How are they going to surprise us in Applied Maths?

EuropeanSon

Alright, so in all the sciences (and accounting) so far they've thrown up bits that everyone was unfamiliar with (from what I've heard, as I dong do physics or biology), and gone against trends not just in science but in general too. Applied Maths is also vulnerable to this, I think, but I can't think where they might do this.

The obvious bit would be to throw up a different theorum in Q8, like the parrallel axis or perpendicular axis or compound pendulum ones, which aren't usually up. Does anyone have any other ideas of what they might do to change it up a bit?

Ashashi

I think maybe they might mix questions, which could be awful for people. They could mix collisions with projectiles, or relative velocity with linear motion. Let's hope they don't but they could very well do it.

EuropeanSon

Ashashi wrote: »

I think maybe they might mix questions, which could be awful for people. They could mix collisions with projectiles, or relative velocity with linear motion. Let's hope they don't but they could very well do it.

They mixed collisions with projectiles in 05, at least those were two easy topics. If they start throwing SHM into Q4 there'll be murder, though. And if they throw hydrostatics in with anything half the country will be fecked.

Ashashi

EuropeanSon wrote: »

They mixed collisions with projectiles in 05, at least those were two easy topics. If they start throwing SHM into Q4 there'll be murder, though. And if they throw hydrostatics in with anything half the country will be fecked.

I have never done hydrostatics, so I can't even describe the grief I will feel if that happens.

Let's hope, that they decide to just give us a normal paper, cause we have worked for 2 and a half weeks.... clutching at straws here.

wayhey

Ask a question on Eavan Boland.

EuropeanSon

Hydrostatics is by far the easiest question IMO, because nobody does it so they give easy questions. I really never got why teachers leave it out, it'll be the first I do on Friday.

EuropeanSon

wayhey wrote: »

Ask a question on Eavan Boland.

Would you give that a rest!!! :L

**Timbuk2**

They don't 'surprise' people, not intentionally. Physics didn't have any surprises per se, and accounting was nothing too strange, albeit a bit longer than previous papers. I think most surprises arise from predictions gone wrong. As you can't predict AM, I don't think we'll be surprised!

millix

last year's surprise was no question or part of a question on circular motion.

can anyone do Q6 2002 HL ?

what causes the hoop to lift ? The hoop leaves the table under certain conditions but the solution on examinations.ie doesn't make a lot of sense

M

Conor108

Oh god it better just be a nice, no surpise paper....and then to the pub afterwards!:D

psychoduck

i've never seen a single applied maths paper or the book, so its definitely going to be surprising for me!

Making It Bad

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Physics didn't have any surprises per se

I would say the data logger thing was a surprise as nothing on them has ever come up before.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Hydrostatics is by far the easiest question IMO, because nobody does it so they give easy questions. I really never got why teachers leave it out, it'll be the first I do on Friday.

Not if they put SHM on it again, they've done it before.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

.
The obvious bit would be to throw up a different theorum in Q8, like the parrallel axis or perpendicular axis or compound pendulum ones, which aren't usually up.

Those theorems are not on the syllabus.

EuropeanSon

Yes they are. There are 6 on the syllabus for Q8, according to an Applied Maths revision day I went to at Trinity, but they've only ever asked a few of them.

Making It Bad

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Yes they are. There are 6 on the syllabus for Q8, according to an Applied Maths revision day I went to at Trinity, but they've only ever asked a few of them.

Well it's a bit ambiguous but it says "Application of parallel and perpendicular axes theorems, with proofs done as classwork." This to me would imply that we don't have to know them for the exam.

http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/PDF/lc_apmaths_sy.pdf

EuropeanSon

Fair enough. I'm learning them just to be safe though.

Maybe_Memories

millix wrote: »

last year's surprise was no question or part of a question on circular motion.

can anyone do Q6 2002 HL ?

what causes the hoop to lift ? The hoop leaves the table under certain conditions but the solution on examinations.ie doesn't make a lot of sense

M

I'm aware this is extremely late, and mods, I'm sorry for bumping, but no one answered.

I haven;t seen the question in a while, so I'm relying on memory here.
The two rings fall from the top, each in opposit directions. Their weight acts vertically downwards, so the reaction must act outwards, to keep them on the hoop. When they go below the half way line, weight still acts downwards, but now the reaction must be inwards, to keep them on the hoop.

The hoop rises when the reaction forces, R and S if you will, are greater than the weight of the hoop, Mg.
The hoop rises when R + S - MG > 0.
As far as I remember you get a quadratic with cos(theta) as the variable.
Using the quadratic formula, the discriminate must be greater than zero, so using this fact gets you the result you need.


EDIT: just to verify, when I say the reaction acts inwards, I mean the component of it that isn't acting as part of the centrepital force.