How did the physics 22 paper go?

[awesomaholic101]

Thank you mate for motivating me, any ideas of howmany marks it had?

Welcome ... and the graph alone was 3 marks ...

 

[awesomaholic101]

Can we three discuss with each other? in pm?

I think my answers to that whole question was wrong ... But someone had answers? I really want them.

 

[AbdullahBShakeel]

15 people voted for threshold to be 50-60 damn guys.. Easy on the GT..

 

[asadalam]

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

 

[Dodo XD]

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?

 

[awesomaholic101]

15 people voted for threshold to be 50-60 damn guys.. Easy on the GT..

 

[AbdullahBShakeel]

For distance i did 1/2 x 9.81 x 2.5(sq) + 1/2 x 9.81 x 0.5(sq).. Did anyone else do that?

 

[asadalam]

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

 

[awesomaholic101]

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

Thank you... I think i got distance right :/
ruby_fern FranticAmaze a_wiserME!! buckle_crackk NotYourType

 

[awesomaholic101]

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?

 

[Dodo XD]

For distance i did 1/2 x 9.81 x 2.5(sq) + 1/2 x 9.81 x 0.5(sq).. Did anyone else do that?

I did the same thing but instead of 2.5 and 0.5 i used 2 and 3 :/
and i added it all together to get the distance..

 

[asadalam]

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.

 

[awesomaholic101]

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

 

[asadalam]

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

 

[hamzashariq]

So ur telling the stone sunk into the ground ... I actually considered the possibility but didn't have time to think

lol it didn't exactly sink into the ground, it was most probably thrown from above ground level.

 

[hamzashariq]

What was the direction of S guys?

 

[awesomaholic101]

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 ...

 

[awesomaholic101]

lol it didn't exactly sink into ground, it was most probably thrown from above ground level.

But it could be a scenario ... if the ground is sand that is

 

[asadalam]

But it could be a scenario ... if the ground is sand that is

That would obviously slow the ball down and besides it said AIR RESISTANCE is negligible.The friction due to sand would be immense and create a weird non-parabolic graph.

 

[hamzashariq]

But it could be a scenario ... if the ground is sand that is

The point is it went below the point from which it was thrown. Now it could have been a cliff, a hole, or anything else. It doesn't really matter.