• 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 was physics paper 33

Messages
37
Reaction score
4
Points
8
gradient 0.0685
y intercept 0.836
k1 = 740, k2 = 550 (i took it in meters)
temp change in cup =3
temp change in bowl =5
Hope this helps u or scares the shit out of u ;)(y)
Like n Reply if ur getting same or something
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
I have a feeling that there was something in the practical which half the people took in one way and the other half took the other cause the one's who got a positive graph can't think of what went wrong and the one's who got a negative graph can't either. However Im reallyyy curious about people who got positive graphs... can you please put your table of values up?

This is what a negative graph's table of values was like for the candidates:

IMAG0263.jpg
 

aom

Messages
68
Reaction score
12
Points
18
I have a feeling that there was something in the practical which half the people took in one way and the other half took the other cause the one's who got a positive graph can't think of what went wrong and the one's who got a negative graph can't either. However Im reallyyy curious about people who got positive graphs... can you please put your table of values up?

This is what a negative graph's table of values was like for the candidates:

View attachment 9738
the only thing is that some people took Kg (which is right) and some others took grams :)
 
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Points
13
Oh... i finally get it... The difference was that some people had attached fixed mass to the longer string on the right with one spring (which was correct) while others had attached fixed mass to the shorter string with the two springs. Thats the error. Finally hit it. :p

And btw, i have clarified it before with reference to the markscheme. "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT UNIT YOU USE"
Mark scheme allows you to use any units. You can use g or kg, m or cm or mm. DOESN'T MATTER.
 
Messages
103
Reaction score
28
Points
28
If I used (k2-k1)/k2 x 100, I would've gotten, like, 120% error. When I used the formula the other way round, it was around 60% error. I'm pretty sure I messed up there, but at least this value was slightly more acceptable. :p
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
the only thing is that some people took Kg (which is right) and some others took grams :)
yeh they didnt ask for the units to be changed to grams.. infact in the question it was given as 150g so why would you change it unneccessarily to make your values into non integers? -_-"
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
Oh... i finally get it... The difference was that some people had attached fixed mass to the longer string on the right with one spring (which was correct) while others had attached fixed mass to the shorter string with the two springs. Thats the error. Finally hit it. :p

And btw, i have clarified it before with reference to the markscheme. "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT UNIT YOU USE"
Mark scheme allows you to use any units. You can use g or kg, m or cm or mm. DOESN'T MATTER.
I dont think that was it.. cause the kids in my school all attached it to the right (the correct one) but they all had a positive graph and i had a negative graph..
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
Oh... i finally get it... The difference was that some people had attached fixed mass to the longer string on the right with one spring (which was correct) while others had attached fixed mass to the shorter string with the two springs. Thats the error. Finally hit it. :p

And btw, i have clarified it before with reference to the markscheme. "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT UNIT YOU USE"
Mark scheme allows you to use any units. You can use g or kg, m or cm or mm. DOESN'T MATTER.
and that would make no sense.. any idiot would have noticed if the mass was on the wrong string because they wouldnt have been able to adjust h by moving just one clamp.
 
Messages
339
Reaction score
105
Points
53
gradient 0.0685
y intercept 0.836
k1 = 740, k2 = 550 (i took it in meters)
temp change in cup =3
temp change in bowl =5
Hope this helps u or scares the shit out of u ;)(y)
Like n Reply if ur getting same or something
I DIDN'T get all results lyk yours..Only the temp change in the cup is almost same(got it 4):O
 
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Points
13
Oh... i finally get it... The difference was that some people had attached fixed mass to the longer string on the right with one spring (which was correct) while others had attached fixed mass to the shorter string with the two springs. Thats the error. Finally hit it. :p

And btw, i have clarified it before with reference to the markscheme. "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT UNIT YOU USE"
Mark scheme allows you to use any units. You can use g or kg, m or cm or mm. DOESN'T MATTER.
What I think the problem was that people took decreasing masses instead of increasing them.... MAYBE
 
Messages
339
Reaction score
105
Points
53
I have a feeling that there was something in the practical which half the people took in one way and the other half took the other cause the one's who got a positive graph can't think of what went wrong and the one's who got a negative graph can't either. However Im reallyyy curious about people who got positive graphs... can you please put your table of values up?

This is what a negative graph's table of values was like for the candidates:

View attachment 9738
I got a POSITIVE GRADIENT:S
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
I got a POSITIVE GRADIENT:S

okay I need you to answer every question Im about to type:

1) Which string did you hang the masses on? Short one or long one?
2)What was your h. (the fixed one) ?
3)Were your values for (h.-h)/m increasing as (1/m) decreased or were they both increasing or decreasing?
4)Did you plot (1/m) on the x axis?
5)Did your h value decrease by 0.02m or 0.03m every time you added a weight?
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
What I think the problem was that people took decreasing masses instead of increasing them.... MAYBE
that doesnt change anything.. if they took decreasing masses then their (h.-h)/m values would have increased ... anyway how can they take decreasing masses? start from 350 and go to 150? The fricking inverse proportionality does not change!
 
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Points
13
that doesnt change anything.. if they took decreasing masses then their (h.-h)/m values would have increased ... anyway how can they take decreasing masses? start from 350 and go to 150? The fricking inverse proportionality does not change!
Yup that wont cause any difference:unsure: Then how the hell did people get a positive gradient???? DID U?
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
Yup that wont cause any difference:unsure: Then how the hell did people get a positive gradient???? DID U?
no! i got a negative gradient.. no way in hell could I get a positive gradient.. I donno wtf they did to their values?!
 
Top