ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Science => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Physics => Topic started by: HarveyD on October 08, 2011, 01:49:58 pm
-
Just wondering if VCAA made any significant changes before 2009 to the Unit 4 course...
Would the pre-09 exams be worth doing?
-
There's this document: http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/StudyDesignChanges.doc.
Wrong file, let me find the correct one.
The changes aren't too bad. I had gone through and highlighted all the significant changes, there weren't too much. Some stuff got moved into detailed studies etc.
-
This is the correct document: http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/Study%20Design%20Final%20Changes.doc
-
hmm doesnt seem to be that bad, mostly reworded. might as well try vcaa 2008 and see what its like
thanks for that ^^
-
hmm doesnt seem to be that bad, mostly reworded. might as well try vcaa 2008 and see what its like
thanks for that ^^
lol, I did VCAA 2002 (just the relevant topics). I managed to get through most of it, I found it a fairly hard exam actually (assessor's report indicated it was a harder-than-usual one as well).
-
did you do vcaa 08? (if so how did you go)
-
did you do vcaa 08? (if so how did you go)
About to do VCAA 08 now, I'll let you know how I went in a couple of hours time.
-
Finished marking VCAA 2008 now - got 90/90 :D (I was surprised).
I had made a few silly mistakes, but luckily I had enough time left over to go back and check over.
Question 9 from sound, what was your answer to that? I had C - 768 Hz. VCAA gave out full marks to everyone for that (I think because the fundamental frequency was ambiguous).
Those circuit questions were annoying :/ I'm not sure if questions like that are still on the course (they changed the wording of the dot point from 'mathematically model' to 'analyse'). VCAA 2009 and 2010 from memory had it in a transmission context. STAV 2011 did have a few questions like that though.
I don't like how something we did in Unit 3 appears on exams again (the exact same type of question as well).
How did you go?
-
oh nice :D congratz
only got 84/90, that circuit question messed me up and i extrapolated the work function to be 2.1 ev when the allowed range was 2.2 - 2.6 ev
yeah i put C as well, any idea why they scrapped it? didnt seem like a problem...
-
oh nice :D congratz
only got 84/90, that circuit question messed me up and i extrapolated the work function to be 2.1 ev when the allowed range was 2.2 - 2.6 ev
yeah i put C as well, any idea why they scrapped it? didnt seem like a problem...
Yeah I got 2.5 for that work function one - I think extrapolating is another flukey kind of method (kind of like counting the squares). Unless I'm just not doing it right, probably should be using a ruler or something.
From the AIP Solutions:
Note: the phrase ‘second harmonic’ is an error. It should be either the third harmonic of the 1st overtone. The use of the phrase ‘3rd harmonic’ to describe the next mode of vibration comes from music, prior to a time when the physical principles of instruments were fully understood, it does not come from the fact that the frequency is three times that of the first harmonic. Musicians observed that when comparing the sound from a stringed instrument with that from a closed end pipe that there was a missing harmonic. Physics subsequently explained this. The use of the terms ‘fundamental’ and ‘overtones’ avoids the ambiguity of the harmonic terms.