Nuclear Report

1.
SL only
Some candidates did not recognise that the value of h was the slope of the graph. Others took
the ratio of one pair of points instead of the slope to find h. Several candidates used a data-book-
value of h in (ii) to calculate the minimum energy hf, despite the question stating “use the graph
to determine...”
The explanations as to the existence of a threshold frequency were often weak and confused. A
common error was to confuse the photoelectric effect with ionisation.
2. SL only
The de Broglie hypothesis was usually understood and quite a few candidates calculated the
wavelength correctly. However, there was a lot of confusion here with the Planck formula for
photons.
The concept of electron diffraction and its relationship to the verification of the de Broglie
hypothesis was poorly understood.
3. SL only
This was probably the best answered question in this Option although some candidates drew the
arrows on the energy level diagram in the opposite direction.
4. SL only
Many candidates recognised the decay as an example of positive beta decay but the calculation
of the decay constant defeated many.
5. SL only
There were not many clear answers describing aspects of the photoelectric effect that could not
be explained by the classical theory of light. In fact, most descriptions given here did not pertain
to the photoelectric effect at all. In part (b) a disappointingly large number of candidates had
problems when using the graph to obtain values for the critical frequency, the Planck constant
and the work function. Very few candidates realised that the graph line for the second metal had
to be parallel to graph line for the first.
6. SL only
The answers to this question were rather disappointing. It was clear that the majority of
candidates had no real understanding of the conservation laws being asked for, and most
answers included permutations of the laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy.
Lepton number, baryon number and charge were seldom mentioned.
1
7. SL only
It was very pleasing to see that this was well answered. There were good derivations of the
radius of the path of a charged particle in a magnetic field as well as of the mass of the second
isotope and the nucleon structure of each.
8. SL only
(a) Answers were very varied, revealing a lack of clear knowledge. In particular, there was’
difficulty in appreciating the consequence of a constant applied voltage. This may have
resulted from a failure to consider carefully any change in the energy and in the rate of
arrival of photons. In (i), increased intensity was thought to give an increased current,
despite no increase in the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectrons. In (ii), constant
intensity was thought to give constant current.
(b) It should be remembered that, when stating the energy equation for the photoelectric
effect, the kinetic energy is the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectron. In part (ii),
there were many clear concise calculations.
9. SL only
(a) Not well understood. Those who did associate amplitude with probability frequently
forgot the ‘square’.
(b) Surprisingly, many candidates could not answer this section correctly.
10. SL only
(a) It was expected that this section would be widely known. In fact, there were very few
satisfactory statements. Most candidates did not appear to have any understanding of this
aspect of the work.
(b) The answer here seemed to be based on guesswork.
(c) Again, there were very few correct responses. It appeared as if candidates were unaware
of the fact that the decay constant is defined as the probability of decay per unit time of a
nucleus.
(d) There were some good answers here. However, numerous candidates realised that the
time would be between three and four half-lives and then assumed a linear relationship.
This approach should be discouraged.
2
11. SL only
The initial parts of this question were done well on the whole but the answers to the final
section on the wave nature of particles was rather disappointing. The majority of candidates
referred to experiments involving light as opposed to particles.
12. SL only
It was very pleasing to see that this was on the whole generally well answered. There were good
calculations of the time taken for the activity to be reduced to a given level.
13. SL only
There were mixed answers to this question with many candidates realising that absorption of
light or collisions had something to do with the question. The answers however were not precise
enough.
The calculation in (b)(i) was generally well done. Many candidates could answer this quickly by
using the value of Planck’s constant in units of eV. Most candidates had trouble explaining (b)
(ii) despite their correct answers in the previous question. As in past exams, the discussion of
Schrodinger’s theory proved beyond most candidates.
14. SL only
This was not well answered. Most could deduce (or recall) the charge of an antineutrino. A few
candidates may have found the term electron antineutrino instead of plain antineutrino
confusing. The name of the interaction was beyond the majority of the candidates.
15. SL only
This question was generally well done but many candidates did mention “heat” and “thermal
energy” as the forms of energy released in the fission reaction. Those who had not studied this
option carefully gave amusing definitions of where the neutrons are slowed down. Despite
getting bogged down in unit conversions it was pleasing to see a good number of candidates
getting the answer right in (iv) for the amount of mass undergoing fission in a year.
16. SL only
There were few good accounts as to how the Einstein theory accounts for the existence of a
threshold frequency. Many lacked clarity and rarely was any mention made of the fact electrons
require energy to be ejected from a metal surface.
Many candidates were able to correctly find a value of the threshold frequency but few were
able to find a correct value for the work function.
3
17. SL only
The decay equation was often completed correctly but the problem defeated many candidates
with many not knowing how to begin.
18. Part 2
Parts (a) – (c) are common with A3 (HL) parts (a) – (c).
Most candidates were able to answer the remaining parts - (d) and (e) - quite satisfactorily.
19. No Report available for this question.
20. The verb “fuse” refers specifically to the event of fusion in nuclear physics. Induced
endothermic reactions are not referred to as fusion events. The most popular (incorrect)
distractor was C. Such a choice suggests that a large number of students did not appreciate an
essential facet of nuclear energy.
21. SL additional questions

[SL question B2 Part 2 ]
(a) (i) This was generally well answered.
(a) (ii) Generally well answered.
(b) (ii) This was answered rather well. This is an encouraging sign when considering past
problems with calculations involving the Avogadro constant.
(c) This was generally well done but with some notable exceptions related to carelessness in
the plotting of points or graphs with a completely wrong shape.
(d) (i) and (ii) This was generally well answered.
4
22. Photoelectric effect
(a) Frequently left unanswered. Candidates are expected to realize that VS gives a measure of
the (maximum) kinetic energy of the photoelectrons and that light intensity determines
the rate of emission of photoelectrons, not their kinetic energy.
(b) Again, answers were disappointing. Very few candidates wrote down a word equation
and/or an algebraic expression to represent the photoelectric effect. Consequently, they
were unable to appreciate how the graph was to be used. Candidates were told to explain
their working. This instruction was intended to encourage them to quote an appropriate
equation or expression.
23. Mass Spectrometer

(a) Frequently, inappropriate wording such as ‘weigh atoms’ was used.
(b) Any type of mass spectrometer was acceptable. A schematic diagram was required so that
detail was not necessary. For example, in a Bainbridge type spectrometer, it was sufficient
to show a block labelled ‘velocity selector’ rather than give detail of the crossed electric
and magnetic fields.
(c) Some candidates were unaware of the method by which the problem could be
approached. A common error was to determine the fraction of one of the isotopes in the
whole sample, rather than the ratio of the two isotopes.
5
26. (SL only)
(a) Definitions tended to be imprecise, without any clear reference to nuclei and the fact that
the nucleons must be separated completely. There is confusion between the terms isotope,
nucleus, nucleon and nuclide.
(b) The serious problem here was that candidates did not appreciate that the mass defects
were per nucleon. Instead, the values were assumed to be the mass defect of the nucleus.
27. Photoelectric effect.

a) This was generally well known
b) Although the determination of the threshold frequency and the explanation of how it
related to the graph was well done, many candidates failed to explain their calculation of
the Planck constant and so could not gain full credit.
28. The de Broglie hypothesis

a) Candidates sometimes just quoted the formula but did not define the terms.
b) As in previous papers, candidates often did not make use of the relation between energy
and momentum and so made the calculation that bit longer.
29. Nuclear decay

As observed in the other parts of the paper where modern physics is involved the level of
success is quite mixed even though the questions are often purely knowledge based.
(a) Few candidates got full credit describing natural radioactive decay. Lack of precision
(unstable nuclei, not atoms, decay), completeness or a tendency to repeat rather than
bring up different aspects. Rarely reference is given to a more stable “daughter” as the
product of decay, the original nucleus “disappearing”.
(b) Fission generally well recognized (i). Mixed results placing the three elements on the
graph (ii). Less than half of the candidates correctly calculated the binding energy per
nucleon with the majority adding 187 MeV rather than subtracting it (iii), a serious error
indicating very poor understanding of the event. Only a few stated correctly and
completely why neutrons do not have binding energies (iv).
6
32. SL only
The first two parts of the question were generally answered well but a great many candidates
had a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the moderator, thinking that along with the
control rods, its purpose is to prevent an uncontrolled chain reaction. The idea that neutrons
235
have more chance of producing fission with the scarce U if they are slower moving, would
seem to be not known to them.
33. No specific comment available.
34. HL only
The labelling on the vertical axis was unfortunate but it did not confuse anybody. (It should
have been Emax).
37. HL only
The question did not specify that the ions all had the same charge and so answers B and C were
both accepted as correct.
7
39. HL only
The first part of the question could be done by most candidates. However, many lost marks
because they gave insufficient explanation to show how they arrived at the given answers.
Weaker candidates were unable to determine the change in momentum. Surprisingly, a
significant number of candidates did not realize that they should simply multiply together the
number of photons per second and the momentum of each photon.
More able candidates realised the connection between change in momentum per second on unit
area and pressure. Answers as to whether the pressure would increase were very disappointing.
Very few realised that the pressure would increase and even fewer could give a valid
explanation. Most thought that the pressure would be reduced because the photons would no
longer be stopped by the surface.
40. HL only
Very rarely was it appreciated that changes in temperature and pressure do not affect rate of
decay.
Approximately 50% of candidates could relate decay constant to a probability of decay.

However, many seemed to be unsure as to what would decay and in what length of time.
The calculation was usually correct, but some candidates did not calculate the mass defect first.
As a result, they got into difficulties with the complexities of the equation and an inability to use
index notation.
This simple momentum problem was explained satisfactorily by the more able candidates.
Weaker candidates appear to learn their physics in ‘compartments’ and consequently were
unable to give an explanation despite being told to consider momentum. Most succeeded in
obtaining the ratio in (ii) even when their earlier explanations were unsatisfactory.
The calculations based on radioactive decay proved to be accessible to most candidates although
a significant number did not understand how to determine the average activity of the sample.
The concept of fusion was generally well understood. However, the conditions required for it to
occur, in terms of overcoming proton repulsion, were not well understood by weaker candidates.
41. HL only
Answers were very disappointing. The vast majority merely named the field. When candidates
are asked to deduce, then an explanation must be given.
Only the weaker candidates had difficulty in deducing the speed of the electron.
Surprisingly, the arrow was frequently drawn at some position other than P. Most candidates
completed the calculations successfully.
It was pleasing to note that many answers made reference to gravitational effects being
negligible and also, in the case of more able candidates, they compared the gravitational force to
either the electric force or the magnetic force.
8
It was evident that, for some weaker candidates, the remainder of this question was guesswork.
In answers where the direction of the magnetic field was predicted correctly, candidates
frequently failed to mention the rule they had used in order to find the direction.
There was a small number of good answers to the problem when speed, mass and/or charge are
changed. Others failed to consider both the magnitudes and the directions of the forces on the
particles.
44. HL only
Candidates tended to lose marks through lack of detail rather than understanding in the first
sections of this question. A pleasing number could correctly identify the energy levels involved
but a significant number got the jump the wrong way round. The outline of the different atomic
models was done poorly with many candidates explaining why energy levels explained the
spectrum of atomic hydrogen rather than outlining the models. The nuclear aspects were
generally done well though few were able to correctly apply any knowledge of antineutrinos or
quarks to beta decay.
45. HL only
Generally, candidates did little more than state that the electrons are in fixed orbits. Angular
momentum and the emission of energy only on de-excitation were rarely included. With few
exceptions, all three answers to the first calculations were correct. However, most candidates
were unable to give an expression for the Uncertainty principle. Very rarely did a candidate
appreciate that, based on the Uncertainty principle, the concept of clearly defined orbits is
inappropriate.
46. HL only
Judging by the number of candidates who gave B as the key, it would seem that a significant
number (44%) were thinking of a photon.
9
50.(a) Most answers involved a quote of the de Broglie formula, with or without explanation.
However, few were able to comment on the wavelength as being associated with the
wave like properties of any particle.
(b) A significant minority of candidates appeared not to understand the approach required for
this calculation. Of those who could give relevant formulae, many made errors in the
numerical manipulations, resulting in ridiculous answers. Candidates should be
encouraged to consider whether an answer is reasonable. A quick check of the number
processing can result in a higher score of marks.
51. SL and HL
(a) (i) Candidates frequently failed to mention that, in fission, the fragments have similar
masses and that, in radioactive decay, the nucleus emits a particle (### or ###) and
a ‘g-ray photon. It was common to find that either the element, or the atom or the
isotope, rather than the nucleus, was involved in the processes.
(ii) Approximately 50% of answers were correct. The most common error was to show
three, rather than four, neutrons on the right-hand side of the equation.
(iii) With few exceptions, this part of the question was answered correctly.
HL only
(b) (i) Very few answers attributed this energy to that of emitted photons or neutrons.
Most thought that it was concerned with a mass defect.
HL and SL
(ii) There were surprisingly few correct answers. Some candidates were unable to
identify the relevant equations. In many scripts where the equations had been
written down, there were numerical errors.
(iii) Again, there were very few correct answers where the momentum was attributed to
either photons or neutrons. The most common answer was an explanation in terms
of the difference in mass of the fission fragments.
(iv) A large number of candidates showed the directions to be exactly opposite one
another. This may be attributed to the fact that they did not appreciate the role of
the emitted neutrons and/or the photons.
10
HL only
(c) (i) Despite the fact that this should be a well-known definition, there were very few
answers that could be given any credit.
(ii) In general, only weaker candidates could not make the necessary deduction.
(d) (i) In many scripts, this section was not attempted. There were some correct
calculations but in most attempts, the candidates were unable to manipulate the
exponential functions.
(ii) Most suggestions were very superficial - for example ‘strontium lasts longer’. It
was expected that reference would be made to activity and that it is the activity that
gives rise to a health hazard.
56. SL only
This question tended to be done well especially the balancing of quark types in part (c).
11
60. HL only
h
(a) Quite a few candidates quoted λ = p as the de Broglie hypothesis but failed to define the
terms.
(b) The calculations were often done well but also quite often left unanswered. This would
appear to be a topic that candidates either knew well or not at all.
61. HL only
(a) Radioactive half-life was often incorrectly defined in terms of the mass decreasing by
half Candidates should be encouraged to be precise and to refer to either the activity, or
the number of nuclei, of that particular isotope and certainly not the mass.
Few candidates appreciated that the decay constant is the probability that a nucleus will
decay in unit time.
(b) Many candidates tried to bluff their way through the proof of λT½ = ln2.
(c) The activity calculation defeated a lot of candidates usually because they seemed
unfamiliar with handling exponential calculations.
(d) The calculation of the energy and frequency of the γ-ray photon were often done well.
(e) The concept of nuclear energy levels seemed unfamiliar to quite a few candidates. Few
could make the connection between the difference in energy states and the data given in
the calculation.
12
65. HL only
This question was generally not done well. Candidates were asked to discuss the weaknesses of
the wave model of light with respect to two observations about the photoelectric effect. Many
candidates were unable to make any sensible observations but those that were able to make
some comments often wrongly discussed how the particle model for light correctly explained
the observations.
66. SL and HL
(a) Typically candidates knew something about the term isotopes but it was rare to see a
precise or unambiguous definition.
(b) Many mistakes were made completing the nuclear reaction equation. Most candidates
–
thought that the atomic number decreased after β -decay. As SL candidates do not need to
know about the existence of neutrinos or anti-neutrinos, answers as vague as “energy” or
“gamma” were accepted for the other item involved in the decay. HL candidates needed
to correctly identify the anti-neutrino.
(c) and (d) Many were able to make a reasonable attempt at plotting the exponential graph. Typically
HL candidates did not draw the graph with sufficient precision to predict the activity at
the later times. SL candidates were provided with some data and many were able to use it
correctly to estimate the half-life. Some candidates, however, attempted to plot a straight-
line graph.
HL only
(d) and (e) Many candidates were able to attempt the HL calculations but typically marks were lost
because units were omitted. The candidates tended to find the final calculation slightly
more difficult.
67. HL only
Most candidates found this question a difficult one. Only a handful could correctly describe
Bohr’s condition in (a) and in (b) few could explain how an emission spectrum is formed. The
calculation of the ionisation energy in (c) and the discussion of discrete energy levels in
Schrodinger’s theory proved beyond the abilities of the great majority of candidates.
68. SL only
Part (a) was often answered well but very few candidates recognized that conservation of lepton
number would be violated in the second quoted reaction.
13
74. HL only
(a) In general, this was not answered well. Frequently, reference was made to the meaning of
a photon and to photon energy, rather than giving experimental evidence.
(b) (i) Most could give the Einstein equation in symbols. The most common error was to
fail to give the maximum kinetic energy in terms of VS.
(ii) Some candidates found difficulty with the algebra when re-arranging terms to
make VS the subject of the equation. It was pleasing to note that candidates did
make reference to the equation y = mx + c, and did compare terms with the re-
arranged Einstein equation. Explanation was essential here, but weaker candidates
failed to support their comments, (iii) Candidates could use either the intercept on
the graph or a point on the line. There were many correct answers but a number of
candidates were unclear as to what is involved.
75. HL and SL
(a) (i) In general, momentum was defined correctly. However, it was quite common to
find impulse defined as rate of change of momentum.
(ii) Candidates should not paraphrase the question. Reference to momentum being
conserved does not indicate any understanding of the law. The fact that there must
be no external force acting on the system was omitted by many candidates.
(iii) Some candidates did not really understand how to approach the problem. Others
realised that there can be no resultant force but could make no further progress.
There were, however, some very good deductions.
14
(b) (i) Nearly all answers were correct.
(ii) For those candidates who understood the meaning of the term eV, then the
calculation presented very few problems. Clearly, a minority had no real concept of
the situation.
(iii) Some candidates made life difficult for themselves by calculating the mass of two
protons and two neutrons to four or five significant digits. They should realise that,
where the answer is given to three significant digits, such precision is quite
unnecessary.
(c) (i) Frequently, the arrow drawn was so short that it could not be ascertained whether it
was intended that the nucleus and the α-particle would be moving in opposite
directions, (ii) The momentum calculation was frequently completed with little or
no explanation. Candidates often failed to realise that only the ratio of the masses is
required and consequently, they made great efforts to calculate, in kg, the masses of
the nucleus and the α-particle.
(iii) Candidates were asked to consider the effect on the paths. Instead, many
concentrated on the magnitude of the velocity and completely ignored direction.
HL only
(d) (i) Candidates could consider, for example, the number of neutrons, the diameter of
the nuclei or their stability. Candidates should not repeat themselves. For example,
stating that the number of neutrons and the number of nucleons are different does
not constitute two separate differences.
(ii) As is usual, most answers did not make it clear as to what is halving. It is necessary
that the quantity being halved is stated unambiguously and that any daughter
products could not possibly be included.
(iii) Generally well done with adequate explanation. The most common error was for a
negative sign to appear, or disappear, mysteriously.
(iv) Many candidates did not realise that they had to use the equation A = λN.
Consequently, answers were frequently restricted to a calculation of λ.
(e) Quite intentionally, there is no simple unique answer here. Candidates could argue for
either option. What was expected was some sound reasoning based on either total dose or
dose-rate.
76. HL only
Apart from knowing the other Bohr postulate, this question was very poorly answered. The
algebraic manipulation defeated many candidates and few could convincingly outline how the
Schrodinger model accounts for the existence of energy levels.
77. Neutron decay
15
The question tested knowledge in the context of neutron decay. Some candidates had, quite
clearly, simulated the necessary knowledge and consequently, scored full marks. Others had,
evidently not studied the subject.
79. The majority of candidates were not able to do this question, although it had a good
discrimination index. This would suggest that the weaker candidates were on ‘automatic’ and
had not read the question carefully enough to realise that the unit needed to be the electron volt.
82. This was a difficult question for most candidates. They had perhaps not read the question
carefully enough to realise that the photon was being absorbed and not emitted.
16
85. Radioactive Decay

(a) Clearly, some candidates had learned their work carefully. It was apparent that others had
either not studied the topic or had not committed the work to memory. These should have
been easy marks for candidates. Any relevant property was accepted (e.g. charge) whether
or not it is actually included in the Guide.
89. The more able students interpreted correctly “particular time interval” to mean “per unit of
time”
17
90. Part 2 [HL only] - The quantum nature of radiation
(a) Many candidates attempted to account for the threshold frequency without mentioning
photons. Many of those who did use photons and the photon energy formula E = hf
appeared unable to take the next step and argue that if the photon energy hf was less than
the work function, no electrons would be emitted.
(b) Most obtained correctly the threshold frequency from the graph in (i). In part (ii) many
seemed to remember that the Planck constant was somehow related to a slope but could
not justify why the slope was indeed h. Many therefore obtained the slope in units of eV s
and presented that as h without further justification. (iii) Many achieved the correct
answer, a few with the help of error carried forward (ECF).
(c) Many candidates were able to calculate the speed of the electron correctly in (i). In part
 h
(ii), many used the de Broglie formula p in order to find the wavelength of the
photon. The numerical answer for the de Broglie wavelength is different from that of the
minimum photon wavelength but that did not stop candidates from claiming that it was
approximately equal to the given wavelength.
(d) This was, perhaps, the best-answered part of B4 part 2. Most candidates could draw a
reasonable X-ray spectrum even though a few diagrams were incorrect in that they did
not show a minimum wavelength, characteristic lines and a reasonable ‘tail’.
92. Where candidates are asked to draw such diagrams, the quality is usually well below that which
is expected. In this item, candidates could be tested on their understanding, without involving
any drawing skills. Options A and C are clearly incorrect because the majority of the deviation
occurs either before or after reaching the nucleus. Option D is incorrect because it involves an
almost instantaneous change in direction i.e. the force of repulsion acts over a very limited
range of distance.
18
94. This negative discrimination index indicates a very popular misconception. Namely, that at
constant intensity, the photoelectric current is constant. Intensity is a measure of light power per
unit area. If the frequency is increased, then photon energy increases. For constant power per
unit area, the photon flux must decrease, giving rise to a change in photoelectric current.
95. In option D, it may have been preferable to state ‘a given nucleus’. However, the item has a very
high discrimination index that would indicate that candidates were not disadvantaged.
98. Radioactive decay

The calculation in this question was found difficult by many candidates.
19
102. This was a difficult question with good discrimination. The majority of nuclei have the same
1
density because the radius of a nucleus of nucleon (mass) number A is proportional to A .
3
105. Fundamental particles

As is usually the case with such questions, candidates were divided into two groups. There were
those who could recall the relevant factual knowledge and they scored high marks. The
remainder scored very few marks. Amongst this group, it was common to find that, in (a), mass-
energy and momentum were quoted for the conservation laws.
20
106. Many weaker candidates did not read the stem carefully and chose option B which is the
frequency-dependence graph.
109. [HL only] Distance of closest approach

This question was very poorly done by the candidates.
(a) Most candidates were able to state that the potential energy at P is 3.8 MeV but were
unable to convert this into joules.
(b) Very few candidates could complete the calculation to find the distance of closest
approach. ECF from (a) did not help.
(c) Most were able to answer this part correctly.
(d) The responses here were mixed, with many students able to correctly deduce the density
of nuclei. Some failed to understand what was required when they substituted a numerical
value for the mass number.
110. [HL only] Heisenberg uncertainty principle

(a) For candidates who had any understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the
calculation was straight-forward.
(b) Only about 50% of answers were correct. The remainder usually gave the direction as
being along the beam.
21
111. X-ray spectra
Many were able to complete the routine calculation of minimum X-ray wavelength, but then
made poor attempts at the modification to the intensity–frequency graph. Despite the strong hint
(with an extended x-axis) almost all failed to make the link between doubling the accelerating
potential difference and the change in the maximum frequency of the X-rays.
112. Atomic spectra

Explanations of the relationship between atomic line spectra and atomic energy levels were poor
and incomplete. The essential connections do not lie well in the minds of the candidates. Almost
all scripts contained satisfactory deductions of the photon energy. Only approximately half of
the candidates could identify both the energy level transitions and the direction in which the
electron transition occurs.
113. Radioactivity
Most were able to identify the electron anti-neutrino in the carbon-14 decay and were able to
state the class of fundamental particle to which the beta particle belongs. Equally successful
were the calculations of decay constant and the age of a bowl in a carbon-dating experiment.
However, few were able to give a complete and accurate description of the determination of the
half-life of a nuclide with a long half-life. Descriptions were facile and usually based on
practical work involving a short half-life isotope that the candidate may have seen carried out.
22
–
119. Many were attracted by an incomplete formula (N0e ) where they had mentally substituted t =
1 incorrectly and then ignored the correct answer.
23
124. The true nature of binding energy eluded many with a large number expressing the inequality
the wrong way around.
126. Many were guessing here. The physics of the photoelectric effect, in particular the influence of
the intensity of the incident light on photon flux and emitted current is not well understood by
candidates.
24
129. Although there was a misprint in the unit for the responses, this was common to all of them and
was not judged to prejudice the outcome of the item. Candidates should be aware of the
relationship between the value of the half life and the decay constant.
130. Photoelectric effect

(a) Answers were generally very poor with reference to energy appearing only occasionally.
(b) Again, generally not well answered and again with little reference to energy and/or
photons.
(c) Very few correct answers were seen to this question. It was not appreciated that for an
increase in photon energy and constant intensity there will be fewer photons in the light
beam.
(d) Often answered correctly by the better candidates. Weaker candidates tended to leave it
unanswered.
131. Models of the hydrogen atom

The limitations of the Bohr model were well known and clear, as was the calculation of the
photon wavelength that was answered well by most. However the description of how the Bohr
model accounts for the spectrum were incomplete and lacking in detail. The connection between
the Schrödinger theory and the uncertainty principle eluded most but it was good to see a fair
number do a good job on this difficult question.
25
26
27

Nuclear Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

(b) The answer here seemed to be based on guesswork.

19. No Report available for this question.

21. SL additional questions

(a) (ii) Generally well answered.

(d) (i) and (ii) This was generally well answered.

23. Mass Spectrometer

24. No Report available for this question.

25. No Report available for this question.

27. Photoelectric effect.

28. The de Broglie hypothesis

29. Nuclear decay

31. No Report available for this question.

33. No specific comment available.

35. No specific comment available.

36. No specific comment available.

Approximately 50% of candidates could relate decay constant to a probability of decay.

42. No specific comment available.

43. No specific comment available.

47. No specific comment available.

49. No specific comment available.

52. No specific comment available.

53. No specific comment available.

54. No specific comment available.

55. No specific comment available.

57. No specific comment available.

58. No specific comment available.

59. No specific comment available.

62. No specific comment available.

63. No specific comment available.

64. No specific comment available.

70. No specific comment available.

71. No specific comment available.

72. No specific comment available.

73. No specific comment available.

77. Neutron decay

78. No Report available for this question.

80. No Report available for this question.

81. No Report available for this question.

83. No Report available for this question.

85. Radioactive Decay

86. No Report available for this question.

87. No Report available for this question.

88. No Report available for this question.

91. No Report available for this question.

96. No Report available for this question.

97. No Report available for this question.

98. Radioactive decay

99. No Report available for this question.

101. No Report available for this question.

103. No Report available for this question.

104. No Report available for this question.

105. Fundamental particles

107. No Report available for this question.

108. No Report available for this question.

109. [HL only] Distance of closest approach

(c) Most were able to answer this part correctly.

110. [HL only] Heisenberg uncertainty principle

112. Atomic spectra

114. No Report available for this question.

115. No Report available for this question.

117. No Report available for this question.

118. No Report available for this question.

120. No Report available for this question.