E1.

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’.

E2. 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.

E3. In part (a), a significant number of candidates obtained a value of 200 Ω or 300 Ω for the
resistor through not using the correct pd across it. In part (b), the same candidates usually
proceeded with an incorrect calculation of power in the diode by using in the expression I2R the
resistance calculated in part (a). Some candidates were not aware of the correct value of the
prefix m in mA.

The energy of the photon was usually calculated correctly in part (c), but a small minority
wrongly considered 1 / λ as the frequency or used an incorrect equation. In part (d), most
candidates knew how to proceed and gave a correct calculation. In the final part most
candidates gave a correct assumption made in the previous estimation. Those candidates who
were not specific in stating the assumption were not awarded this mark.

Page 1 of 14
E4. A descriptive question invariably gains high marks and part (a) of this question was no
exception. The circuit diagrams were usually drawn correctly, even though a good variety of
possible circuits were produced. The usual error in these circuits was connecting the voltmeter
across the variable resistor and omitting the resistance wire altogether. Not only did such a
circuit gain no marks but it also affected the description in part (ii) since the measurements
described by the candidates would not produce the required reading. The description of the
measurements taken with the correct circuit were usually clear except that a large number of
candidates wasted time on describing how the area of cross-section of the wire was obtained. In
part (iii), when describing how a value for the resistivity was obtained from the readings, the
most common error that occurred was not taking a mean value of the resistance of the wire
from readings of I and V. It was pleasing to see how many candidates adopted the alternative
method of plotting a graph of V vs I to obtain the resistance.

The calculation in part (b) proved to be more troublesome than anticipated with candidates using
the length of one of the sides as the thickness of the plastic. Very few candidates drew a simple
freehand sketch, which the examiners felt would have eliminated this particular error. The units
of resistivity appeared to be well known.

Part (c) enabled the large majority of candidates to gain two marks quite easily, especially since
the value of R from part (b) (even if incorrect) was carried forward into part (c). Some
candidates thought that the four units were connected in parallel, but this was practically the only
error which occurred.

E5. Although the large majority of candidates gained marks on part (a), the examiners felt that the
basic physics which accounted for the form of the characteristic was not fully understood and
certain errors and omissions occurred regularly in the explanation. For example, candidates
knew that the filament heats up, but it was not made clear that this was due to the current in the
filament. Again, most candidates realised that the resistance of the filament increased with
increasing temperature, but very few related this increase to the inverse of the gradient of the
characteristic. A significant number of candidates thought that the resistance equalled the
gradient, not realising that the characteristic had current on the y axis and voltage on the x axis.
There were many correct references to the rate of increase of current decreasing, but a
surprising number stated that the current decreased with increasing voltage. This last statement
was felt to be a failure of expression rather than a lack of understanding, but no marks could be
awarded for such a statement. A large number of candidates attempted to give an explanation of
the increase in resistance in terms of molecular collisions. Such accounts, although interesting,
gained no credit since this depth of understanding is not required for this Unit by the
Specification.

The straightforward calculation in part (b) caused a great deal of trouble and the majority of
candidates only gained one mark, that being for using the correct expression for power. Errors
occurred in converting the mA to A, but the greatest error lay in the correct use of significant
figures, many candidates quoting the answer to four significant figures.

E6. Part (a) provided the candidates with a reasonably easy four marks, and very few failed
completely on the calculation. Usual errors such as units and arithmetic errors occurred but, in
general, the candidates knew how to proceed with the calculation.

Part (b) required clear, logical thinking and sadly, the majority of candidates failed to gain the full
three marks. Having been told in the question that the resistance of the sensor decreased with
increasing temperature, many candidates simply wrote that the reading of the voltmeter would
increase. Such a statement, although in itself correct, without any reasoning did not gain marks.
Many candidate realised that the current in the circuit would decrease, but failed to go any
further. The best approach seemed to be using the potential divider equation and candidates
who tackled the question from this angle were usually awarded two or three marks.

Page 2 of 14
##

Although most candidates in part (a) drew an adequate circuit, usually with a variable resistor to
change the pd, some failed to draw the voltmeter in parallel with the component X.

Part (b) worked well, with most candidates calculating the resistance correctly in both parts (i)
and (ii). However, several of these candidates were not aware of the property of an ohmic
conductor and so failed to gain full credit.

In part (c)(i) the majority of candidates gained both marks although some calculated

instead of (V – 0.55). In part (ii) many candidates gained at least three of

the possible four marks through correct labelling, plotting and drawing the line. In part (iii) most
candidates gained credit for calculating the gradient of the line and for relating the gradient
correctly to the equation, but few candidates were able to calculate the constant A from the
graph; they were usually unaware that the intercept on the y axis was ln A. Units for k and A were
usually incorrect or absent.

E8. In part (a) most candidates drew the required straight line for component A, although a few
did not bother to draw it in the negative quadrant, thereby losing a mark. The difficulty arose in
deciding whether the straight line for B should have a larger or smaller gradient than line A.
Overall about 50 % of the candidates had it correct.

The characteristic for the silicon semiconductor in part (b) was, on the whole, not well drawn.
Faults were: showing a steady increase in current, with the characteristic at about 45° without
showing a rapid rise; showing the current increasing directly from (0,0) without a slow increase
section and showing the negative current at a considerable distance below the axis. It was good
however to note that when a slow increase in current was shown, that the majority of candidates
knew that the upcurving occurred at around 0.6 V.

The explanation of the filament lamp characteristic in part (c) was not done well on the whole.
Many candidates did not indicate that the current in the filament increased the temperature of the
filament, but it was known that resistance increased with temperature. A large number of
candidates, having arrived at this point in the explanation then stated that therefore the current
was less. It must be stressed that the current does not decrease, but that the rate of rise of
current decreases. Many candidates opted for the gradient argument and were awarded marks
for a correct explanation. Few candidates made reference to the fact that a current in the
opposite direction produced the same effect, thus creating a mirror image of the characteristic
shown in the positive quadrant.

E9. Part (a) was straightforward and merely involved inserting data into an equation, usually
recollected correctly. The answer here was 0.0305 but many candidates reduced this to 0.03 Ω,
which incurred a significant figure error.

Part (b) proved to be a simple exercise to most candidates, but many struggled with the
mathematics and the algebra if they tried to rearrange the equation. The majority of candidates
simply inserted new values in the equation and showed that the new value of resistance was
four times the previous value.

Page 3 of 14
E10. Part (a) was the calculation of the equivalent resistance of a network of resistors consisting
of resistors connected in series and in parallel. The majority of candidates gained full marks on
this section and were not troubled by the calculation. However, it is worth pointing out that since
the final answer of 50 Ω was given in the question, then in order to gain full marks it was
necessary to show that the two equivalent series resistors were being added together.

Part (b) did not prove to be as easy; the problem in (i) was that many candidates gave the total
resistance as 50 Ω rather than 100 Ω. No consequential error for calculating the current was
allowed and frequently no marks were awarded for this section. It was possible in part (b)(ii) to
gain the two marks even if the answer to (i) was incorrect, but very few candidates managed to
gain these marks. The usual error was giving the current in the circuit as 24/20, i.e. ignoring the
second batch of parallel resistors. Again, many candidates, having calculated the total current
correctly, assumed that 2/3 would pass through the 60 Ω resistor, not realising that the greater
the resistor, the lower the current for a given voltage.

E11. Most candidates were awarded full marks in part (a) although some candidates added 273
to the temperature difference. A few candidates lost the mark in part (ii) because they failed to
describe the correct relationship between power and energy.

In part (b)(i), a significant number of candidates obtained the correct value of current but then
divided, or multiplied, by , clearly unaware that the required answer had already been
obtained. In part (ii), many candidates scored full marks with a clear and carefully expressed
calculation, but a few candidates did lose one or more marks as a result of failure to use the
correct value for the radius or the correct expression for the cross-sectional area. A significant
number of candidates were awarded only one mark in part (iii) because they had not obtained
the correct value of resistance per metre in part (ii) or else they failed to appreciate that the cable
contained two wires. In general, candidates who scored well in part (ii) usually scored both
marks in part (iii). In part (iv), most candidates gained the available mark, including weaker
candidates who were unable to make progress in the earlier parts of part (b).

E12. Part (a) produced good results and many candidates scored full marks, although some
were not aware of the expression for efficiency. Other candidates forgot to take account of the
area in part (ii) and thereby lost a mark.

Many candidates provided a clearly explained calculation in part (b)(i). Candidates who failed to
score both marks usually made an arithmetical error in the conversion from MeV to J. The most
common error in part (ii) was the failure to include the appropriate unit of s−1 or year−1 for the
decay constant. Weaker candidates made poor progress in part (iii), often being unaware of how
to proceed or making a pointless attempt to use the radioactive decay equation. Incorrect
answers by the better candidates arose because the decay constant was not converted to s−1
for use in part (iii) or through failure to use the mass number correctly or converting mass, given
in atomic mass units, into kg.

Page 4 of 14
E13. Part (a) proved to be very accessible and many candidates scored full marks. Most
candidates calculated the resistor pd as 0.8 V and then calculated the resistance, as expected.
Other candidates however, calculated the total circuit resistance, then the diode resistance and
obtained the required resistance by subtraction. In this particular problem some candidates used
an incorrect pd and were not awarded any credit. Many clear and correct answers were seen in
part (ii).

The energy of the photon was calculated correctly in part (b) by many candidates, but some
failed to score because the wavelength was taken as 1 / f or because the energy was taken to
be ½QV. The general principle behind the question in part (ii) was understood by most
candidates and many correct answers were seen. A small minority of candidates however,
calculated and used the power supplied to the resistor and not the diode.

E14. A large number of candidates calculated the correct switch over voltage in part (a). In part
(b) it was pleasing to see that a majority of candidates had drawn the LED between the output
and 0 V or between the output and the 12 V supply. In addition, the direction of the diode was
usually correct and also the calculation for the value of the series resistor.

Part (c) proved to be more difficult, but many candidates successfully carried out the calculation
giving the resistance of the LDR and subsequently read correctly the light intensity from the
graph. Other candidates did not know where to start and made a guess at the resistance. If no
effort had been made to calculate the resistance, there was no carry forward error for the value
of the intensity.

E15. This question involved the analysis of a relatively difficult circuit, which included two lamps
and two resistors. The question however, was so structured that the majority of candidates were
able to work through and gain full marks. Others, unfortunately, although making a reasonable
attempt, failed to gain many marks. In part (a), the majority of candidates calculated the correct
value of the currents passing through each lamp.

In part (b), obtaining the correct answers to parts (i) and (ii) depended to a large extent on
realising that the reading on the voltmeter equalled the voltage across lamp X. Many candidates
missed this point, but were still able to gain some marks. In part (ii) the error that was committed
regularly was determining the resistance of lamp Y instead of the resistance of resistor R2. But
at least, more candidates realised that the same current passed through lamp Y and R2.
Answers to parts (iii) and (iv) used the answer to part (a) as a starting point, but many
candidates failed to realise that the current through R1 was the sum of the current through the
two lamps. Considerable guesswork took over at this stage and although most of it was wrong,
candidates could still get a mark for part (v) by using the answers obtained to parts(iii) and (iv).

Page 5 of 14
E16. This question worked well and many candidates gained full marks. The majority of the other
candidates only failed to gain maximum marks because of a unit error or significant figure error.
Disappointingly, many answers were expressed as a fraction. It should be noted that this
practice is not acceptable and the first answer expressed as a fraction was treated as a
significant figure error.

In part (i) the error which occurred most frequently was ignoring the internal resistance of the
battery. The correct answer was 0.19 A, to two significant figures, but many candidates rounded
this down to 0.2 A, which apart from incurring a penalty, also, when carried forward to part (ii),
gave a voltage across the resistors of 12 V. This implied that there was no voltage developed
across the internal resistance of the battery. Although many candidates produced such an
answer no one noted that such a situation was not possible. Many answers to part (ii), when
carrying forward an incorrect value of the current from part (i), gave an answer well in excess of
12 V. Again this did nor seem to worry the candidates.

In part (iii) many candidates made the error of calculating the power dissipated in the total
external resistance instead of in resistor A alone. The unit of power was usually correct as was
the unit of energy in part (iv). Many candidates arrived at the correct answer in part (iv).
Consequential errors were carried forward throughout the whole question. This gave many
candidates the chance to gain some marks even if their initial calculation and subsequent
answer was incorrect.

E17. In this example of calculating equivalent resistance, the same resistor network was used
twice, the equivalent resistance being calculated between different terminals. The majority of
candidates had no difficulty with the calculations, but it was worrying to find many answers
where the candidates had attempted a solution, not by calculation, but with phrases such as
“electricity takes the path of least resistance and therefore the effective resistance (in part (b)) is
50 Ω.”

It was surprising to find that a significant number of candidates obtained the correct result in part
(b) but failed on part (a), since part (b) was deemed to be the most difficult of the two.
Considerable arithmetical difficulty was encountered by many candidates with the reciprocal of
the resistance when calculating the resistance of parallel resistors.

E18. The majority of candidates were able to calculate the electrical energy supplied to the kettle
in part (i) and the heat energy supplied to the water in part (ii). Significant figure penalties were
imposed in part (ii). In part (iii), some candidates considered that the kettle cable became heated
because of its resistance and many missed the point that there was heat loss from the kettle to
the surroundings.

In part (b) many candidates scored well, particularly in part (i). Candidates often lost a mark in
part (ii) through an incorrect calculation of the cross-sectional area or by using an incorrect
formula for the cross-sectional area. Weak candidates often penalised themselves heavily as a
result of being unable to rearrange the resistivity equation correctly.

Page 6 of 14
E19. Candidates found this question very accessible and many gained full marks. In part (a) the
meaning of emf seems to be reasonably well understood with most candidates opting for the
voltage when no current passed through the circuit. Others defined it correctly in terms of energy
per unit coulomb. There were, unfortunately, many candidates who, apparently, had not
encountered the definition of emf and merely quoted electromagnetic force, or even tried to
define it in terms of a force in the circuit. The calculation of the current in part (ii) was well done
and in part (iii) correct substitution of values into the equation = V + Ir gave r = 0.80 Ω.

Part (b) was involved with calculation of power and energy and although the majority of
candidates obtained the correct answer for the power dissipated in the 2.4 Ω resistor, fewer had
the correct answer for the total power dissipated in the circuit and a disappointing number had
the correct value for the energy wasted the battery. The usual answer to the last part was to give
the energy in the complete circuit. Whether this was due to inaccurate reading of the question or
due to lack of understanding could not be decided.

E20. The question involved straightforward calculations on voltage, resistance and current. In
part (a)(i) it was hoped that candidates would have spotted the correct voltage across each lamp
by inspection. Surprisingly, even those who managed to get the wrong answer in part (i)
nevertheless ignored their answer and proceeded from first principles to obtain the correct
answer to part (ii).

Part (b) involved the same circuit components as in part (a) but connected differently. The
majority of candidates showed that the current from the battery was the value given in the
question. Using this value they then proceeded to argue or calculate the current in each lamp.
Those candidates who merely halved the current value obtained in part (i) without any reasoning
did not gain the mark.

Although the question told the candidates that the current through each lamp was the same in
both circuits it was disappointing to find in part (c) how many candidates tried to argue that the
brightness of the bulbs in the 2nd circuit would be different to that in the first, the main thrust of
their argument being that the voltage across each bulb was different and therefore that the
brightness would be different.

Page 7 of 14
E21. Part (a) provided three reasonably easy marks for the large majority of candidates. The
most common error was forgetting to add the resistance of the thermistor to that of the resistor.
Errors in part (ii) arose from not reading the question properly and many candidates calculated
the potential across the resistor instead of the thermistor.

To obtain full marks in part (b) required a logical answer, starting with a statement that the
resistance of the thermistor decreased with rising temperature. Almost all candidates obtained
credit for this. The next step was realising that this resulted in the total resistance decreasing.
Not many candidates mentioned this, but full marks could still be obtained if they realised that the
current in the circuit increased as the temperature fell. Many candidates got to this point but then
failed to go any further. A common answer was stating, without any justification, that the voltage
across the thermistor decreased because the rate of increase of current was greater than the
rate of decrease of resistance. In order to gain the remaining marks, it was necessary to
discuss the potential across the fixed resistance. As an alternative approach, many candidates
recognised the circuit as a potential divider, gave the potential divider equation and argued
correctly from that point. Part (b) proved to be a good discriminator.

Part (c) also earned high marks. The calculation of power dissipated in the thermistor was
usually correct for both temperatures and very few failed to read the graph correctly. The usual
error was using the same current as in part (a), not realising that the removal of the fixed resistor
increased the current. It was obvious from answers to part (ii) that a significant number of
candidates were not familiar with the term mean value. Several candidates subtracted the two
values before dividing by two, others just added them. Having arrived at the mean power, most
candidates were aware that to change to energy required multiplying by the time, in seconds.
Only the better candidates realised that the answer to part (iii) was that the rate of decrease of
resistance with temperature was not linear, or that the graph was not a straight line.

E22. The response to this question was very disappointing, especially in view of the fact that this
topic has been examined several times previously, including questions on the graphical nature of
the quantities involved. Rearranging the equation in part (a) was intended as a guide to drawing
the graph in part (b). The majority of candidates did rearrange the equation correctly, but some
candidates failed to do this and ended up with a quotient.

Sketching the I-V graph in part (b) was, quite literally, a disaster area. The large majority of
candidates drew a straight line of positive gradient passing through the origin. Obviously this was
the easiest line to draw without applying any thought to the question. No marks were awarded for
such attempts. If a line of positive gradient was drawn, and did not pass through the origin, then
1 mark was awarded. A large number of curved lines, some starting at zero, others at a positive
value of V and decreasing to zero, were also presented. Of the candidates who drew a straight
line with a negative gradient, many lost marks by either extending the line into negative values of
V, or negative values of I. It must be pointed out that when carrying out an experiment to obtain
this graph, it is not possible to obtain zero values of V or I. However, since some textbooks do
show the graph extending to the V axis, this was accepted, but graphs extending to the I axis
were not.

Most candidates gained at least one mark in part (c), but the impression gained was that
candidates had learned the answers parrot fashion with no reference to the graph. The gradient
of a curved graph was often given as the answer.

Page 8 of 14
E23. Candidates are by now well used to questions on resistors in series and in parallel and part
(a) contained no hidden terrors. Invariably, correct answers were gained for both circuits.
Examiners are concerned however at the trend of using an unusual nomenclature for a
combination of resistors in series and in parallel, e.g. the combination of resistors in the second
circuit would be given by candidates in some
centres as RT = . The fact that they subsequently gave the correct

answer of 60 Ω showed that the candidates had worked out the parallel section first and then
added the series section. Such a system is not to be encouraged since it serves to confuse and
if a wrong answer is given, it does not help the examiner to find out where the error occurred and
then perhaps award a consequential error mark. The other point concerning this section, was
that answers to part (i) were given in many instances as 131/3 Ω or 13.3 Ω (i.e. recurring). These
were treated as significant figure errors. Answers given as fractions are not accepted.

Part (b) was more difficult and many candidates failed to understand the physics of the circuit.
Comparatively few candidates gained full marks. An error which cropped up continually in part (i)
was correctly calculating the resistance of three resistors in parallel (2Ω) but then using 12 V to
calculate the current, not realising that the effect of the other three resistors halved the pd. There
were also many candidates who calculated the correct current from the supply, but split this
equally between the six resistors and not three. In part (ii), although most candidates calculated
the current as 0.33 A and thus correctly concluded that the current was less than that in the part
(i), they failed to capitalise on this and merely said that ‘therefore the heater was less effective’.
In order to gain the final mark it was necessary to mention the heat/power generated by the
current.

E24. This question was generally answered well with only a minority of candidates failing to
complete the calculation. The explanation as to why actual heating might take longer generated a
variety of explanations some of which were quite imaginative.

E25. The circuit diagrams produced in part (a) were generally disappointing. Few candidates
showed the voltmeter correctly connected to the tapered conducting paper and many had the
positive pole of the battery connected to the broad end of the strip and the negative pole to the
narrow end. The voltmeter was often shown in parallel with the full length of the conducting strip
or else connected between the probe and the narrow end of the conducting strip.

Equally disappointing were the explanations of the non-linearity of voltage with distance along the
strip in part (b). Most candidates realized that the increase of potential was non-linear because
the strip was tapered, but few scored any further marks. Candidates who knew the correct
relationship between resistance, length and cross-sectional area often failed to mention that the
cross-sectional area was the product of the thickness and the width of the strip, although others
did realize that the increase of resistance was due to the decrease of area as well as the
increase of length. Only a few candidates stated that the current was constant or that the pd
was proportional to the resistance.

Page 9 of 14
 In the graphical section of part (c) most candidates completed the table satisfactorily and
proceeded to plot an adequate graph. Some candidates failed to score full marks as a result of
careless errors such as omitting the unit of potential from the graph axis or failing to choose
suitable scales. Candidates were usually able to relate the given equation to y = m x + c and
thereby demonstrate that their graph confirmed to the given equation. Both marks were usually
gained in part (iii) although there were some who plotted the potential on the x -axis thereby often
losing the final mark because they failed to realize that the gradient was now equal to 1/(1.44 Vl).

E26. Very few candidates failed to give the correct equation and definition of the symbols in part
(a). Likewise in part (b) (i); calculations on resistivity are well understood and very few incorrect
answers were seen. The usual error occurred in the calculation of the resistance of the wire, but
the incorrect value would be carried forward as a consequential error. However, if the final
answer then turned out to be a ridiculous value, such as 2 0 × 10–6 m, it was not accepted.

Part (b) (ii) gave rise to a few problems when deciding which combination of resistors gave an
output of 1 kW. There were many very good answers, with the candidates showing that the
output from the parallel combination gave the required output. A common error was stating that
in the series combination, since the same current went through each element, then this gave the
required output. Another common misconception was stating that when the resistors were in
series, all, or almost all the voltage would be used up at the first resistor, leaving very little for the
other resistor.

E27. Reading the values of the two resistances from the graph in part (a) did not prove to be
difficult although many candidates lost the mark by not looking at the graph carefully and also by
drawing a thick pencil line across, so that it covered the required point. This was especially true
for the resistance of the thermistor.

The calculation in part (b) (i) was very accessible and the majority of candidates obtained the
correct value for the voltage across AB. In part (b) (ii), many candidates gained the mark by
simply writing down 50 °C. Others would fill up the available three lines with voltage calculations
before arriving at the correct answer.

The calculation in part (c) (i) was usually correct, but answers to part (c) (ii) frequently failed to
be awarded full marks. Candidates find this type of question, where the answer requires a logical
sequence of steps, difficult. Usually, candidates would note that the lamp and thermistor were
connected in parallel, thus reducing the resistance across AB. The next step of stating that the
total resistance in the circuit would also decrease was usually ignored. The final steps of relating
the decrease in resistance to a decrease in voltage across the thermistor was rarely done
correctly. Candidates who attempted the answer in terms of the potential divider equation, or in
terms of the ratio of resistances usually fared better.

Page 10 of 14
E28. The majority of candidates found this question straightforward and gained the maximum
number of marks. Others, however, were not sure of the effect on the circuit of having the switch
open or closed. A considerable number of candidates reversed the calculations for parts (a) (i)
and (ii). Several candidates, in the situation when the switch was closed, i.e. effectively shorting
out the 60Ω, resorted to adding up the two resistances using the expression for parallel
resistors.

In part (b) the majority of candidates realized that a voltmeter of infinite resistance had the same
effect on the circuit as an open switch and proceeded accordingly.

E29. Very few candidates gained full marks for this question. In part (a), most candidates failed
to state that the photon energies were specific to the target material. There were better answers
to part (b), but many candidates tried to keep the areas under the graphs the same, which made
them lose the mark for the 90 keV curve having greater intensity than the original curve. The new
curve should have finished midway between the 80 and 100 keV marks, but this was too much
for quite a few candidates. This was a careless error which could, and should, have been
avoided.

For what was a relatively simple calculation in part (c), the answers were poor. Most candidates
managed to obtain the input power, but then went on to work out 0.7% (or 70%, or 0.7) and gave
that answer as the heat produced. Examiners would have hoped that an answer of 67W would
have struck the candidates as being far too low for an X-ray tube. Many otherwise good answers
were spoilt by the careless use of significant figures in the final answer.

E30. This is the first time in these series of examinations that candidates have been required to
draw their own arrangement of resistors. The majority of candidates gave the correct answers in
part (a), although some did try an arrangement of resistors similar to that in part (b). There were
a few incorrect calculations in part (a) (ii) even though the three resistors were in series. The
usual error in part (iv) was calculating correctly the value of \IR but then forgetting to invert to
obtain R.

In part (b) the calculation for the total resistance was usually correct although there was some
concern amongst the examiners to see the expression RT = + 4 occurring quite
frequently.

Invariably this resulted in the wrong answer, because candidates would not invert the value for
the parallel resistors. The occurrence of this ‘system’ of calculating resistance was brought to
the attention of teachers in the last report, but it seems to be more common than before. Part (ii)
was not answered well, with candidates just writing numbers down without any reasoning and in
the end confusing themselves. Candidates who just gave an answer of 4 V with no working
shown were not credited, because it was possible to obtain that answer by incorrect physics.
Candidates should be trained to give some explanation of what they are attempting in such
calculations. It was also sad to see candidates obtaining the (correct) answer of 4.0 V across
the parallel resistors, but then shooting themselves in the foot by assuming that the voltage
across the 6.0 Ω was different to that across the 3.0 Ω.

Page 11 of 14
E31. All candidates were able to gain a reasonable number of marks for this question, and many
were awarded full marks. The answer to part (a) (i) was usually correct, but there were some
problems with part (a) (ii). The most common error was obtaining the correct value of the
current in the circuit, as required, but then dividing this value by the number of lamps. The
resistance of each lamp, in part (iii), was usually calculated correctly, although some candidates
made heavy weather of the calculation when using the expression VIR for power. Several
recurring errors in part (iv) resulted in this part not being answered as well as the others. These
errors would be calculating the energy used by one lamp instead of by the set, or omitting the
factor of 2 (hours) when calculating the number of seconds, or omitting the conversion from
minutes into seconds.

Incorrect answers in part (a) were allowed to be carried forward into part (b), which resulted in
part (b) performing quite well. The usual error in part (i) was carrying out the calculations for 10
lamps, instead of 56. Answers to part (ii) were usually correct, candidates realising that the
greater the current, the greater the brightness.

E32. Explaining what is meant by emf in part (a) is still beyond the capabilities of a very large
number of candidates. The most popular acceptable definition was that of the voltage across the
terminals when no current flowed. Many candidates attempted to define emf in terms of the
energy produced in the battery, but either forgot, or did not know, that it was the energy per unit
charge. In part (a)(ii), the majority of candidates were aware that the reason involved the internal
resistance, but merely quoting internal resistance on its own was not sufficient to gain a mark.
There must be some reference to the voltage or pd across this resistance when a current flows.

The graph section in part (b) was answered well by the large majority of candidates, who drew
excellent graphs. Some candidates missed out by using almost impossible scales in their bid to
use the full page of the exam paper. Again, most candidates, having produced the correct
equation in (i), knew how to obtain ∈and r from the graph. Some candidates, having produced
an acceptable value for∈, proceeded to insert values in their equation. This was not acceptable.
Another incorrect method was to obtain ∈ from the area under the graph.

E33. Questions requiring a description of an experiment invariably perform well and part (a) was
no exception. Many candidates produced clear, concise and logical answers. This could be
partly due to the fact that measuring the resistivity of a wire is a popular experiment for
coursework. In the circuit diagrams submitted, the only point that attention needs to be drawn to
is when candidates use a potentiometer rather than a variable resistance. It is important that the
ammeter should be placed in the correct position to measure the current through the wire, and
not measure the current through the battery. Many of the circuit diagrams did not include the
resistance wire, the candidates seemingly being confused between the resistance wire and the
variable resistance. Unfortunately, candidates who produced such a circuit invariably penalised
themselves not only in part (i) but also in part (ii).

Page 12 of 14
 When listing, in part (ii), the measurements which needed to be taken, a mark was usually lost
by candidates who stated that the area of cross section, rather than the diameter, had to
measured. Several candidates referred to the diameter as the thickness of the wire, a term
which was not acceptable. The other point which was missed quite frequently, was the need to
make a series of measurements of voltage and current by altering the variable resistor. Another
point which needs to be stressed is that many candidates stated that the length of the wire was
changed, contradicting the evidence of their own circuit diagram, which showed a fixed length
resistance wire.

In part (iii), the majority of candidates gave the correct equation relating resistivity to the other
parameters and stated how to calculate A from the diameter and how to calculate the resistance
R of the wire. Most candidates used a graph to obtain R, with those who used a variable length
using a graph of length against R, calculating ρ from the gradient.

Very few candidates failed to obtain the correct value for the length of wire in part (b).

E34. This proved to be a comparatively easy question, with many candidates gaining full marks.
Most of the errors in part (a) were due to the equation relating charge, time and current being
incorrect. The necessary conversion of the time involved into seconds seemed to be well
understood, but the same point in part (b), namely the conversion of hours into seconds, proved
to be more open to errors. There were very few arithmetical errors. A consequential error in part
(b)(ii) ensured that even if the incorrect answer was obtained in part (b)(i), candidates could still
gain the allocated mark for the power of the bulb.

E35. This proved to be a comparatively easy question, with many candidates gaining full marks.
Most of the errors in part (a) were due to the equation relating charge, time and current being
incorrect. The necessary conversion of the time involved into seconds seemed to be well
understood, but the same point in part (b), namely the conversion of hours into seconds, proved
to be more open to errors. There were very few arithmetical errors. A consequential error in part
(b)(ii) ensured that even if the incorrect answer was obtained in part (b)(i), candidates could still
gain the allocated mark for the power of the bulb.

Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14