aqa gce physics a january 2002 examiners' report 12,13/a level physics past papers... ·...
Post on 04-Feb-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
GCE 2002
January Series
Report on the Examination
Advanced Subsidiary - 5451Advanced – 6451
PhysicsSpecification A
Advanced Subsidiary
Advanced
Further copies of this Report on the Examination are available from:
Publications Department, Aldon House, 39, Heald Grove, Rusholme, Manchester, M14 4NA
Tel: 0161 953 1170
or
download from the AQA website: www.aqa.org.uk
© Assessment and Qualifications Alliance 2002
COPYRIGHTAQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered centres for AQA are permitted to copymaterial from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot givepermission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal usewithin the centre.
Set and published by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales364473 and a registered Charity 1073334.Registered address Addleshaw Booth & Co., Sovereign House, PO Box 8, Sovereign Street, Leeds LS1 1HQ.The AQA was formed by the merger of the Associated Examining Board (AEB)/Southern Examining Group (SEG) and theNorthern Examinations and Assessment Board (NEAB).Kathleen Tattersall, Director General
CONTENTS
Specification A
AS Units
Page No.
Unit PAO1 Particles, Radiation and QuantumPhenomena………………………………………………………………4
Unit PAO2 Mechanics and Molecular KineticTheory………………………………………………………………………7
Unit PHA3/P Current Electricity and ElasticProperties of SolidsPractical……………………………………………………………………9
Unit PHA3/C Current Electricity and Elastic Properties of SolidsCoursework………………………………………………………………11
Unit PHA3/W Current Electricity and Elastic Properties of SolidsWritten…………………………………………………………………….13
A2 Units
Page No.
Unit PAO4 Waves, Fields and NuclearEnergy…………………………………………………………………….16
Units 5-9PHAP
Practical …………………………………………………………………19
Units 5-9PHAC
Coursework………………………………………………………………22
Unit PHA5/W Section A: Nuclear Instability…………………………………...23
-PHA9/W
Unit PHA5/W Section B: Astrophysics Option………………………………….23
Unit PHA6/W Section B: Medical Physics Option…………………………….24
Unit PHA7/W Section B: Applied Physics Option……………………………..26
Unit PHA8/W Section B: Turning Points in Physics Option……………….27
Unit PHA9/W Section B: Electronics Option……………………………………29
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades……………………………………………….….31
Physics
Specification A
Advanced Subsidiary Examination
Since this was the third time that some of the examination papers have been set, the
candidates have by now become familiar with the format of the papers and the type of
questions.
As in previous examinations all the principal examiners were satisfied that the papers had
been fair and had performed well, although there was some evidence that the marks had been
depressed slightly compared with the Summer 2001 papers. It is very pleasing to report that
the practical paper PHA3/P proved to be significantly more accessible than the corresponding
Summer 2001 paper.
A significant number of candidates were taking the examination for the second time. This
number ranged from 25% of he total entry for PA01 to 65% in the practical component of
PHA3/W and 95% in the corresponding coursework component. There was however no
valid reason to think that these repeating candidates were weaker than candidates in 2001.
There was no evidence in any of the papers to suggest that candidates had been short of time
nor was there any strong evidence that certain topics had not been covered.
With so many candidates taking the examination it is unavoidable that there will be some
incorrect use of significant figures and units, but it is pleasing to note that no examiner made
a pointed reference to these errors. This would suggest that candidates are becoming more
aware of the importance of significant figures and units and consequently not being
penalised.
Awarding the Quality for Written Communication marks appeared to go the same way as in
previous examinations, although there was an impression that there seemed to be a smaller
proportion candidates not gaining any marks.
Unit 1 : PA01 : Particles, Radiation and Quantum Phenomena
General Comments
Although the paper was considered to be slightly more demanding than the corresponding
paper in 2001, the award of full marks was not uncommon because excellent candidates had
been entered. In contrasting with this however it appeared that there were far more
candidates at the lower end of the mark scale than previously and many appeared not to have
been prepared fully for the examination.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
5
Question 1
Although parts (a) and (b) followed the usual pattern of the first question on the paper, the
addition of part (c) caused difficulties and full marks were few and far between. In part (a) a
significant minority of candidates gave wrong answers and in part (b) almost all candidates
failed to change the chemical symbol to Co, preferring to stay with Ni.
In part (c)(i) at least half the candidates gave the correct symbol for tritium but the remainder
showed a variety of mistakes in the values of the superscripts and subscripts, ranging from
3
1H to
1
4H. In part (c)(ii) only the top few percent of able candidates made a reasonable
attempt at the calculation.
Question 2
This question provided very good discrimination with the majority of candidates failing to
make any worthwhile attempt at all the calculations. Although a significant number of
candidates completed part (i) correctly, many of the others simply invented formulae to fit the
data provided e.g. energy = hλ appeared quite often. In part (ii) the majority of candidates
failed to use the de Broglie relationship, but instead chose to misinterpret the question and
tried to find the speed of an electron having the same energy as the photon.
Question 3
Traditionally, calculations connected with the photoelectric effect perform better than written
descriptions of the effect. Describing the event proved to be a skill not acquired by many of
the present candidates. There appeared to be a general lack of basic understanding of the
photoelectric effect which could not be attributed simply to a lack of communication skills.
In part (a) most candidates elected to repeat the information given in the question by
continually referring to the frequency of the photon rather than discussing the energy of the
photon. It was also clear that at least half the candidates could not distinguish between the
process of emission of an electron from a metal surface and ionisation of an atom.
The calculations in part (b) were, on the whole, performed well but some of the problems
which appeared were omitting the units in part (i) and weaker candidates wrongly converting
J to eV in part (iv) through multiplying rather than dividing by the charge e. There were a
number of significant figure errors in this part of the question.
Question 4
The answers to this question showed that although a large number of candidates had some
knowledge of the subject, they had not covered the specification material adequately. This
lack of knowledge was apparent in the ray drawings in part (a), where the typical mark was 2
out of 4. There were some surprising aspects of scoring marks in this section, e.g. two marks
were available for drawing the paths of the rays emerging into air and being refracted away
from the normal. These two marks covered the same idea but a majority of candidates only
scored one.
In part (b)(i) only about a quarter of the entry calculated that the angle of incidence at the
boundary was 20o, but then managed to score reasonably well through the use of
consequential errors. There were some good attempts at part (c) by a minority of candidates.
Most candidates were uncertain whether to use a single refractive index or a relative
refractive index throughout the calculations in parts (b) and (c).
Question 5
Questions on fundamental particles have usually enabled the better candidates to score quite
heavily and this question turned out to be a good discriminator for the middle standard
candidate. In part (a) a large percentage of candidates had trouble converting from eV to J, as
in question 3. In part (b) weak candidates appeared to be taking random guesses at the
answers in the table but even the middle standard candidates were not aware of the instability
of the neutron.
Part (c) performed much better with most candidates knowing the name of an exchange
particle other than a W boson and also knew the interaction for which their chosen particle
was responsible. About a quarter of the candidates failed to complete the Feynman diagram
successful.
Question 6
This question again showed good discrimination and in particular showed up the weaknesses
of the poorer candidates. Part (a) was usually performed well by most candidates whereas
part (b) was answered incorrectly by a large majority of candidates. It was a common
misconception in the answer to part (b) that the neutron was the most stable baryon.
It was common in part (c) for more than half the available marks to be earned, but often this
was due to consequential errors. It was interesting to note that candidates would often work
through conservation of lepton number, baryon number and strangeness but failed to consider
conservation of charge. Consequently, part (c)(i)(A) was a stumbling block for most
candidates.
Question 7
Most candidates were aware of the answer to part (i) but failed to gain the mark by not stating
explicitly that the electron was removed from the atom. Answers such as, ‘the atom goes to
level n = ∞‘ were common. In part (ii) the energy required to ionise the atom was often
quoted as a negative quantity.
Part (iii) tested candidates’ communication skills. Most candidates used much of the available
space to describe the process of excitation but many were not clear as to how the two photons
were produced. It was common to read statements such as ‘If the energy drop is very large
two photons, not one, are produced’ or ‘Sometimes the single photon is replaced by two, each
sharing the energy equally’.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
7
The transition between energy states in part (iv) was often given the wrong way round with
an electron in the ground state moving to level n = 5. In part (v) the frequency of the emitted
photon was calculated successfully by most candidates with the remaining candidates falling
into two groups; those who failed to use the factor of 10−18
in the energy value and those who
failed to use the equation ∆E = hf.
Unit 2 : PA02 : Mechanics and Molecular Theory
General Comments
The paper produced good discrimination and a full range of marks, but was found to be
slightly more difficult than the corresponding paper in January 2001. The paper required
more explanations and less numerical work than the 2001 papers, but this did bring it more
into line with the prescribed balance of objectives. There were no inaccessible questions
although some marks were hard to come by and were only earned by the most able
candidates. Calculations were usually well set out and most students seemed aware of what
was required in the assessment of quality of language. Significant figure errors were in
evidence but incorrect or missing units were comparatively rare. There were no areas of the
Specification for which candidates had not been prepared.
Question 1
Parts (a) and (b) produced good responses although a significant proportion of candidates did
concern themselves with rate of change of speed rather than velocity. Part (c) was less well
answered and proved to be a good discriminator as only the most able candidates were able to
sketch the correct graph.
Question 2
In part (a) the majority of candidates gained high marks for correct plotting of the graph, the
only major error being due to poor choice of scale. Determining the average kinetic energy of
gas molecules at 350o from the graph and calculating the gradient of the straight line was
usually carried out correctly, but very few candidates, however, were able to deduce a correct
value for the Boltzmann constant. The vast majority assumed that the gradient equalled the
constant.
Part (b) of the question was answered with mixed success. A significant minority could not
explain what was meant by an elastic collision and part (iii) was not well answered since
there appeared to be some confusion as to what exactly was required. It seemed a common
misconception that absolute zero occurred at –273 K.
Question 3
In general this question was answered well and many candidates secured full marks.
The only difficulty with part (a) was that the horizontal and vertical components of the force
were not shown as originating from the point on the kite through which the force F acted.
Although weaker candidates were unable to deduce correct values for the vertical and
horizontal components of F in part (b), they were able to make a reasonable attempt in part
(c) at combining the two components to obtain the magnitude of F.
Question 4
As with the question on moments in previous examination papers, this question was usually
answered well, although explanations as to why the pivot should be moved to the right tended
to be a little vague. In general, attempts at the calculation in part (c) were well done and
balancing of moments seems to be a well understood concept.
Question 5
Candidates appeared not to understand clearly the term, resultant force, in part (a) and often
confused resultant force with the resistance forces or the driving force. Such a misconception
led those candidates to deduce that the resultant force increased rather than decreased.
In part (b) a significant proportion of candidates calculated the kinetic energy incorrectly, by
ignoring the need to square the velocity. The calculation in part (c) was generally well done
although answers were often left as a fraction which incurred a significant figure penalty.
Question 6
The responses to this question were generally good and candidates were able to obtain the
correct answer to part (a) and conduct a meaningful discussion in part (b) in terms of energy
changes. Unfortunately a minority of candidates did use the equations of uniform
acceleration in an incorrect context in this question.
Question 7
The main problem faced by candidates when answering this question was the confusion
which arose when deciding what to call the opposing force. Many candidates identified it as
upthrust when they meant drag and a significant minority discussed air resistance. There was
also a tendency to state that the drag force become equal to the acceleration of the ball
bearing due to gravity rather than its weight.
Part (b) proved to be a good discriminator with only the best candidates producing answers
for which marks were awarded.
Question 8
There were excellent attempts at the calculations in part (a) although there were fewer
instances of full marks being awarded than was the case for a similar question in the
corresponding Summer 2001 paper. There was some uncertainty with negative signs and
very often negative signs were conveniently dropped when it came to taking square roots.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
9
The descriptive section in part (b) proved to be quite discriminating with the weaker
candidates obviously not quite sure as to the context of the question.
Unit 3 : PHA3/P : Practical
General Comments
The entry came from approximately 90 centres, many with only single candidates who were
presumably re-sitting the unit in order to improve on the mark obtained previously. This
impression was reinforced by the generally better quality of work seen in these scripts when
compared with Summer 2001 practical paper, suggesting that candidates had benefited from
being exposed beforehand to live examination questions. The experimental arrangement
worked as expected and few centres reported difficulties in the assembly of the circuit in
question 2. As is often the case in the age of digital meters, the demands of gathering and
processing measurements were minimal and most candidates found the graph easy to draw.
However, compared with Summer 2001, the subsequent processing was far more demanding.
The standard of written communication was mostly good, although a tendency persists to
write far more than is necessary: supplementary sheets should not be required unless a
candidate feels the need to restart an answer. There was no evidence seen that candidates
were short of time. The bullet points on page 5 of the examination paper are intended to help
candidates structure their answers and most now take their cue from these. Greater attention
should be paid to explaining how difficulties in obtaining results are resolved: bland
statements about repeating the experiment to improve accuracy are not given credit.
Most candidates understood that consistent tabulation of data was required with all raw data
given to the same uncertainty, but it was noticed that some candidates choose graph scales
that maximise the use of the page without considering the need to plot data points easily.
Scales where major grid markings represented multiples of three or four were seen. When
this type of scale made it difficult to check the accuracy of the graphical work or gradient
calculations, marks were deducted. Several candidates did not appreciate that ratios have no
units.
The distribution of marks was wider than in the previous examination with more marks in
general being gained for the planning and design of an experiment in question 1. However,
there are still candidates who can make little progress with this question and the majority of
candidates only scored 3 or 4 of the 8 marks available.
Question 1
Candidates were required to design an experiment to find the fraction of stored energy that is
returned by the catapult.
Candidates were expected to describe an experiment in which elastic potential energy was
transformed into kinetic energy (and then possibly into gravitational potential energy). Some
candidates chose to recycle information given in the question by describing an experiment to
investigate the loading-unloading cycle for a rubber band. Such accounts often gave details
of arrangements more suitable for describing the Young modulus of the material of a wire. If
the suggested arrangement could not transfer energy to a projectile, full credit was not given.
It was unclear from some of the diagrams drawn whether the arrangement showed a projectile
being launched horizontally or vertically, but it was often possible to give credit for details
omitted from the written account when a clear diagram made the intentions clear.
Most candidates used the expression ES = ½Fs to calculate elastic potential energy and this
was accepted, although better answers considered determining the area under a force-
extension graph. Many candidates wrongly stated that the change in length of the catapult
cord was s. Others confused the displacing force F with the weight of the projectile.
It was common to find weight being confused with mass, the idea of ‘weighing’ a mass using
‘scales’ being seen frequently. Some candidates were aware what a newton meter was, but
very few managed to spell the name accurately. Candidates were generally careful to state
what they would use to make measurements with, the exception being the force used for the
displacement of the catapult. Statements such as ‘Suspend a known mass from it’ was not
accepted unless it was clear how the mass was known and how the extending force could
subsequently be calculated.
While methods of obtaining elastic potential energy were generally acceptable, many
candidates had difficulty in explaining how to measure either the kinetic energy or the
gravitational potential energy of the projectile. For vertical motion, many candidates
assumed that hand-held timing devices would yield results suitable for determining the speed
of the projectile as it left the catapult. These answers often failed to take account of the
deceleration of the projectile and few candidates made use of the equation ν = 2gh. Many
candidates also suggested that hand-held timing devices would be suitable for determining
the speed if the projectile was fired horizontally. Better answers recognised the limitations of
these methods and suggested the use of light gates linked to a microcomputer or data logger.
Other suitable methods seen involved transferring the energy stored in the catapult to a
dynamic trolley free to roll down a friction-compensated runway.
It is pleasing to report however that, unlike the Summer 2001 examination, many candidates
did get the basic physics right and most of them could explain how the fraction of stored
energy that would be usefully returned could be calculated.
Candidates were also required to identify any factors that would need to be controlled in
order to obtain reliable results. The favourite answer was ensuring that the same elastic cord
was used throughout or, in the case of upward projection, ensuring that the projectile only
moved vertically.
Most candidates continue to have little success in explaining how difficulties in their
proposed experiment are overcome and they should realise that repeating a measurement does
not in itself reduce uncertainty unless results are averaged or otherwise help to identify
anomalous data. Answers tended not to be specific in these respects. Credit was given where
measures were suggested which would increase the magnitude of a measurement so as to
reduce the uncertainty in it.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
11
Question 2
Candidates were required to investigate the potential difference across parts of a resistor
network as the current in the circuit was varied using a variable resistor.
Even though the initial measurements were included with the main sets of results when taking
account of consistency in tabulation, the majority of candidates recorded all their data in
appropriate fashion. Only few candidates misread ammeter scales but there are still those
who see the full-scale setting e.g. on a multimeter, as some sort of scaling factor with which
to multiply the meter reading. No errors were found in the subsequent processing involving
the sub-multiple (millamps). Some candidates interchanged the initial current readings
through carelessness or by failing to appreciate that the maximum resistance of the circuit
corresponded to the smallest current reading. The ratio I
I
2
1
and, later on, G
G
1
2
were
frequently given with a unit.
Units were rarely absent in the table headings and the range of data sets was usually
adequate. It was rare to find a script in which the readings for VCB were not recorded as
negative.
The quality of data was generally good enough to find points close to (or usually on) each
best-fit line with the lines passing through the origin of the axes-system. Graph scales were
almost universally chosen to maximise use of the page, but awkward scales made
interpretation difficult. Weaker candidates tended to overlook the unit on the voltage axis.
Gradient calculations were often absent and evidence about how G1 and G2 were obtained
could not be ascertained from the graph. Many candidates who did show their method, failed
to use sufficiently large y-steps or x-steps in their calculations.
In part (f)(i) candidates were expected to mention the need to accurately determine the best-
fit line or gradient of their graph but too many answers simply indicated the need to produce
a ‘good’ graph or ‘accurate results’. In part (f)(ii) only few candidates referred to their earlier
results, as instructed in the question, but the majority correctly explained that the maximum
resistance of the variable resistor was greater than the resistance of the network of resistors.
Some candidates falsely argued that the network resistance must be the least because the
resistors were in parallel. It was rare to find scripts where the effect on I1 and I2 of the
change in the variable resistor proposed in part (f)(iii) was incorrectly stated.
Most candidates find the style of question 2 very accessible and few of them score less than
half the available marks. It is, however, disappointing to note that there were no scripts
where all the marks had been awarded.
Unit 3 : PHA3/C : Coursework
Of the 700 candidates presented for the coursework element of this paper, almost 65% were
carrying forward marks from the Summer 2001 examination. Comments in this report are
therefore made on the basis of a relatively small number of seen scripts.
In general, few adjustments were made to marks submitted by centres, but when moderators
did find it necessary to make an adjustment, it was often considerable. Major adjustments
were, almost without exception, due to a failure to apply the assessment criteria in a
hierarchical manner. It must be made clear that once an assessment point has been missed, a
candidate cannot proceed beyond that mark boundary. For example, if a candidate misses
A4b then that candidate cannot proceed to the A6 criteria. However, if the candidate scored
at least two marks from A4a, A4c and A4d then a mark of 3 can be awarded. Failure to score
2 from the 3 would limit the candidate to a mark of 2 for skill A.
Centres are also reminded that they may be penalising their candidates by supplying a brief
which does not allow them access to the full range of marks. There is some evidence that
briefs which are either too prescriptive or too complex are limiting the achievement of both
able and weak candidates.
Whilst the appropriate use of ICT is to be encouraged as part of investigative work in science,
attention must also be given to its use in the presentation of the report. Spreadsheets have
been responsible for candidates receiving a penalty due to inconsistent use of significant
figures, both in raw and derived data sets. This, most often, is the result of ‘dropping’ the last
zero and is something a candidate should be aware of and be able to correct.
The use of graphic software has also been seen to present a number of potential traps for
candidates; for example, many graphs are too small. A computer generated graph should be
of a similar size to one drawn manually. Again, some software does not default to plotting
points. Large colourful diamonds appear popular, but this makes it difficult to read.
It is also obvious that much of the software used will fit a trend line using all the points in the
data set, including any anomalous points. Candidates should be able to manipulate the
software to avoid being penalised in this area of presentation. It is recommended that centres
advise candidates to produce an output which covers one side of A4 with points plotted as
‘dots’ or ‘crosses’ and to draw their line of best fit taking account of any anomalous points.
Furthermore, if readings are to be taken from the graph, e.g. for ∆x and ∆y, then gridlines
should be shown.
The advice which follows is intended to be more skill specific and addresses concerns raised
by moderators when suggesting an adjustment to the marks of a centre.
In skill A, candidates should be advised to include a specific statement regarding safety in
order to ensure the award of A2c. All that is required in most cases is a statement to the
effect that ‘normal laboratory safety measures were observed’ or ‘no specific safety issues
arose in this investigation’. Diagrams need to be clearly labelled and an indication of any
measurement to be made must be included in order to ensure the award of A4c.
In skill B, candidates should be advised as to the appropriate number of points required for a
graph and that a graph consisting only of two or three points is unlikely to score marks under
B4.
In skill C, candidates are in need of further guidance regarding graph titles and the labelling
of axes with both the correct quantity and units. When assessing skill area C, centres must
check the accuracy of the plotted points before awarding C4d. Moderators will check this and
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
13
under the hierarchical scheme, failure to check by the centre can reduce the mark for skill C
from 8 to 3.
In skill D a majority of candidates score less than in skills A, B and C. The following points
are important. In D2 a comment on the spread of values in repeat readings or lack thereof. In
D4, the closeness of plotted points to the line of best fit when commenting on reliability. In
D6, a comment on the zero error of measuring instruments and a comment on why a straight
line graph fails to pass through the origin as predicted in the plan.
Unit 3: PA03/W : Current Electricity and Elastic Properties of Solids
General Comments
The examiners were very pleased with the response to this paper. Although the electricity
section questions were slightly more difficult than the corresponding questions in Summer
2001, candidates made a good effort at solving the numerical questions and also scored quite
heavily on the descriptive question on how to measure the Young modulus.
Many of the attempts at the calculations, although producing the correct answer, were very
untidy in presentation with successive equations seemingly being written in random areas on
the answer page. It was quite a relief to find a script where the candidate had performed a
calculation in consecutive steps which were presented on consecutive lines.
It appeared that there had been a significant effort in using correct units throughout.
Question 1
Most candidates scored well on this question, although part (a) proved to be the most
troublesome. A considerable number of candidates seemed unfamiliar with the effect of
shorting out, or connecting terminals together and many assumed that doing so would not
affect the effective overall resistance. In part (b) the large majority of candidates realised that
two of the resistors were in parallel and proceeded accordingly to obtain the correct answer.
There were very few errors in calculating the sum of the parallel resistors.
Question 2
Many of the silicon semiconductor diode characteristics presented in part (a) were poorly
drawn and the examiners felt that although the candidate knew what the characteristic looked
like, greater attention to detail and less sloppiness in drawing would have earned them many
more marks. The main errors were in drawing the forward characteristic as a continuous
smooth curve, without a sharp increase in current at 0.6 V or 0.7 V. In many cases the
increasing current would be represented as a vertical line, whereas in practice the slope of the
curve is large, but not infinite. In the reverse mode, the current would, very often, be shown
as slightly positive, which was not accepted. Other points to note in the reverse mode is that
the change to a large current at breakdown occurs sharply and then the curve may be drawn
as a vertical line. When values of voltage were given, they were usually correct.
Part (b) in general was not well answered. Many candidates wrote at length on how the
current varied with the voltage without once referring to the change in resistance, which was
the purpose of the question. The terminology of many candidates was confusing with
reference to ‘negative voltages in the forward mode’.
Question 3
Part (a) was a very straightforward question for 2 marks. The equation in part (i) was usually
correct, which is not surprising since it is given in the data sheet. A surprising number of
candidates failed to rearrange this equation in terms of VR.
Calculating the current in part (b)(i) was also straightforward and the majority of candidates
gained all the marks allocated. The calculation of the number of cells in part (ii) was
considered by the examiners to be reasonably difficult and they were well pleased by the
number of candidates who arrived at the correct answer, through a variety of methods.
Question 4
Answers to this question realised quite high marks. In part (a) the calculation of the total
resistance was invariably correct. Most candidates then realised that the three strips were in
parallel and proceeded accordingly. A significant number of candidates however, proceeded
by assuming that the resistance of the strip was 11 Ω and worked backwards through the
calculation. This method was not acceptable, since it was felt that the candidates had been set
a task to calculate the actual resistance of each strip from the total resistance of the element.
Very few difficulties arose in part (b), apart from several candidates taking the area of cross
section as circular. Many candidates used the approximate value of 11 Ω for the resistance of
each strip instead of 10.8 Ω, which they had obtained in part (a). This was not acceptable and
a penalty was applied.
Question 5
Part (a) produced all sorts of difficulties. Many candidates took the value of the current (5
mA) and multiplied it by √2 to give the peak voltage, being oblivious of the need to
incorporate the resistance in the calculation. Other candidates would simply write V = 10 V
with the examiner having no means of knowing if the candidate referred to the rms value or
the peak value. Although the relationship between rms and peak value is given in the data
sheet, some candidates used the wrong expression.
The oscilloscope trace in part (b) was, in general, very well drawn, with the waveform, peak
value (carried forward from part (a)) and period being correct, the period having being
correctly calculated.
Question 6
Almost all candidates gained reasonable marks on part (a)(i) even though some of the
descriptions were lacking in detail. Most of the diagrams were reasonably drawn with the aid
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
15
of a ruler. Candidates who drew freehand usually produced inferior diagrams which failed to
gain all the available marks. A variety of methods were shown, usually two wires hanging
vertically, linked together by means of some vernier arrangement and a spirit level. Also
shown was a horizontal wire on a bench. Although this is not such an accurate method, it
was accepted but many candidates showed the mark on the wire as being about half way
along. This of course is only acceptable if the length of the wire is measured to that point,
but this was usually overlooked in the description. The least satisfactory method was
suspending a single wire with a ruler alongside although this did gain some marks. There
were an alarming number of diagrams which showed a completely unrelated length of wire, a
ruler, an isolated hook with a mass attached and a micrometer. Needless to say, such efforts
gained no marks.
In part (ii) candidates could have saved themselves considerable time and effort by reading
the question carefully and just listing the measurement they would make. Many candidates
listed the area of cross section as a measurement. This was not acceptable since area is a
derived quantity and it is the diameter which is measured. Many candidates also listed the
‘width’ of the wire, which again was not accepted.
The descriptions in part (iii) were, on the whole, quite reasonable, although most effort
seemed to go into describing how the length of the wire and its diameter were measured and
not giving sufficient attention to the experiment, i.e. measuring the extension for each mass
added and increasing the total mass to a certain value. There were very few references to
repeating the readings while unloading. This particular section of the question was also used
to award the quality of written communication marks and most candidates scored well on
this.
The descriptions in part (iv) of how to use the measurements to give the Young modulus was
reasonably done with about 50% of the candidates drawing a graph of force vs extension or
stress vs strain and using the gradient accordingly. Candidates who only used one set of
values to give one value of the Young modulus were not awarded all the available marks.
The calculation in part (b)(i) was performed satisfactorily, with the majority of candidates
calculating the correct extension for the steel wire. Marks were lost in part (ii) when the
answer was given without any reasoning.
Advanced Examination
This was the first time that examinations have been held for the Advanced Award in its
current form. The examinations which were available were those for Unit 4 on Waves, Fields
and Nuclear Energy and the five Option papers, Unit 5 to Unit 9.
Section A for each of the Option papers consisted of a common question on Nuclear
Instability. The topics covered in Section B of the five Option papers were, Astrophysics
(Unit 5), Medical Physics (Unit 6), Applied Physics (Unit 7), Turning Points in Physics (Unit
8) and Electronics (Unit 9).
There was a significant entry of approximately 3000 candidates for Unit 4 but only two
options, Units 5 and 8 had entries of over 100 candidates, the entry for the remaining options
being very low. With such a low entry, it is difficult to write a meaningful report on the
Option examinations.
Unit 4 : PA04 : Section A : Objective Test Questions
Objective test questions were an important section in the legacy ‘end-of-course’ A-level
examination but in that examination they covered the whole of the A-level syllabus. The
current objective test paper only covers the syllabus on Waves, Fields and Nuclear Energy.
There is therefore little to be gained by making any comparison between the current
examination and past objective test examinations.
For teachers who are not familiar with these form of questions, the important parameters in
the statistical analysis of each question are the facility, which is a measure of the percentage
of all candidates obtaining the correct answer and the point biserial index, which is a measure
of the discrimination produced by the question.
The fifteen multiple choice questions were chosen from a bank of questions all of which have
been pretested. Only those questions with a pre-examination facility of at least 30% and a
pre-examination point biserial index of at least 0.20 were considered for the examination.
The final choice of questions was made so that the objective test questions together with the
questions in Section B gave as full a coverage of the syllabus of Unit 4 as possible.
The keys to the objective test questions were:
1-D, 2-C, 3-B, 4-C, 5-B, 6-D, 7-B, 8-A, 9-D, 10-C, 11-B, 12-B, 13-A, 14-D, 15-B.
The mean facility was 70% and the mean point biserial was 0.43
Questions 1 - 4 covered the ‘Oscillations and Waves’ section of the Unit. Each question
showed an increase in the facility over the pre-examination facility and in question 4 it
increased by more than 25% to a value of 74%. Question 2, on simple harmonic motion,
realised a very high discrimination of 0.60 with the weaker candidates opting for distractor A,
which gave zero acceleration at maximum displacement.
Questions 5 and 6 were set on Interference and Diffraction respectively and both questions
realised high facilities of over 70% with a good discrimination of greater than 0.5. The only
notable distractor was B in question 6 which gave the number of lines per metre on the
grating as 2 × 105 compared to the correct value of 5 × 10
5.
Question 7 had the distinction of being the only question on the paper in which the
examination facility of 50% was less than the pre-examination facility of 59%. It also had a
low discrimination of 0.37. The inference is that even the better candidates were not too
familiar with uniform motion in a vertical plane. The statistical analysis showed that the
three distractors were equally attractive to the candidates, who, to a large extent, were
obviously guessing at the correct answer.
Questions on gravitational potential energy have never been popular in objective tests so it
pleasant to report that in Question 8, candidates produced a facility of 72.5% for a numerical
calculation on this topic.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
17
Question 9 on the electric field between parallel plates caused no difficulty , but Question 10
on electric field strength and electric potential gave rise to some concern. The final facility of
42% in question 10 remained the same as the pre-examination facility, but the discrimination
of 0.18 was the lowest on the paper and showed a decrease from the pre-examination value of
0.29. Of the candidates, 21% thought that electric potential is a vector and 26% thought that
the potential gradient was not proportional to the electric field strength.
Questions 11 - 13 dealt with the section on ‘Magnetic Effect of Currents’ and all worked
well giving high facilities but with moderate discrimination of around 0.35.
There were two questions on ‘Nuclear Applications’; Question 14 on mass difference and
Question 15 on the purpose of a graphite moderator. Question 14 gave the highest facility in
the paper at 91% with question 15 not far behind at 87%. With such a high facility it was not
surprising that the discrimination was comparatively low at about 0.40.
Unit 4 : PA04 : Section B : Waves, Fields and Nuclear Energy
General Comments
This test paper offered the first opportunity for candidates to show their knowledge and
understanding of the wide range of topics included within Unit 4. All candidates taking the
test would therefore do so after about only one term of study. Some well-prepared candidates
presented excellent answers to most of the questions, but in many scripts there was evidence
that candidates had attempted the test before they were fully conversant with the content of
the unit. Clearly one term of study can be adequate for able candidates to master this unit,
but some will take longer. These lower-achieving candidates may not have had enough time
to complete the unit or to consolidate their understanding.
In this examination paper, questions 5(b) and 4(b) were used for the purpose of assessing the
quality of written communication. Two marks can make an appreciable difference to the
overall performance of a candidate in a paper which has a maximum mark of thirty. When
answering questions which require prose it is therefore worth the candidates taking the
trouble to write in recognisable sentences that begin with capital letters, end with full stops
and show some understanding of the use of commas.
Transgressions over the use of significant figures were relatively few and occurred most
frequently in answers to question 2(b)(ii). Penalties involving missing or wrong units were
more common.
Candidates usually found questions 1, 3 and 5 to be the most rewarding. Question 2 was
often answered well, but sometimes left the candidates floundering. A large proportion of
candidates answered question 4 badly.
Question 1
The main problem in candidates’ answers to this question was confusion between single slit
diffraction and double slit interference. The completion of the sketch graph in part (a)
regularly gained full marks for the many candidates who appreciated its salient features.
Equally spaced markers on the horizontal axis were intended to guide candidates into
showing the subsidiary minima at equal spacing with the separation between consecutive
minima being half the width of the central maximum. Candidates who thought that the
separation between subsidiary minima was the same as the width of the central peak usually
achieved only half marks on this part. The relatively low intensity of all the subsidiary
maxima is not well known and no marking point was available for this aspect.
When marking part (b) the examiners viewed with great suspicion any answer which relied
on the Young’s slits equation, λ = (ws/D). The fact that narrowing the slit causes the pattern
to broaden was usually appreciated in part (i), but few candidates stated that the pattern is
also dimmer. In part (ii) many candidates had difficulty in deciding whether red light or
green light has the longer wavelength and the wrong choice, of course, caused many incorrect
answers to the way the separation of the maxima changes. The other point the candidates
could have made is that the colour of the pattern changes from red to green. It is worth
pointing out that the marks available for parts of questions are given in the question paper and
that these are intended to help candidates. In part (b), three marks were available and this
would indicate that a minimum of three points are required in a complete answer.
Question 2
The main failing in part (a) was thinking that k is mass per unit extension rather than force
per unit extension. Some candidates also used g = 10 N kg−1
, rather than the value of 9.81 N
kg−1
given in the Data Sheet and which should always be used unless candidates are
instructed to the contrary by the question. Choosing the correct unit for k was a recurring
problem.
In part (b)(i) many candidates doubled the value of k determined in part (a) and thus appeared
to think that the two springs in series would be twice as hard to extend as a single spring.
More thorough understanding would indicate that the same force must produce double the
extension when pulling on a specimen that is twice as long, so k must halve. The incorrect
value of k was allowed as a consequential error in part (ii) and the equation for the period was
normally applied successfully, but when converting to oscillations per minute, the period was
sometimes wrongly multiplied by 60.
Question 3
More careful reading of the question would have produced a greater number of satisfactory
answers to the sketch graph in part (a). Most candidates realised that a straight line from the
origin was needed, but many lines were continued beyond the point 4.5 V, 9.0 µC. Almost
inevitably, some of the lines were drawn as exponential curves.
‘Derivation of’ seems to be an unwelcome term in the new Specification, for very few
candidates were able to produce a completely satisfactory answer to part (b)(i), which
required them to show that E = ½QV. Whilst most candidates could identify energy stored
with the area under the graph, only a tiny minority could link energy stored with work done
by the charging source, or explain ∆W = V∆Q. Consequently it was usual to award only one
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
19
mark out of the three available for part (i). Answers to part (b)(ii) were usually correct with
many candidates sensibly choosing to approach the calculation via ½CV2.
Question 4
Many of the attempts to answer this question showed a complete lack of understanding of
forces in electric fields and much confusion between magnetic fields and electric fields.
Taken as a whole, the question proved to be an excellent discriminator of the proficient
physics student.
Perhaps it is understandable that many candidates wrongly chose ‘to the left’ in part (a)(i) and
therefore followed it with ‘deceleration’ in part (ii). It is much more difficult to appreciate
why the electron might be considered to follow a curved or circular path in part (a) - as stated
by some candidates. The parabolic path in part (b) was often shown curving downwards.
Part (b)(ii) required an explanation based on an understanding of projectile motion. Quite a
large number of candidates preferred to refer to Fleming’s left hand rule!
Question 5
The principal features of the binding energy per nucleon curve in part (a) were usually well
known. The main failing was to show an excessively large fall to the right of the maximum.
In practice, the binding energy per nucleon values decrease only from about 8.5 MeV to about
7.5 MeV.
Part (b) revealed common misunderstandings about the nature of binding energy. Treating
binding energy as something a nucleus possesses, rather than energy that a nucleus loses, is
particularly unhelpful. A large proportion of the attempts to answer part (b)(i) failed to gain
any marks because the candidates did not refer to fission and fusion as processes involving
nuclei. They preferred to talk about splitting atoms or joining nuclides, or (even) nucleons.
Use of correct terminology is essential in this area. Those candidates who had a good
understanding of nuclear energy were able to explain that both the fusion and the fission
processes are accompanied by an increase in the binding energy per nucleon, which is the
source of energy that is released. The mark scheme adopted for part (b) was fairy generous
and those candidates who had a clear understanding of the principles were usually rewarded
with all three marks.
Units 5 - 9 : PHAP : Practical
General comments
The majority of the entry of nearly 200 candidates came from just two centres. The
candidates were generally able to demonstrate better qualities of understanding and written
communication than those seen in PHA3/P. Their extra experience and maturity was tested
by both questions. The prediction made in the report on PHA3/P for Summer 2001, that
candidates would get better at meeting the demands of AO3(a) but in turn could be expected
to be confronted by more testing questions involving AO3(b), (c) and (d) was borne out here.
The overall mark distributions for the January PHA3/P and PHAP examinations were quite
similar but although PHAP candidates found question 1 more accessible, any improvement
was offset by the more discriminating nature of question 2.
Both questions were completed in all scripts seen, indicating that candidates had sufficient
time but there was significantly less use made of supplementary answer sheets than in
PHA3/P. Hopefully this indicates that candidates are becoming conscious of the need to deal
with question 1 in as concise a manner as possible. It was certainly easier to follow the
thread of argument contained in most answers than was the case in PHA3/P.
Candidates should be reminded that they must justify statements if they are to gain full credit
for their answers. Many candidates wrote , in question 1, that they would keep the power
output of the spotlamp constant but neither diagram or text showed the means to do this.
Likewise, in question 2, some claimed to have repeated micrometer measurements to
determine the diameter of the vibrating wire but their scripts failed to provide evidence that
this had been done.
One aspect of the answers to question 1 that was disappointing was the (typically) incomplete
explanation given about how graphs could be used to settle the argument on how the
illumination of the spotlamp varied with distance. Many candidates went as far as proposing
suitable graphs to plot but then made vague statements such as ‘see if a straight line is
produced’ about how to test a particular theory. A test of direct proportionality between
variables involves checking if the best-fit line passes through the origin.
In question 2 the tabulation of results sometimes lacked consistency and there were many
scripts in which the mass per unit length of the wire was given without a unit. The most
wasteful error seen in a large number of scripts was neglecting to make adequate use of the
range of masses available.
The impression gained was that many candidates worked hard to produce answers to question
1 to maximise their mark, but then, in many cases, they underestimated their demands of
question 2. Only 30% gained 15 or more marks in question 2 out of the 22 marks available.
(The equivalent figure in PHA3/P was over 50%).
Question 1
Candidates were required to design an experiment to test which of two theories concerning
the way that the intensity of a spotlamp varies with distance from the lamp.
Most candidates illustrated their answer with a diagram with suitable labelling of the distance
between the lamp and the LDR. Other diagram rarely earned full credit. Many candidates
gave schematic views that failed to show whether a suitable working arrangement had been
given. Even when correct circuits were drawn the symbol used for the LDR was generally
wrong. Some accounts included spurious detail in the LDR circuit such as a series resistor.
Other diagrams gave a voltmeter and/or ammeter wrongly connected or used a single circuit
to supply both the LDR and spotlamp. Candidates who showed an ohmmeter often
incorrectly included a power supply in the circuit. Very few diagrams were drawn to support
the statement, usually given later, that the power output of the spotlamp was maintained at a
constant level.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
21
Thereafter, progress was generally better with most describing a sensible procedure to find
the resistance of the LDR at different distances from the spotlamp. Some saw the calibration
graph as evidence that the resistance was directly proportional to the illumination but a
significant proportion correctly explained that they could incorporate the resistance values
with the graph to find the illumination at certain distances from the spotlamp.
Most candidates recognised that to resolve the argument about whether the variation of
illumination followed an inverse-square or exponential pattern, a graph should be drawn.
However the use to which the graph would be put was not usually specified correctly and
bland statements about ‘straight line’ or ‘linear’ graphs were not accepted.
Many candidates stated suitable control measures for the experiment could include using
black-out or enclosing the apparatus in a light-proof tube: provided suitable reasoning was
given this was accepted. Keeping the power output of the spotlamp constant was another
acceptable answer but once again, justification of why and how this was to be done was
expected. Some candidates thought that a parallel could be drawn with radioactivity
measurement and stated that a background light level could be measured beforehand to be
subtracted from the measured illumination.
Discussion of potential difficulties and how these were overcome tended to be blanket
statements about ‘repeating and averaging’ measurements and if reasoning was attached this
was often ‘to improve accuracy’. Many candidates stated that their objective was to obtain
‘reliable data’: the use of bland unconvincing jargon does not inspire confidence and is
unlikely to gain credit. No candidates thought to discuss how the distribution of data might
be varied to improve the definition of the graph, but many wrote about the need to repeat
readings to improve accuracy. Candidates should understand that repeating and averaging
only reduces random error, thus improving precision but accuracy is improved only when
systematic error is reduced.
It should not, however, be assumed that all candidates are incapable of writing carefully and
sensibly about their ideas. There were many good accounts and about 25% earned at least 6
out of the possible 8 marks. This compares with only 10% at PHA3/P.
Question 2
Candidates were required to investigate the forced vibration of a wire in a magnetic field.
This question discriminated well, although the suspicion exists that carelessness may have
contributed in some cases to fewer marks than might be expected at the upper end of the
range. Candidates must take care to accumulate marks in all parts of these questions if they
are to maximise their chances. Carelessness affected all parts of some candidates’ answers,
starting in (a) where some failed to repeat micrometer measurements or failed to supply a unit
with their answer. Most candidates, however were able to identify the SWG number of the
wire.
There is considerable variation in the standard of and approaches to tabulation of data and
this leads in some cases to confusion and inconsistencies. Units are appearing alongside data
in the table rather than in the column headings. Candidates need to plan the layout before
they set pen to paper so that measured and derived data can be arranged in logical and
accessible fashion, ideally in a single table (and definitely not in separate sets). It is
suggested that candidates adopt the solidus notation between the quantity and unit in the
column headings for tables and for the marking of graph axes: thus m /kg½ is correct. It is
also expected at this level that candidates do not use solidus notation when unit symbols are
combined in a quotient: thus
µ = 0.93 × 10−3
kg m−1
is correct. Candidates should also understand that poor or
inconsistent tabulation of data will be penalised in the same way that poorly-marked points or
line on a graph attract the deduction of marks.
Candidates were given a mass hanger and slotted masses to provide a total of at least 400 g
but many used a restricted range or incorrectly recorded the mass without taking account of
the hanger. Others used a total of five different masses instead of five in addition to the
initial set. The consistent use of significant figures in the recording of data was sporadic,
some recording the length of wire between the bridges to cm while others gave m to only 2
significant figures. Others simply lost a mark through inconsistent recording of data.
Providing six points were plotted, most were able to draw a best-fit line that passed close to at
least five points, thus earning the available mark for quality.
It was rare to find the correct unit given with m on the horizontal axis of the graph and the
scaling marks were usually determined by whether the candidate had chosen to include the
origin. Most candidates appreciated the need to choose scales that maximise the use of the
page but they should be discouraged from using difficult scales that make interpretation
difficult. The accuracy with which the points were plotted is also checked and instances were
found where these did not tally with the tabulated data.
It seems to be well known that a large y-step and x-step are expected for gradient
calculations. It helps significantly to see the triangle drawn below the best-fit line on the
grid. There are still some candidates that fail to provide evidence to show how they calculate
the gradient of their graph. Careful working was usually found to produce numerical results
for µ that were satisfactory but units were often missing.
In the explanation (e)(i) some candidates misread the question and talked about measures to
reduce uncertainty in the length l rather than in the diameter d. In (e)(ii) most candidates got
as far as recognising that an increase in SWG number reduced the diameter but few explained
the impact on µ and hence on the gradient of the graph. In (e)(iii) almost all candidates stated
that the two-loop mode of oscillation would require the length of wire between the bridges to
be twice that of a single loop.
Units 5 - 9 : PHAC : Coursework
Less than two hundred candidates were presented for the A2 coursework examinations and
the comments are therefore made on the basis of a relatively small number of scripts seen.
The general comments on the presentation of coursework are the same as those made on the
AS work and the reader is thus referred to the detailed comments which appear on pages 13
and 14 of this report.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
23
Units 5 - 9 : PHA5/W - PHA9/W : Section A : Nuclear Instability
The question on nuclear instability realised some good responses but part (a)(i) was not
always answered as well as one would have hoped. Candidates were aware that an electron
was captured by a proton which then became a neutron, but the answers were not specific
enough as to where the electron came from. Statements such as ‘an electron is captured’
were not sufficient to gain the mark. It needed to be made clear that it was an orbiting
electron. Answers to part (a)(ii) were sometimes vague, with only about 50 % of the
candidates realising that electron capture excites the daughter nuclide. The equation in part
(iii) usually gained some marks and it was good to see that only rarely was an anti positron or
anti electron inserted in the equation.
Part (b) realised very good marks and a significant number of candidates were awarded the
maximum of five. The conversion from hours into seconds was usually performed correctly
in part (i) to give the required result. Part (ii) likewise gave good results although it was here
that problems with significant figures became apparent. There was no real difficulty with
part (iii), candidates using ∆N/∆t correctly.
Unit 5 : PHA5/W : Section B : Astrophysics Option
Question 2
There is normally one optics question on this paper and, in general, question 2, which dealt
with the converging lens, was answer very well. The majority of candidates were aware in
part (i) that the image was virtual. In part (ii) calculating the focal length from the power of
the lens proved to be straightforward, although a disappointing number of candidates
attempted to calculate it using the lens formula.
The difficulty encountered by candidates in part (iii) was failing to identify that the sign of
the image distance was negative in the lens equation. However, a majority of candidates
obtained the correct answer for the object distance. Finally, in part (iv), the majority of
candidates drew the correct ray diagram, although there were a significant number who did
not recognise the situation as being that of a magnifying glass. Many candidates labelled the
principal foci as focal lengths, showing a lack of understanding in this field.
Question 3
In part (a)(i) drawing a diffraction pattern of concentric circles would appear to be
straightforward, but a significant number of candidates drew the bands as single lines,
without showing any width to them. This aspect of the diffraction pattern needs to be
stressed to candidates. Stating the ‘Rayleigh criterion’ for the resolution of two stars was
answered well, with the majority of candidates using two intensity distributions to illustrate
their answers.
The calculation of the minimum diameter of the telescope in part (b) was also correctly
performed by most candidates, although there were several attempts where , after giving the
correct equation, the parameters were inverted when values were inserted in the equation.
Carelessness of this nature can cause a significant penalty in a paper where there are only
forty marks available.
Question 4
Questions on the Hertzsprung - Russell diagram have always proved to be popular with
candidates and this question was no exception. Drawing the regions of the different types of
stars on the diagram was usually done correctly, but some attention needs to be given to the
correct shape of the main sequence band, in particular to the mid-region where the band
levels off slightly.
Some of the definitions of apparent magnitude in part (b)(i) were slightly vague, e.g. ‘how
bright the star appears to be’. Candidates should make clear that it is the brightness as seen
from Earth. Both calculations were performed satisfactorily. Many answers to part (iv)
lacked detail, with candidates simply reiterating the information given in the question without
attempting an explanation. In order to be awarded all the marks for this section candidates
needed to relate the strong Balmer series to the correct spectral class. Part (c) provided many
correct answers although a considerable number of candidates included all four stars in their
answers.
Question 5
In general, this question was not well answered. Only a minority of candidates were aware,
in part (a), that quasars were discovered as strong radio sources. The type of calculations in
part (b) are familiar to candidates and this part yielded the best answers. Many candidates
however used the incorrect value of λ in the Doppler equation, using the value in the
spectrum of the quasar rather than the value measured in the laboratory. The most common
error in calculating the distance to the quasar was one of units, many candidates having to
manipulate their calculations in order to obtain the value quoted in the question.
Answers to part (c) were slightly disappointing. Very few candidates used the inverse square
law correctly to estimate the power output of the quasar. The most common attempt was to
simply used the ratio of the distances. Many of the candidates who did give the correct form
of the inverse square law failed with the subsequent calculation. Part (ii) provided candidates
with an opportunity to write at length without focussing on the main areas of controversy
concerning quasars. A common error was the use of energy or brightness rather than the very
large power output, when commenting on this property of quasars.
Unit 6 : PHA6/W : Section B : Medical Physics Option
The following comments on the responses to this paper must be taken in the context of a very
small entry.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
25
Question 2
Although nearly all candidates were able to give two uses of lasers in part (a), comparatively
few were able to give relevant details of the method of application in part (b). The answers to
the method of application usually consisted of vague statements such as ‘applied direct to
point’ without describing how it was applied. The answers to the safety features were much
better with nearly all candidates being able to give at least one.
Question 3
In part (a) most candidates were awarded the allocated two marks, but occasionally the use of
vague statements such as ‘using gel’ failed to gain a mark. Part (b) was poorly answered with
very few candidates being aware that the properties of the amplifier required to enhance the
ECG signal were low noise, high gain and high input impedance.
Most candidates sketched the correct waveform in part (c), but some gave the waveform for a
heart muscle. However, the scales on the potential axis were inaccurate with many going
from –70 mV to +30 mV and some candidates obviously guessing as to the location of zero
potential. The labelling of the actual waveform was accurately done by most candidates.
Question 4
This was the best answered question on the paper with many responses gaining full marks.
The main problems which arose were that answers such as ‘uneven eye’ were too vague to be
awarded the mark in part (i). In part (ii) candidates failed to stress that there were two image
planes involved and gave answers such as ‘blurred image’.
Nearly all the candidates gave the correct answer to part (iii). In part (iv) all the candidates
were able to give ‘power’ as one quantity, but few were able to give the ‘angle of orientation’
as the other.
Question 5
Answers to part(a) were generally poor with few candidates being awarded both marks. Part
(b) was very poorly answered with most candidates making meaningless comments or
statements which were too vague to be awarded any marks.
The common error in part (c) was using the reading of 94 dB as the intensity, rather than as
the intensity level. Of those candidates who used this value correctly, about 50% were unable
to rearrange the equation correctly to obtain the final answer. Similarly in part (d) few
candidates were able to calculate the final intensity correctly, the main problem again being
the incorrect use of data in the equation.
Unit 7 : PHA7/W : Section B : Applied Physics Option
General Comments
As with unit 6 only a small number of centres entered candidates for this option and the
comments on the responses to the paper must be interpreted in the context of a small sample.
The majority of candidates made a serious attempt at every question, no blank scripts were
received and almost all candidates completed most of the paper. The final part of question 5
was occasionally omitted or attempted only perfunctorily, but it is difficult to be sure with a
small sample whether this was a result of shortage of time or ignorance; good candidates
appeared to find the time adequate.
The style and demands of the questions in this option are very similar to those which
appeared in the Applied Physics Module in the previous, and now defunct, A-level
examination. Not surprisingly the scripts seen this time showed similar strengths and
weaknesses to scripts seen in those examinations. Many candidates incurred the unit penalty,
usually for using the wrong unit rather than omitting the unit. Significant figure errors were
far less frequent. The level of competence in the Quality of Written Communication was
poor throughout.
Question 2
Part (a) was not answered well, with many zero scores and very few candidates gaining full
marks. The symbol W was usually identified as work, but some candidates thought that either
Q or U identified temperature. Of the candidates who could identify the symbols correctly,
the majority provided answers of the form ‘∆Q is a change of heat, ∆U is a change of internal
energy and ∆W is a change of work’; these answers were not awarded any marks.
Candidates at this level are expected to recognise that words such as change, alter and vary
are too imprecise to be used safely in answering a physics question. The few candidates who
did recognise this, correctly identified ∆Q as the energy supplied to the gas, ∆U as the
increase in internal energy and ∆W as the work done by the gas.
Most candidates scored some marks on part (b), either two marks for one of the processes or
four marks for both processes. The isothermal process appeared to be the more difficult of
the two processes on which to gain marks. Some candidates clearly did not link this exercise
to the equation given in part (a).
Question 3
Most candidates correctly calculated the moment of inertia of the rotor in part (a)(i), but
many did not know its unit. In section (ii), the conversion from rev min−1
to rad s−1
was often
not carried out or calculated incorrectly.
Part (b)(i) was answered correctly by most candidates, although again the unit of torque was
largely unknown or omitted. In part (ii) few candidates used the relation loss of kinetic
energy = average power × time and there were very few correct answers.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
27
Almost all candidates attempted unsuccessfully to use equations of uniformly accelerated
motion to answer part (c). Candidates who recognised that kinetic energy change was
involved arrived at the correct answer.
Question 4
Most candidates answered part (a) correctly and many were awarded full marks.
Part (b)(i)was also answered well with mostly correct answers. The most common answers
for part (b)(ii) took the forms ‘because an efficiency equal to 1 makes it 100% efficient and
this is not possible’, ‘because of heat loss’ and ‘friction’. Few candidates could explain
satisfactorily why the efficiency is less than 1; most offered several suggestions, all of which
were vague and usually expressed in a single rambling phrase with no capital letter, no
commas and no full stop.
Question 5
Most candidates took the hint in the question and used conservation of angular momentum to
calculate correctly the speed of the wheel in part (a). All the candidates who made any
serious attempt at part (b) tried to use an equation of uniformly accelerated motion in part (i),
often appropriately but usually with an incorrect value of angle (most commonly θ = 0.49
m). The equation T = Iα was used in part (ii) to calculate a torque, but few could extend this
to work out the corresponding force.
Unit 8 : PHA8/W : Section B : Turning Points in Physics Option
Question 2
In part (a) almost all the candidates were aware that an electromagnetic wave consists of an
electric wave at right angles to a magnetic wave and that the two waves are in phase. A
significant number of candidates failed to indicate the direction of propagation of the wave.
Part (b) proved to be more difficult and only a small number of candidates knew that the
change in magnetic field or magnetic flux through the loop produced the induced emf.
Again, very few candidates were aware, in part (ii), that the waves are polarised, although
some candidates did realise that the magnetic wave would not produce an induced emf when
in the same plane as the loop. There were a few candidates who claimed that the action of
rotating the loop polarised the waves from the transmitter.
Question 3
Answers to part (a) of this question were, in general, quite poor. Very few candidates
realised that the mass of an object increases when its speed increases and even fewer
recognised that as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light, that the mass
increases at a greater rate. The not uncommon erroneous line of reasoning found in the
answers commenced with the classical formula for kinetic energy, then invoking the speed of
light as the maximum possible speed, using E = mc2 to claim that the mass could increase
therefore that the classical kinetic energy could increase even though the speed is limited.
The calculations in part (b) were carried out reasonably well with most candidates being able
to show in part (i) that the kinetic energy was 3.4 ×10−19
J. In part (ii) many candidates were
able to calculate the mass increase due to this kinetic energy, but very few remembered to
add the rest mass to their mass gain.
Responses to part (c) were disappointing because very few candidates knew how to proceed
correctly. Many candidates used the classical expression for kinetic energy, inserted the
value for kinetic energy obtained in part (b) and used 23m0 as the mass. The examiners are of
the opinion that candidates would benefit from being shown how the classical expression for
kinetic energy is derived from E = mc2 when v << c.
Question 4.
The majority of candidates gained high marks for this question. Part (a) was quite
straightforward and most candidates calculated the correct speed of the droplet. Again, in
part (b) a significant number of candidates scored the maximum possible marks with a clear
and correct derivation of the equation for the radius, followed by a correct calculation.
In part (c) many candidates were able to calculate the mass of the droplet correctly and then
proceeded to calculate the charge. A significant number of candidates did obtain the correct
value for the charge by equating the electric force to the viscous force and using the value of
speed obtained in part (a). Most of these candidates, however, lost a mark by not explaining
why the viscous force could be substituted for the weight of the droplet.
Question 5
In part (a)(i) many correct calculations for the speed of the electrons were seen, but some
candidates omitted the unit of speed. Most of the candidates who used the value of the speed
from part (i) to calculate the wavelength in part (ii) did so correctly, but those who chose to
calculate the wavelength directly from the pd did so incorrectly. The reason for this was that
the symbol for pd in the equation was thought to represent the speed, or else the charge of the
electron was omitted from the calculation.
The majority of candidates correctly stated in part (b) that the resolution would be increased
and then gave a correct explanation. However a significant number considered that the
magnification, rather than the resolution, would be increased. Very few candidates realised
that the image would be brighter.
Report on the Examination PhysicsA- Advanced
29
Unit 9 : PHA9/W : Section B : Electronics Option
Question 2
In part (a) most candidates calculated the correct value for the current in the circuit, having
first correctly deduced the correct voltage across the resistor. It was therefore surprising to
find that few candidates obtained the correct value for the minimum possible value of R in
part (ii). The recurring error here was that having found the maximum current through the
diode, they would then find the resistance of the diode and not the resistor.
Responses to part (b) were disappointing. Very few candidates showed a correctly rectified
waveform, but it was pleasant to find some sketches with the positive wave being clipped at
6.8 V. Very few candidates showed the negative waveform clipped at 0.7 V. Several
candidates failed to show the correct period on the waveform even though they had calculated
it correctly.
Question 3
The examiners were well pleased with the responses to part (a). In part (i) the growth and
decay of Vout was drawn reasonably well, except that some candidates did not realise that the
capacitor had fully charged (or discharged) before the end of the input pulse and so did not
draw a small horizontal section at 6.0 V or zero volts. The curves were drawn so that Vout
reached its maximum value at the same instant as the pulse ended. Likewise with the decay
curve. The correct calculation of the time constant in part (ii) gave the candidates a clue as to
the form of the curves required in part (iii). Most candidates realised that the capacitor would
neither charge or discharge fully in the available time and thus tended to draw the correct
form of the waveform except that it would usually have a maximum value of 6.0 V and a
minimum value of zero volts. Very few candidates drew the waveform in between values
which lay between these two values.
Part (b) gave the candidates a chance to give an explanation of the waveforms drawn in part
(a) and most of them gave a fairly comprehensive discussion in terms of the relative time
constants of the two waveforms.
Question 4
Answers to part (a)(i) were fairly disappointing in that candidates explained negative
feedback in terms of the output being fed back into the negative input, without stating that the
output voltage was 180o out of phase with the input voltage. The advantages of using
negative feedback in an amplifier were well known.
In part (b) most candidates did not notice that there was a simple relationship between R1, R2
and Rf resulting in a simple equation giving Vout in terms of V1 and V2. The method adopted
was to calculate the value of Vout each time. When drawing the form of Vout, some candidates
did not include the negative factor and gave Vout as being positive. The other error which
occurred was that the maximum value of Vout was given as 15 V, not realising that it saturated
at 12 V.
Question 5
This question produced high marks. Very few candidates failed to draw the diodes the correct
way and in part (b) the majority argued correctly in terms of maximum forward current and
peak reverse voltage that diode C should be used in the circuit.
Report on the Examination Physics A – Advanced
31
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Unit/Component
Maximum
Mark
(Raw)
Maximum
Mark
(Scaled)
Mean
Mark
(Scaled)
Standard
Deviation
(Scaled)
PAO1 – Particles, Radiation and
Quantum Phenomena60 60 38.6 12.5
PAO2 – Mechanics and Molecular
Kinetic Theory60 60 30.7 12.0
PA3P – Current Electricity andElastic Properties of Solids
Practical80 80 51.2 11.0
PA3C – Current Electricity and
Elastic Properties of Solids
Coursework
80 80 50.4 12.3
PAO4 – Waves, Fields and Nuclear
Energy60 60 35.3 11.0
PA5P –Astrophysics Practical 90 90 56.0 18.1
PA5C –Astrophysics Coursework 90 90 52.4 15.2
PA6P – Medical Physics Practical 90 90 - -
PA6C – Medical Physics
Coursework90 90 52.7 13.4
PA7P – Applied Physics Practical 90 90 44.2 11.3
PA7C – Applied Physics
Coursework90 90 58.9 14.4
PA8P – Turning Points in PhysicsPractical
90 90 48.4 14.0
PA8C – Turning Points in Physics
Coursework90 90 54.2 16.1
PA9P – Electronics Practical 90 90 58.7 12.6
PA9C – Electronics Coursework 90 90 - -
For units which contain only one component, scaled marks are the same as raw marks.
PAO1 Particles, Radiation and Quantum Phenomena
(3115 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 60 48 42 36 31 26
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
Physics A - Advanced Report on the Examination
32
PAO2 Mechanics and Molecular Kinetic Theory
(2511 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 60 39 34 29 24 20
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA3P Current Electricity and Elastic Properties of Solids
Practical (298 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 80 61 54 47 41 35
Uniform Boundary Mark 120 96 84 72 60 48
PA3C Current Electricity and Elastic Properties of Solids
Coursework (580 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 80 64 56 48 41 34
Uniform Boundary Mark 120 96 84 72 60 48
PAO4 Waves, Fields and Nuclear Energy
(3014 candidates)
GradeMax.mark
A B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 60 45 39 34 29 24
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
Report on the Examination Physics A - Advanced
33
PA5P Astrophysics Practical
(38 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 65 58 51 44 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA5C Astrophysics Coursework
(102 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 69 61 53 45 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA6P Medical Physics Practical
(no candidates)
PA6C Medical Physics Coursework
(25 candidates)
GradeMax.mark
A B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 67 59 51 44 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA7P Applied Physics Practical
(9 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 63 56 49 43 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
Physics A - Advanced Report on the Examination
34
PA7C Applied Physics Coursework
(8 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 67 59 51 44 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA8P Turning Points in Physics Practical
(136 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 63 56 49 43 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA8C Turning Points in Physics Coursework
(54 candidates)
GradeMax.mark
A B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 67 59 51 44 37
Uniform Boundary Mark 90 72 63 54 45 36
PA9P Electronics Practical
(14 candidates)
GradeMax.
markA B C D E
Scaled Boundary Mark 90 65 58 52 46 40
Uniform 90 72 63 54 45 37
Report on the Examination Physics A - Advanced
35
PA9C Electronics Coursework
(no candidates)
Advanced Subsidiary award
Provisional statistics for the award (421 candidates)
A B C D E
Cumulative % 21.14 40.62 65.32 81.00 92.16
Definitions
Boundary Mark: the minimum (scaled) mark required by a candidate to qualify for a given grade.
Mean Mark: is the sum of all candidates’ marks divided by the number of candidates. In order to
compare mean marks for different components, the mean mark (scaled) should be expressed as a
percentage of the maximum mark (scaled).
Standard Deviation: a measure of the spread of candidates’ marks. In most components,
approximately two-thirds of all candidates lie in a range of plus or minus one standard deviation from
the mean, and approximately 95% of all candidates lie in a range of plus or minus two standard
deviations from the mean. In order to compare the standard deviations for different components, the
standard deviation (scaled) should be expressed as a percentage of the maximum mark (scaled).
Uniform Mark: a score on a standard scale which indicates a candidate’s performance. The lowest
uniform mark for grade A is always 80% of the maximum uniform mark for the unit, similarly grade
B is 70%, grade C is 60%, grade D is 50% and grade E is 40%. A candidate’s total scaled mark for
each unit is converted to a uniform mark and the uniform marks for the units which count towards the
AS or A-level qualification are added in order to determine the candidate’s overall grade.
top related