Physics predictions? (1 Viewer)

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

oh god was it that easy

Conjugate MX2 reactions for phys

 

[jdad1]

will 90 raw mark be scaled down?

 

[MJRey]

will 90 raw mark be scaled down?

I don't think it'll be scaled down because of the nature of the subject, although it was definitely way easier than I thought it was going to be.

 

[demdoo1]

Does anyone know when the exam questions come out ??

 

[notme123]

i refuse to believe it was an easy exam until i actually see it

 

[Dobson]

Anyone found the paper yet?

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Nah bro NESA got embarassed hard so they dont want ppl leaking the paper.

No one got it ig bc its been like 6 hrs

 

[yanujw]

Does anyone know when the exam questions come out ??

9:25am, give or take a few miniutes /s

In all seriousness, they usually take 2 business days to upload it officially to the nesa website. Though you can look for shady versions on the conquer server.

 

[tgone]

wtf nesa they put all the physics in 4u that was stupidly easy

 

[Vall]

Felt easy and too short (I finished in 1.5hrs). Just worried they mark all the written ones really harshly.

 

[Aroo($)]

y'all scaring me. i found Q32-35 were actually hard.

 

[notme123]

there are a lot of ways markers can demand more from you and making an easy exam is one of those ways. for example. the 7 marker on particles and the magnetic field. to get all 7 marks you'll need to talk about charge, radius, speed, direction, and something most people won't consider is radius decay. as charges accelerate, they emit emf which reduces KE thus their speed falls, and the radius of rotation gets smaller. idk if the question made it so you cant talk about that but its just higher order information that they want.

 

[yanujw]

there are a lot of ways markers can demand more from you and making an easy exam is one of those ways. for example. the 7 marker on particles and the magnetic field. to get all 7 marks you'll need to talk about charge, radius, speed, direction, and something most people won't consider is radius decay. as charges accelerate, they emit emf which reduces KE thus their speed falls, and the radius of rotation gets smaller. idk if the question made it so you cant talk about that but its just higher order information that they want.

So in the exam I considered talking about speed... but the question very specifically asked about the path not the motion. Will I lose a mark for that? Also aren't charge and direction the same linked concept? I discussed that X and Y had to be positively charged and Z negative by RHR.

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

there are a lot of ways markers can demand more from you and making an easy exam is one of those ways. for example. the 7 marker on particles and the magnetic field. to get all 7 marks you'll need to talk about charge, radius, speed, direction, and something most people won't consider is radius decay. as charges accelerate, they emit emf which reduces KE thus their speed falls, and the radius of rotation gets smaller. idk if the question made it so you cant talk about that but its just higher order information that they want.

Talked about charge, radius, speed, direction using Fc=Fb to derive the equation, didn't consider the decay though but damn that makes sense.

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

y'all scaring me. i found Q32-35 were actually hard.

That projectile motion question was super easy that should've been q21 IMO
The other one was abt EM induction and it was straightforward, just dump faraday + lenz law -> EM braking
35 was pre straightforward?

Can't really think of a problem which was difficult in the paper but moreso just annoying/wierd. The mark distribution felt really wierd as well

 

[jdad1]

Also for the last question about testing whether the hypothesis was true, you had to say that the gravitational force of attraction was insignificant to account for the centripetal force since it was too small, right? By comparing GMm/r^2 and mv^2/r

 

[yanujw]

Also for the last question about testing whether the hypothesis was true, you had to say that the gravitational force of attraction was insignificant to account for the centripetal force since it was too small, right? By comparing GMm/r^2 and mv^2/r

Yeah pretty much. I used a calculation to show that the illustrated velocity is nowhere near what the actual orbital velocity would be, and then a sentence to consolidate that the hypothesis is wrong

 

[Dobson]

Hey guys this might be overthinking it, but for the last question is the gravitational force between the capsule and ISS low because a large component of the force is already due to the ISS orbit around earth? This is probably very wrong though

 

[Lith_30]

Hey guys this might be overthinking it, but for the last question is the gravitational force between the capsule and ISS low because a large component of the force is already due to the ISS orbit around earth? This is probably very wrong though

I think the question asked about how the SYSTEM of the iss and capsule could evaluate the hypothesis, so i guess they wanted us to consider those two only rather than consider the Earth at all.

 

[d1zzyohs]

Hey guys this might be overthinking it, but for the last question is the gravitational force between the capsule and ISS low because a large component of the force is already due to the ISS orbit around earth? This is probably very wrong though

You could definetely say in the question that since the accelerations + velocity didn't math, much of the extra force being exerted were largely from the initial boosting stages + orbit around sun/earth.