• We need your support!

    We are currently struggling to cover the operational costs of Xtremepapers, as a result we might have to shut this website down. Please donate if we have helped you and help make a difference in other students' lives!
    Click here to Donate Now (View Announcement)

How did the physics 22 paper go?

How much do you expect?

  • 50 - 60

    Votes: 24 27.0%
  • 40 - 50

    Votes: 34 38.2%
  • 30 - 40

    Votes: 29 32.6%
  • < 30

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
4,065
Points
273
I think my answers to that whole question was wrong ... But someone had answers? I really want them.
For Q2

Q2 17.2 speed at 3.0s distance was 22.7,displacement 7.33 vertically down

Graph of velocity was a straight line with negative gradient with x intercept at 1.25 and y intercept at 12.2 and on the other side at the end at 3 s it was -17.2
 
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Points
13
For Q2

Q2 17.2 speed at 3.0s distance was 22.7,displacement 7.33 vertically down

Graph of velocity was a straight line with negative gradient with x intercept at 1.25 and y intercept at 12.2 and on the other side at the end at 3 s it was -17.2


How did you calculate the speed?
 
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
4,065
Points
273
How did you calculate the speed?
Speed at 1.25 was 0.All force due to gravity.Total time travelled down was (3.0-1.25) i.e 1.75

then we just input using v=u + at
where u is 0,a is 9.81 and t is 1.75
This gives 17.16 i.e 17.2
 
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
12,402
Points
523
B
Speed at 1.25 was 0.All force due to gravity.Total time travelled down was (3.0-1.25) i.e 1.75

then we just input using v=u + at
where u is 0,a is 9.81 and t is 1.75
This gives 17.16 i.e 17.2
But the total distance downwards will not be equal to 3-1.25 coz s is -ve after 2.5 ... so the ball is rebounding at t=2.5s ... rite?
 
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
4,065
Points
273
B

But the total distance downwards will not be equal to 3-1.25 coz s is -ve after 2.5 ... so the ball is rebounding at t=2.5s ... rite?
No its not rebounding its going downwards.If it went to displacement would've changed.Think of it like we threw it over a hole.To a point it rose above it,then it kept falling and went into the hole,even below the point where it first started.Thats where DISPLACEMENT got negative.
 
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
12,402
Points
523
No its not rebounding its going downwards.If it went to displacement would've changed.Think of it like we threw it over a hole.To a point it rose above it,then it kept falling and went into the hole,even below the point where it first started.Thats where DISPLACEMENT got negative.
So ur telling the stone sunk into the ground ... I actually considered the possibility but didn't have time to think
 
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
4,065
Points
273
So ur telling the stone sunk into the ground ... I actually considered the possibility but didn't have time to think
Not necessarily.There are loads of scenarios.This could also be the case that we threw it over on the edge of a cliff and it went up and kept going down,all vertically,understand?If it rebounded,it would show displacement would not be negative as the stone would not go below its initial point
 
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
12,402
Points
523
Not necessarily.There are loads of scenarios.This could also be the case that we threw it over on the edge of a cliff and it went up and kept going down,all vertically,understand?If it rebounded,it would show displacement would not be negative as the stone would not go below its initial point
Oh ok kinda getting it it ... But if I could have a look at the question it would become more clear ...
 
Top