P3 Notes V1 PDF
P3 Notes V1 PDF
Consistency means that the measurement should have appropriate no of decimal places (d.p.) according
to the precision of the instrument.
For e.g. meter rule can have these values in centimeter: 0.1 cm, 9.1 cm, 17.9 cm 20.0 cm. In meters
these values must be written as: 0.001 m, 0.091 m, 0.179 m, 0.200 m. In millimeters these values must
be written as: 1 mm, 91 mm, 179 mm, 200 mm.
For digital meter such as voltmeter and ammeter you should write what you see on the display with
correct units (mA, V, Ω, kΩ etc.) the units can be determined by looking at the dial on the multimeter
For digital stopwatch the readings can be as: 02.22 s, 12.35 s etc. This example shows a value of 37.22 s
Column headings
Quantity and correct unit should be labeled as follows:
L/m T /s
Or
L (m) T (s)
Range
Include the minimum and maximum (possible) values
Consistency
For e.g. meter rule can have these values in centimeter: 0.1 cm, 9.1 cm, 17.9 cm 20.0 cm. In meters
these values must be written as: 0.001 m, 0.091 m, 0.179 m, 0.200 m. In millimeters these values must
be written as: 1 mm, 91 mm, 179 mm, 200 mm.
For digital meter such as voltmeter and ammeter you should write what you see on the display with
correct units (mA, V, Ω, kΩ etc.) the units can be determined by looking at the dial on the multimeter
For digital stopwatch the readings can be as: 02.22 s, 12.35 s etc. This example shows a value of 37.22 s
Note: you should not compare d.p. of one measured value to some other measured value. These values
can have different d.p.
For e.g.
L / cm T/s
0.9 1.12
1.1 3.13
9.9 4.17
10.1 11.18
Significant figures (s.f.)
In the above example the calculated values are correctly rounded off to the same no of s.f. as the raw
values these columns can include different no of s.f. and d.p.
Calculation
Calculated values should be correctly rounded off to the no of s.f.
Trend
To see the trend, arrange the data in ascending of descending order to check whether the measured
values are increasing or decreasing
For graph
1- Axes
Labelled with quanty and unit
No awkward scale i.e. 10 small boxes cant be a multiple of 3
Label every 10 boxes
All plotted points should occupy at least 50% of the graph in both x and y axis
2- Plots
All point must be plotted within half a small box
3- Line of best fit
Y-intercept
For this read-off is only valid if your x axis starts form zero otherwise use y=mx+c to calculate
For the last part of the question give you a straight-line equation and ask for the values of some
variables with unit never calculate using values form the graph always compare with the straight-line
equation to determine which variables correspond the gradient and which one corresponds to the y-
intercept
For question 2
If you have one measured value and more than 1 mark for the question then it is probably for repeats
and/or range (this also applies to question 1 as well)
d/cm
10.1
10.3
10.4
10.1+10.3+10.4
d avg = = 10.3
3
The precision of my instrument is ___________ hence my measured value/s of _____ is in ______ s.f. so
the calculated value of ______ has the _____ no of s.f.
For e.g.
𝑙𝑙
𝑐𝑐 = 𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑 are lengths in cm or mm or m. l is in 3 s.f. and d is in 2 s.f. so the above statement
𝑑𝑑
becomes:
The precision of my instrument is to the nearest mm hence my measured values of l is in 3 s.f. and d is in
2 s.f. so the calculated value of c is in 2 s.f. (use the lower s.f.)
Calculation of k
The two values of k should be in the same no of s.f. as the raw data and give with correct unit.
Calculation of percentage difference in k
Use this
Since my criterion for this experiment is _______ and the percentage difference in k is _________ which
lies inside/outside my criterion hence the suggested relationship is valid/invalid.
You should mention the measurement that was difficult to measure and then a reason why it was
difficult.
The key to this section is to identify genuine problems with setting up the experiment and to obtain the
readings. And then give solutions with either improves the technique or give more reliable data
Paper 3 – Advanced Practical Skills
4 Measurement of y is
made using a ruler with
mm markings so
0.01 cm cannot be
measured. Here 4.5,
5.7, 6.5, 7.2, etc.,
would have sufficed.
7
Total marks awarded =
16 out of 20
(d) In tabulating their observations, the candidate correctly used a large range to cover the masses provided,
as stated in the confidential instructions. They correctly stated a unit alongside each heading, separated by a
dividing line (brackets around the units would also have sufficed). The quantity m sin θ was correctly
calculated to three significant figures. To improve, the candidate should have given the value of y to the
nearest mm, as the ruler cannot measure to any greater degree of precision. So y should have been given
as 4.5 and not 4.50. Notice that this mistake was also made in (b) (ii) but the examiner only discredited this
in one place (in this case, in the table).
(e) (i) The candidate set out and labelled their axes clearly and plotted their points accurately. They placed
their line of best fit so that no rotation or shift was needed to get a better line. The quality of the results was
also very good as all the points lay within a certain distance of the line. If the plots are a long way from the
line, candidates should check over their observations and results and redo them.
(e) (iii) The candidate correctly identified the gradient and y-intercept calculation. Of the six different read-
offs used in these calculations one was misread (7.2 should have been read as 9.4). To improve, the
candidate needed to take greater care and recheck any read-offs taken.
(f) The candidate used the method correctly and the expected value of Q was of the right order of magnitude
with the correct units. Although the units were correct for P, the order of magnitude was too small for that
–2 –1
expected (2 10 cm g ). This resulted from the incorrect read-off used in the calculation; otherwise the
–2 –1
candidate would have reached an answer of 1.9 10 cm g .
(e) (i) The candidate could have improved by labelling and setting out regular numerical scales on both axes,
as multiples of 18.7 on the x-axis were too awkward and cumbersome to plot and read off points. The
drawing of points is expected to be done with a sharp pencil so that the points plotted occupy no more than
half a square in either the x or y-direction.
(e) (ii) The drawing of the line of best fit is expected to be done with the use of a sharp pencil and placed so
that the line does not need rotating or shifting to give a better fit.
(f) While the read-offs for the gradient and y-intercept in (e) (iii) were correct, when transferring these
quantities to determine the values of P and Q, the units also needed to be considered.
3 y stated to 0.1 cm is
correct as the length
can be measured to
the nearest millimetre.
3
Mark for (d) = 5/5 + 2/5
= 7/10
4 4 A correct calculation
gains credit here. Too
many significant
figures are used in the
calculated quantity.
(Two or three only are
expected, since the
5 angle is given to two
significant figures.)
5 There is a misreading
from the graph here.
However, since one set
of read-offs is correct
in the gradient
calculation, an error
carried forward mark is
allowed.
(e) (i) The candidate could have improved by taking greater care in accurately plotting their points (y = 4.8
should have been plotted at y = 4.9) and subsequently checking them.
(e) (ii) The line of best fit should have been rotated clockwise to give a better fit, especially since the third
point was circled (hence identified as anomalous) and discounted in judging where to place the line.
(e) (iii) When determining the gradient, the candidate read one of the read-offs incorrectly, so they should
have taken greater care and checked that any read-offs were within half a square.
(f) When determining the values of P and Q, consideration of the method and units was needed. The
candidate needed to use the y-intercept value for determining Q, as stated in the question, and not use a
substitution method.
(e) (ii) Drawing the line so that a better fit could be achieved by further rotation or shifting.
(e) (iii) Incorrectly reading the points to be plotted or read off for the gradient calculation.
(f) & (d) Not considering the unit of the final quantity or calculated quantities.
Question 2
1 The diameter is
measured correctly to
the nearest 0.01 mm,
which is as expected
from reading a manual
micrometer screw
gauge. Similarly, length
L in (b) (iii) is
measured correctly to
1 mm, which is
expected from using a
ruler with millimetre
markings. The area is
calculated correctly, as
is C in (c) (i).
1
Mark for (a) (ii) = 1/1
Mark for (a) (iii) = 1/1
4 Repeated values of
several oscillations, a
unit and the final
working out of the
period ensure the mark
4 here.
(c) (ii) In justifying the number of significant figures used in C, the candidate could have improved by
referring to the number of significant figures used in the raw values of both d and L used ultimately to
calculate C.
(g) (i) & (ii) Although the candidate scored very highly in the descriptive evaluation section at the end, they
could have improved by stating that the wire that slips ‘from the clip’ could be ‘glued to the clip’. Their
suggestion (use of adhesive tape) would still allow the wire to slip in this particular case.
(f) (i) In calculating k the candidate could have improved by rearranging the equation correctly (k = C/T).
(f) (ii) When explaining whether the results support the relationship, the candidate calculated a percentage
difference, stated a criterion and gave an opinion. However, the stated criterion was judged to be too high for
this experiment; the candidate needed to state where the idea of 30% came from.
(g) (ii) The candidate scored highly on describing the limitations. To improve, the candidate could have
explained the improvements in greater depth, for example, using a video camera with a timer (in shot) to
record the period. Although credit was awarded to the fact that there is more than one plane of motion going
on, turning off the fans was not considered to be a major factor, as the mass and the wire are compact,
compared to using a table tennis ball for example. The thinness of the wire and therefore the likelihood of it
breaking when constantly loaded into the clip were not considered creditworthy, nor was the idea of using a
cork and a small ball of clay, as there was no detailed explanation of how these could be used to secure the
wire.
4 The number of
significant figures used
4 needs to relate to the
raw data used (d and L).
7 No consideration of the
percentage difference
or a criterion to
compare the
7 percentage difference
with.
(b) (iv) To improve in estimating the percentage uncertainty in L, the candidate should have thought about
the difficulties in measuring L and factored these into the uncertainty in L so that they did not just consider
the smallest possible reading from the ruler in this particular case.
(c) (ii) To improve in justifying the number of significant figures used in their value of C, reference should
also have been made to the number of significant figures used in d.
(f) (ii) To improve the explanation of whether the results supported the relationship, the candidate should
have worked out the percentage difference and compared this to a criterion, then formulated an opinion.
(g) (i) & (ii) The candidate could have described real problems and solutions in greater detail and linked the
problems to specific quantities. For example, the candidate stated ‘error in seeing the oscillation’. Here the
examiner would expect the candidate to relate this either to the oscillation being in more than one plane or to
the fact that the end of an oscillation is difficult to judge, thereby affecting the period.
(b) (iv) Estimating the uncertainty as equal to the smallest division of the ruler (1 mm). Candidates needed to
factor in the inherent difficulties of the experiment (getting the ruler close to the wire owing to the clip being in
the way), leading to a larger uncertainty in the length reading.
(c) (ii) When justifying the significant figures used in C, candidates often referred to the significant figures
used in area A, which were not a raw value but an intermediate calculated value.
(g) (i) & (ii) Descriptions of problems and solutions were often too vague and not specific to a particular
measurement.