Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 28, 2025, 05:38:28 am

Author Topic: well???  (Read 17688 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

orangez

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: well???
« Reply #60 on: June 11, 2008, 05:36:54 pm »
OMFG!! I just realised. I copied another version of the diagram onto my cheat sheet, but guess what? I placed the tension and compression forces at the wrong places (tension at top and comp. at bottom) How dumb is that? Lost 2 marks  :'(
2007: Biology - 37
2008: English -36 , Specialist Maths - 38, Maths Methods - 42, Chemistry - 36, Physics - 40

ENTER: 96.30

chid

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
Re: well???
« Reply #61 on: June 11, 2008, 05:41:25 pm »
Don't worry about it. I know it's two marks and it is a harsh penalty for a small oversight, but that's the nature of this exam. 13 questions for 26 marks in detailed study means that most people will lose more marks than they deserve to for small mistakes (and also there is no consequential)
VCE 2008:
English 49                        Physics 45
Specialist Maths 47           Economics 44  
Maths Mathods CAS 50     (2007) Chemistry 46

Aggregate 208.8
ENTER 99.90

Tutoring Methods, Specialist and Chemistry in 2009!
PM me if interested.

pinchies

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: well???
« Reply #62 on: June 11, 2008, 05:43:33 pm »
Well
As for the kinetic energy question...the answer was D i think...the parabola....heres why...

Since mass of the particle remains constant the ony variable affecting kinetic energy is velocity. Now, at the bottom of its cycle... the particle is moving upward with speed. Its speed then reaches a maximum at the halfway point. then it slowly begins to decelerate as it nears the top as the spring provides force opposing the motion. There..that seems about right....If anyone thinks im wrong go right ahead and point it out. << not meaning to sound arrogant or anything just wanting to encourage constructive criticism.

Cheers

well put!!
I think graph C was of the acceleration and D was of the velocity :D
2007: Soft Dev 46 ~ 2008: Eng (30+) , Chem(37+), Physics(45+), Methods (42+), Spec (35+ stupid exam 1...) ~ MHS 2008 - here we go! Enter dream aim: 97+, but realistic 95+

Ninox

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 167
  • vive le science!
Re: well???
« Reply #63 on: June 11, 2008, 05:46:13 pm »
As for the kinetic energy question...the answer was D i think...the parabola....heres why...

Since mass of the particle remains constant the ony variable affecting kinetic energy is velocity. Now, at the bottom of its cycle... the particle is moving upward with speed. Its speed then reaches a maximum at the halfway point. then it slowly begins to decelerate as it nears the top as the spring provides force opposing the motion. There..that seems about right....If anyone thinks im wrong go right ahead and point it out. << not meaning to sound arrogant or anything just wanting to encourage constructive criticism.

Cheers

hey I know that guy!
No enwiabe, I'm not trolling.
good to see that ur doing alright
2006: Engineering Studies 45 (Premier's Award), Religion and Societies 39
2007: Methods 45, Spesh 46, Chem 50, Physics 41, Literature 39, MUEP Maths 5.5
ENTER: 99.60
Science/Engineering @ Monash; Mat'ls Eng; Chem, Physiology?

Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: well???
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2008, 05:50:39 pm »
As for the kinetic energy question...the answer was D i think...the parabola....heres why...

Since mass of the particle remains constant the ony variable affecting kinetic energy is velocity. Now, at the bottom of its cycle... the particle is moving upward with speed. Its speed then reaches a maximum at the halfway point. then it slowly begins to decelerate as it nears the top as the spring provides force opposing the motion. There..that seems about right....If anyone thinks im wrong go right ahead and point it out. << not meaning to sound arrogant or anything just wanting to encourage constructive criticism.

Cheers

I agree Energy Kinetic only varies on velocity.

Now, let's ignore energy for a minute.

Let us pretend, this is a projectile, with no horizontal velocity.

It has a launch velocity, which is it's maximum.  Gravity acts upon it, slowing it down.  It reaches a velocity of 0m/s at the top. [We all agree Energy kinetic must be 0 at the top]

Now, taking the spring into concideration.

The way I see it, is the spring energy is converted to kinetic energy.

As the ball goes higher, this kinetic energy goes into potential energy.

The spring doesn't start compressing until 40cm.  The ball only rises up to 55cm, Hence no energy goes into compression. [I've got the diagram infront of me]
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 05:54:22 pm by Captain »

equinox

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: well???
« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2008, 05:55:12 pm »
^^hmmm hmmm i see your point....will have to get out a slinky spring to test this out.
BRB
Nodders

Mao

  • CH41RMN
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 9181
  • School: Kambrya College
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: well???
« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2008, 06:01:39 pm »
i'm only joining in this debate now

it HAS to be D, the mass changes direction, you are not supposing it changes direction at a velocity other than 0 ?!
REAL LIFE DISCONTINUITY

ps, i have the exam in front of me, but i dont have a scanner either :P
Editor for ATARNotes Chemistry study guides.

VCE 2008 | Monash BSc (Chem., Appl. Math.) 2009-2011 | UoM BScHon (Chem.) 2012 | UoM PhD (Chem.) 2013-2015

equinox

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: well???
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2008, 06:06:30 pm »
Excellent..so the slinky sping wasnt required.  :P
Nodders

Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: well???
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2008, 06:14:21 pm »
I totally looked at this question in the wrong way.

According to Mao's solutions, I'm sitting on 87/90.

pinchies

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: well???
« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2008, 06:34:41 pm »
I totally looked at this question in the wrong way.

According to Mao's solutions, I'm sitting on 87/90.

Nice! Hope it comes out that way for end of year... now they know, they'll make it harder I reckon.
2007: Soft Dev 46 ~ 2008: Eng (30+) , Chem(37+), Physics(45+), Methods (42+), Spec (35+ stupid exam 1...) ~ MHS 2008 - here we go! Enter dream aim: 97+, but realistic 95+

Mao

  • CH41RMN
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 9181
  • School: Kambrya College
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: well???
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2008, 06:39:05 pm »
I totally looked at this question in the wrong way.

According to Mao's solutions, I'm sitting on 87/90.

Nice! Hope it comes out that way for end of year... now they know, they'll make it harder I reckon.

i dont think they will

it was overall a good paper, no ambiguity, but the difficulty was there. for once a VCAA paper has some quality to it :P

i just hope they dont change that, especially the ambiguity part. maybe they've learnt a lesson since the 06 paper :P
Editor for ATARNotes Chemistry study guides.

VCE 2008 | Monash BSc (Chem., Appl. Math.) 2009-2011 | UoM BScHon (Chem.) 2012 | UoM PhD (Chem.) 2013-2015

equinox

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: well???
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2008, 07:24:06 pm »
yes me too  87/90 i reckon
Nodders

Captain

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: well???
« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2008, 07:38:34 pm »
I totally looked at this question in the wrong way.

According to Mao's solutions, I'm sitting on 87/90.

Nice! Hope it comes out that way for end of year... now they know, they'll make it harder I reckon.

i dont think they will

it was overall a good paper, no ambiguity, but the difficulty was there. for once a VCAA paper has some quality to it :P

i just hope they dont change that, especially the ambiguity part. maybe they've learnt a lesson since the 06 paper :P

This years Physics paper was written by someone different, than the 05, 06 and 07 [pretty sure they were written by the same person]

equinox

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: well???
« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2008, 07:46:22 pm »
^^ it shows....the other papers were aweful
Nodders