How was physics paper 4

[raihan1904]

gt will be 70+

keep calm and wait for the results rather than predicting einsteineque grades!!! remember evryone might not be as genius as u, so plz stop embarrassing people

 

[ganapathynar]

Can someone inbox me i want to discuss?

 

[anishniroula]

There were lot of descriptive questions, where it is easy to cut marks. so i tjink gt would be around 58-60-65.

 

[biba]

gt's gonna be above 65 ..
paper wasnt difficult !

 

[FRENZYAMU]

I agree to you more than 100%.
November 2012 p42 was the easiest so far , It was literally cake and GT was still 58 and people expected GT to be around 70+
Today's paper wasn't that easy guys only Section A was easy !
Section B pattern was totally changed and questions were very awkward :/

GT for this paper would be 60-62 max.

how were they "awkward" ??? i know in q1 they didnot have comparators nd the were the answers to feul to be related to sensing ???? cuz i didnt i just told the gradient ws decreasing nd that there ws a value for volume of feul becuz curve touched x axis too soon,,,,,nd for the recovered analogue signal, do not even ask,,,i made the right graph nd then re drew a wrong graph so 4 marks gone.....nd at the time i cudnt understand the last part of photon q too


Also plz tell was the amplitude for shm 2.1 or half of 2.1 ????? big confusion

 

[MoonShock]

how were they "awkward" ??? i know in q1 they didnot have comparators nd the were the answers to feul to be related to sensing ???? cuz i didnt i just told the gradient ws decreasing nd that there ws a value for volume of feul becuz curve touched x axis too soon,,,,,nd for the recovered analogue signal, do not even ask,,,i made the right graph nd then re drew a wrong graph so 4 marks gone.....nd at the time i cudnt understand the last part of photon q too


Also plz tell was the amplitude for shm 2.1 or half of 2.1 ????? big confusion

___________________________________________________________

It was 2.1 for sure.

 

[HunzaZ]

how were they "awkward" ??? i know in q1 they didnot have comparators nd the were the answers to feul to be related to sensing ???? cuz i didnt i just told the gradient ws decreasing nd that there ws a value for volume of feul becuz curve touched x axis too soon,,,,,nd for the recovered analogue signal, do not even ask,,,i made the right graph nd then re drew a wrong graph so 4 marks gone.....nd at the time i cudnt understand the last part of photon q too


Also plz tell was the amplitude for shm 2.1 or half of 2.1 ????? big confusion

I talked about decreasing and increasing gradients and related it to why this was so like the driver needs to be warned when the fuel is finishing and that in the start of the journey when tank is full he doesn't need such warnings so fuel consumption comes as lower than what it actually is. :s I just thought its 'application' so I should tell how its applicable. I did talk about gradients waisay.
and amplitude I've taken wrong I'm sure :/

 

[Ash1994]

What was the answer to the question on Magnetism ,where they asked if the two wires have the same force or not? ans what was the value of Mag flux density?

 

[Your-Blood]

What was the answer to the question on Magnetism ,where they asked if the two wires have the same force or not? ans what was the value of Mag flux density?

Same force since the force is dependent on the product of the currents in the wires

 

[Your-Blood]

how were they "awkward" ??? i know in q1 they didnot have comparators nd the were the answers to feul to be related to sensing ???? cuz i didnt i just told the gradient ws decreasing nd that there ws a value for volume of feul becuz curve touched x axis too soon,,,,,nd for the recovered analogue signal, do not even ask,,,i made the right graph nd then re drew a wrong graph so 4 marks gone.....nd at the time i cudnt understand the last part of photon q too


Also plz tell was the amplitude for shm 2.1 or half of 2.1 ????? big confusion

Awkward in sense that the pattern was really much changed. No op amp circuits plus I was highly expecting MRI to come.
And for SHM apmlitude was 0.021m

 

[Hadaya]

Can the answers be discussed ? The paper was way too easy but sometimes answers (of numericals) differ, if possible can they be discussed here

 

[Hadaya]

Fo

Can the answers be discussed ? The paper was way too easy but sometimes answers (of numericals) differ, if possible can they be discussed here, for paper 41-

 

[leosco1995]

The unusual fuel/driving question was pretty easy I think. I mean it seemed like basic stuff we did in O-levels..

 

[leosco1995]

Also plz tell was the amplitude for shm 2.1 or half of 2.1 ????? big confusion

Why would it be half of 2.1?

 

[Ash1994]

Same force since the force is dependent on the product of the currents in the wires

i wrote same but i gave a diff reason i referred to newton's laws :/

 

[ganapathynar]

i wrote same but i gave a diff reason i referred to newton's laws :/

that is right!

 

[leosco1995]

The exact same question came a few years ago and the marking scheme accepted an answer stating the force is dependent on the product of both currents.

 

[ibadsiddiqi]

i wrote same but i gave a diff reason i referred to newton's laws :/

I did the same thing

 

[surinr]

Why would it be half of 2.1?

is this 41 02 42?

 

[Jinkglex]

i dont understand what the 2.1 question is :/ was that in 42?

and i think fuel question was the gradient was too low in first part, so small change in V for large change in fuel, and then gradient increased, so large change in V for same amount of change in fuel.