Couldn't thibk of an equation so think i ended up using V=f X wavelength - said that frequency would decrease with distance so velocity would decease and intensity would be lower...doesn't sound at all right but couldn't think of anything else.

    Another part was 'give two reasons why the waves travel more slowly in sedimentry rock - use an equation.

    I used V = (Square root) E / P - said the density is higher and so the velocity of the wave is lower. For my second reason i tried to blag an explination and said that E = stress / strain -- stress = F / A - the area of the rock is could be bigger - therefore the stress smaller, E smaller and V smaller.

    Another part was something about the shape of the rock bondary causing the waves to be more intense at the town.

    I said that the denser rock slowed the wave down and made them refract towards one another. Talked a bit about waves being from the same source and so constructive superposition could happen and amplitude of resultant waves could be higher. For a second reason i again just made stuff up. Said that I = A^2 - the boundary could refract waves close together which would increase their area and increase their intensity.

    I think the last part was about why the wave caused damage in some areas and not in other areas.

    Didn't really have a clue about this. Just talked a bit about constructive superposition focussing the waves more accurately and also That the rock boundary takes a convex shape and focuses the waves onto smaller areas. These areas absorb the waves energy which means other areas that haven't had been hit by the focused waves aren't as badly affected.

    I think that was all the parts. Can someone tell me whether i am along the right lines for any of it. This was the only question that i really had a go at every part. Need to score fairly well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh thats sounds similar to mine. For the intensity one (the first one) I think you were meant to do Intensity=Initial Intensity x e-x/t (only I missed of t so I wrote it was proportional to not equal to).

    Got the same first reason as you (forgot what my second reason was) for the speed question).

    Got a similar answer to you here too - I talked about the difference in refractive index (which is basicaly the same as saying it slows down).

    Yeh this was interference but it was casused by the path difference (with explaines the damage / no damage to different areas).

    There was one more question which was summit like "When designing a building in an earthquake prone area give 2 things that should be taken into consideration to reduce damage":

    I wrote summit like introducing dampening and making the building natural frequency one that an earthquake isn't likely to equal so that driving force doesn't equal natural frequency (which would lead to resonance).

    Your answers seem quite good to me though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yea i put the attenuation equation for the distance.intensity bit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ****! The attenuation equation. How obvious!

    So the bit about why some parts of the town was hit and not others was basically different path differences causing constructive or destructive superposition. Damn it - all seems so logical when you think about it afterwards. I got myself into a panic in that exam - i knew my grade and uni place was resting on that paper and once i saw the questions i just thought i was going to do badly.

    The one about protecting a building was pretty easy. I just talked about damping - shock absorbers - materials that behave plastically and absorb the oscillations energy etc....

    Can anyone remember the first question?

    I know the first bit was the particle reaction.

    For this the 'H' was 2 and 1 from the text right and not 4 and 2 as normal. This meant that the unknown particle at the end was a neutron????

    I got a bit confused as it said it was an isotope yet i thought it was only the atomic mass number than canged on an isotope.

    I think a part asked you why atom had to be changed to an ion. - I just said something like they needed certain energies and used the magnetic field to get these. If the atom wasn't changed to an ion then it wouldn't be affected by the field as it will only act on charged objects. Couldn't think of anything else. - don't think i used an equation here.

    The next part asked you to explain how they seporated out the energies in terms of mass, velocity and charge and to use equations.

    I used F = BqV - said that a bigger charge would mean a bigger force exterted on the ion and the faster it would fall to the positive plate/pole. For a second reason i blanked and ended up using f = ma - f = m(v / t) - bigger velocity and bigger mass = bigger force and would fall more qucikly to the positive plate as more attractive force.

    The only other question i can remember is the temperature one. I used Ek = qv to get kinetic energy but couldn't remeber the Ek = 3kt / 2 (something like that anyway) equation so had to just leave it at kinetic energy.

    I'm sure i have missed a question. Was there another one?

    Am i on the right lines with any of these answers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh I got the same answer for the particle equation as you (ending in a neutron).

    Again same here - I wrote about the field only affecting charged particles (didn't use a formula for that bit though). Then I said that the mass and velocity would be sorted because if they had too much or too little momentum (I wrote p=mv here) then their inertia would carry them into one of the plates (either under shooting or over shooting).

    I got the temperature one (eV = 3kT / 2).

    Sounds like you're on the right lines though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the info. I'm feeling slightly better. Couldn't sleep at all last night. I was so annoyed with myself.

    I NEED to get atleast 40/90 on this paper to leave myself any chance of my B grade and uni place.. Seems low but i will have lost almost all the marks on the graph question. This means i need to score about 65% on question 1 and 3 and get about 5/7 on the last question.

    I really hope i have done this!!!
 
 
 
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.