Physics Paper 5 discussion and expected gt !!!

[nighthawk]

Hey guys. Post your expected GT and discussions of the paper 52 of physics here. Please so not disclose any answers before 24 hours has passed. Thank you.

 

[Omar Haider]

How was it for you?

 

[HectorLolx]

It was okay, I guess. There's one part of a question though that made us divided . Half got a value, and the half got a different value... Most dramatic is, the two top best students in the school got different answer for it

 

[Omar Haider]

Yeah, question 2 required a lot more work this time. And Q1 was unexpected.

 

[princessnoor]

Well it was fine i think
Q1 was not unexpected , a similar question on soynd came in previous papers but different equation duhh!!
q2 last part was hard u couldnt solve it

 

[anonymous1122]

Didnt we just had to use equation for calculating the answer in last part? Data was all given. X was to be calculated and current had to be converted into Ampere though before calculation.
Or maybe i did wrong ._.

 

[samantha liyanage]

Didnt we just had to use equation for calculating the answer in last part? Data was all given. X was to be calculated and current had to be converted into Ampere though before calculation.
Or maybe i did wrong ._.

yeah but some people may have calculated the area wrong.
calculating the area was the tricky part. other than that it was good.

 

[Omar Haider]

yeah but some people may have calculated the area wrong.
calculating the area was the tricky part. other than that it was good.

What do you mean calculating the area was tricky? It was pretty straightforward, no? The tricky part was implementing all those uncertainties.

 

[anonymous1122]

Answer was to be multiplied with sum of all fractional errors to get the error.
The place where i went wrong was i didnt multiply fractional error of X with 2 since we were squaring it.
Sigh. I only realized this after the paper.

What do you mean calculating the area was tricky? It was pretty straightforward, no? The tricky part was implementing all those uncertainties.

 

[Omar Haider]

Answer was to be multiplied with sum of all fractional errors to get the error.
The place where i went wrong was i didnt multiply fractional error of X with 2 since we were squaring it.
Sigh. I only realized this after the paper.

Yes, that part was confusing, but I accidentally didn't realise that the sheets were square, so I used the previous width :/

 

[Asad rehman]

If gradient comes wrong then subsequently all other readings too,how much i will be penalized for this if my all workings are right?

 

[samantha liyanage]

Yes, that part was confusing, but I accidentally didn't realise that the sheets were square, so I used the previous width :/

yep and that's what is tricky.
If you missed the word 'square' the whole thing goes wrong.

 

[Omar Haider]

yep and that's what is tricky.
If you missed the word 'square' the whole thing goes wrong.

Nah, I don't think so. It'll probably be 1 mark off, because 1 was to calculate the value and one was to calculate the uncertainty. What did you guys write for question 1?

 

[nighthawk]

Well, did anyone get the uncertainty around 25? and for question 1, i wrote laptop and loudspeaker and microphone and CRO? WBU guys?

 

[nighthawk]

Hey guys, anyone gave their computing exam? Computing 9691 paper 32. If yes, what is the gt you expect to be? Vote at this thread.

https://www.xtremepapers.com/community/threads/computing-9691-paper-32-2015-expected-gt.41556/