Examiners Report, Preliminary Examination in Physics 2019

Examiners: Claire Gwenlan, Rob Fender, Ard Louis, Pat Roche

1. June 2019 Exam

178 Physics candidates entered the examination in June including one entrant for the CP3 paper only.
One candidate withdrew during the examination and one candidate was unable to sit one paper. The
mean marks for the four core papers were 60.6, 65.6, 70.8 and 69.2 for the CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4
papers respectively, with standard deviations of 15.8, 16.5, 15.9, and 14.4.

The average mark across the four papers was 66.5 and no rescaling or offsets were applied to the marks.
Detailed mark breakdowns for all questions are given in the individual paper reports below. The pass
mark was set to 40. All papers within three marks of the pass mark were rechecked by the examiners
before the final marks were allocated. The marks on all papers were also double-checked for accuracy
and for correct entry into spreadsheets by administrative staff, and a small number of discrepancies were
corrected by examiners. The examiners reviewed the marks for the short option papers. 68 candidates sat
the S1 Functions of a complex variable paper, 5 candidates sat S2 Astrophysics, and 104 candidates sat
S3 Quantum Ideas. The mean mark were 31.7, 37.6 and 37.3 out of 50 respectively. 53 distinctions were
awarded and 12 candidates were awarded commendations for practical work, of whom 3 also received a
prize for practicals. Distinctions were awarded if the candidate passed all papers and practicals and if the
full sum of marks on the four compulsory papers plus the one short option was greater than or equal to a
threshold of 75% of the total. 8 candidates failed three or more papers, while 12 candidates failed one or
two written papers. All candidates had satisfactorily completed practical work. Mitigating circumstances
were considered for a number of candidates. No corrections were needed or significant queries raised on
any of the papers during the examinations.

2. September 2019 Resit Papers

21 students were required to re-sit at least 1 paper in September in order to continue onto the second-year
course. One candidate withdrew prior to the resit exams. 12 phyiscs students sat CP1 (plus two Physics &
Philosophy candidates), 14 students sat CP2 and CP3 and 9 students sat CP4. The average marks on the
CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4 papers were 47.1, 49.8, 54.1, and 44.9 respectively. All papers within three
marks of the pass mark were re-checked by the examiners. The marks on all papers were also double-
checked for accuracy and for correct entry into spreadsheets by administrative staff. Additionally for all
candidates who failed at least one paper, all of their papers were re-checked. Mitigating circumstance
submissions were considered by the examiners.

Two students failed at least one re-sit examination and are unable to continue into the 2nd year of the
course. Whilst about 1/3rd of the candidates performed well, with average marks of 60 or more, showing
clear evidence of revision and preparation, a similar number of those who passed did so with average
marks below 50 and in some cases right on the pass/fail border. It is noteworthy that of the 20 physics
candidates who sat the resit papers, 11 were male and 9 female.
Examiners Report, CP1 June 2019

1. Overall remarks

There were no problems reported with the paper. The mark distribution was within target and no
scaling was applied to the final marks.

2. General statistics – Physics students

25

20
Frequency

15

10

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Total Marks

Total no. of candidates 177

Average mark 60.6
Top mark 93
Standard deviation 15.8
Number passing ( 40%) 165
Number passing with 70% 55
Number failing ( 40%) 12

13 Physics and Philosophy students also took the paper. The average mark was lower than that of the
physics cohort, at 52.7% and with a standard deviation of 15.1%. Two students scored below the 40%
pass mark (both with 32%) and three scored above 70%. The highest mark was 81%.

3. Comments on Section A

A1. 6 marks. Average = 4.60 marks, standard deviation = 1.80 marks.

A 2D projectiles question. There was a fairly distinct split in marks for this question, with more
than half the students answering the question very well and obtaining full (or almost full) marks,
and others picking up very few marks. While the solution given in the question assumed that the
height H could not allow the ‘usual’ maximum range corresponding to a 45 degree trajectory, a
couple of students correctly commented that one or other solution was correct depending on the
relative values of the initial speed u and the height of the tunnel H.
A2. 7 marks. Average = 4.27 marks, standard deviation = 1.78 marks.

A standard derivation for the expression for the kinetic energy of a non-relativistic two-body
collision in the laboratory frame, as a sum of the CM frame energy and the energy of the particles
in the CM frame. Many students answered the question well, though few achieved full marks.
Since the two-body collision in the question was a general one, 1 mark was deducted if the
students assumed a head-on collision/did not use vector notation. There were also varying
degrees of success in clearly identifying the physical meaning of the two terms.

A3. 5 marks. Average = 4.22 marks, standard deviation = 1.12 marks.

A question involving calculation of moments of inertia of a thin uniform rod about various axes.
The question was answered well by the majority of students. In order to obtain full marks in part
a), the students needed to clearly set up the expression for the moment of inertia, indicating
clearly that they understood that the distance required in the expression was the perpendicular
distance from the specified axis to the mass element. The most common error in part b) was not
realising that the moment of inertia about an axis through the CM of the rod and parallel to the
long axis is zero, with several students giving an answer of 1/12ML^2+MD^2 rather than MD^2.

A4. 7 marks. Average = 2.85 marks, standard deviation = 2.43 marks.

A rotational dynamics question. This was the Section A question that the students generally
found most difficult, either due to not recognising how to solve it, or making errors in the
execution of the solution. Common such errors involved missing terms in the expressions for the
conservation of momentum, energy or angular momentum e.g. forgetting the rotational kinematic
energy of the rod. Credit was given for any correct statements of conservation laws, and for
recognising that the motion was a combination of the translation of the CM and rotation about the
CM, even if the full solution was not achieved. Full credit was also given for the last part of the
question if the correct method was used, even if the answer did not verify what the question
asked for, due to having made earlier mistakes. Despite the low average on this question, several
students were able to achieve full marks.

A5. 7 marks. Average = 4.28 marks, standard deviation = 1.79 marks.

A special relativity question involving the concept of time dilation. The first part of the question
was generally well answered. Most students chose to start from the Lorentz transforms in the
derivation of the expression for time dilation, rather than the invariant spacetime interval, though
the latter was hinted at and would have been a little quicker. The second part of the question, on
computing a difference in time interval as measured in two inertial frames, was more problematic
for a number of students. In particular, since the speed of the jet plane was rather less than the
speed of light, a surprising number of students halted when they realised they could not compute
the answer directly on their calculators, stating either that the difference in time interval was
zero, or blaming the precision of their calculators. Credit was given for correct expressions,
though full marks were only awarded if the necessary binomial expansion was performed, and
the correct numerical answer given.

A6. 8 marks. Average = 5.17 marks, standard deviation = 2.02 marks.

A special relativity question on the Doppler effect. The first part, deriving the expression for the
longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect, was generally well answered. However, full credit was
only given if the student was clear in their notation/explanation, including which direction they
 were assuming for the motion of the source. A common mistake in the second part of the
question was not correctly visualising the frames, and therefore not realising that two Doppler
shifts (or a Doppler shift plus velocity addition) were needed to obtain the final answer.

4. Comments on section B

B7. 159 attempts. 20 marks. Average = 13.67 marks, standard deviation = 4.25 marks. (Phys/Phil:
11, 12.09, 4.21)

A variable-mass problem. In general, the students demonstrated that they knew how to approach
such problems, with many answering the question well, and several scoring full marks. In
particular, the majority of students scored very highly in part (a), being able to both derive the
rocket equation, as well as set up and solve the differential equation for the specific conditions
given. Part (b) was found to be more challenging. To achieve full marks for the derivation of the
given expression in (b), the students were required to be clear in setting up their equations,
including paying attention to the clarity of signs. For the last part of the question, which required
an integration, a very common mistake was in setting up the limits incorrectly. This led to
answers for extreme values of the variable epsilon that could not make physical sense, which
only a very small number of students noticed. Substantial credit was nevertheless awarded in
such cases, provided all other aspects of the question were answered correctly.

B8. 123 attempts. 20 marks. Average = 9.70 marks, standard deviation = 3.95 marks. (Phys/Phil: 10,
7.60, 3.35)

A question involving the concepts of central forces, effective potential and orbital motion. This
was the least well attempted question, though a few students did score highly, with one achieving
full marks. Most students answered the first part of (a) well, but many students did not provide a
clear or correct statement for the last part. Answers to part (b) were variable: while many students
demonstrated that they knew how to approach the problem in principle, there were many
instances of minor errors, which prevented most students from scoring full marks in this part.
Many students did not attempt part (c) of this question. However, those that did, generally scored
very well on it, indicating that this question may have appeared more difficult than it actually
was.

B9. 142 attempts. 20 marks. Average = 9.94 marks, standard deviation = 3.92 marks. (Phys/Phil: 10,
7.30, 3.07)

A question on Lagrangian mechanics, including making use of the Lagrangian formalism to

determine forces of constraint. This was seen as one of the more difficult questions with no
student scoring full marks, though a handful did achieve close-to-maximum marks. In part (b),
common mistakes included missing terms in the Lagrangian e.g. arising from neglecting that the
block could also move, or from forgetting the rotational kinetic energy term. Part (c) was
generally answered poorly, with very few students correctly setting up the equations in order to
properly determine both the frictional and normal reaction forces using the Lagrangian
formalism.

B10. 103 attempts. 20 marks. Average = 14.18 marks, standard deviation = 4.77 marks. (Phys/Phil: 7,
12.86, 4.22)
 A relativistic collisions question. This was the least popular question, though had the highest
average mark, as well as the highest proportion of students achieving full marks. Parts (a) and (b)
were generally answered very well, and many students also scored highly in part (c), with a few
different and legitimate methods being used in order to answer the question.

5. Comments on the September 2019 resit

14 students sat the CP1 retake exam in September. There were no problems with the paper and the
marks were not rescaled. The average mark was 49.5% with a standard deviation of 9.98%. 1 student
scored lower than the pass mark of 40% in this paper.
Examiners Report, CP2 June 2019

1. Overall remarks

At 65, the average marks on this paper were somewhat higher than the target, but no rescaling or
adjustments were made.

2. General statistics – Physics students

Total no. of candidates 176

Average mark 65.6
Top mark 96
Standard deviation 16.5
Number passing ( 40%) 162
Number passing with 70% 83
Number failing ( 40%) 14

3. Comments on Section A

A1. 4 marks. Average = 3.1 marks, standard deviation = 1.3 marks. A straightforward question on
mutual inductance that was generally answered well.

A2. 5 marks. Average = 4.0 marks, standard deviation = 1.1 marks. A question on the method of
images
A3. 8 marks. Average = 4.4 marks, standard deviation = 2.0 marks. The first part of the question was
standard and answered well, but in the second part, many candidates assumed that the charge
density rather than the potential was equal on the two spheres and so did not get the correct answer
for the ratio of the charges.
A4. 5 marks. Average = 4.3 marks, standard deviation = 1.1 marks. A question on a coil rotating in a
magnetic field.

A5. 5 marks. Average = 4.2 marks, standard deviation = 1.1 marks. Wave propagation describing the
E and B fields.

A6. 3 marks. Average = 1.7 marks, standard deviation = 0.9 marks. A question on the properties of a
wire wound resistor. Many candidates realised that inductance could be an issue, and some
realised that this would be more of an issue for AC circuits than DC.

A7. 10 marks. Average = 4.4 marks, standard deviation = 2.6 marks. An optics question asking for
derivation of the expression for the focal length of a lens and an application to bring images at
different wavelengths to a common focus. A fair fraction of the candidates was able to show the
dependence of focal length on the lens radius of curvature and refractive index, but very few were
then able to apply this formula together with the lens equation to the calculation of the radius of
curvature of the lens required to correct for chromatic aberration.

4. Comments on Section B

B8. Average = 13.9 marks, standard deviation = 4.4 marks, 131 attempts. A question on Helmholtz
coils. The first parts of the question were generally well answered showing a reasonable
understanding of the physical situation. However, in describing the magnetic flux density, many
candidates sketched a function that had a shallow minimum rather than maximum at the midpoint
of the two coils, despite having usually found the correct expressions for the flux density at the
midpoint and at the centre of each coil. The sketches were rarely done well. In the last part,
estimates of the required magnetic flux density ranged over 50 orders of magnitude!

B9. Average = 13.8 marks, standard deviation = 4.4 marks, 168 attempts. A question on the electric
dipole. The first parts were answered well with most candidates scoring the majority of the marks.
In the second part, some were confused about the direction of the forces acting on a charge.

B10. Average = 13.0 marks, standard deviation = 4.8 marks, 145 attempts. A question on passive and
active filter circuits. Most candidates did well in the first part, finding the magnitude of the output
of the passive filter, although in many cases, the sketches as a function of frequency were poorly
labelled and in some cases the curve was not the right shape. Many did not realise that the op-amp
circuit both inverts and amplifies the signal.

B11. Average = 12.1 marks, standard deviation = 4.1 marks, 82 attempts. This was a more descriptive
question on double slit interference. Whilst there were a number of excellent, clearly described
answers, many candidates did not display a good understanding of the differences between a Lloyds
mirror and classical double slit arrangement and the description of the experimental arrangements
and the pattern produced from the superposition of fringes from two wavelengths was very poorly
described in many cases.

5. Comments on the September 2019 resit

14 students sat the CP2 retake exam in September. There were no problems with the paper and the
marks were not rescaled. The average mark was 49.6 with a standard deviation of 13.3. The marks of
2 candidates were lower than the pass mark of 40 in this paper. It was noteworthy that several of the
candidates did not attempt any of the Part A optics questions on the paper, suggesting that they had
chosen not to revise this topic sufficiently.
Examiners Report, CP3 June 2019

1. Overall remarks

At 71, the average marks on this paper were somewhat higher than the target, but no rescaling or
adjustments were made.

2. General statistics – Physics students

Total no. of candidates 177

Average mark 71
Top mark 97
Standard deviation 15.4
Number passing ( 40%) 167
Number passing with 70% 105
Number failing ( 40%) 9

3. Comments on Section A

A1. Mean 3.33/4, sd 0.58. A standard problem on complex numbers that did not pose many
problems
A2. Mean 3.43/4, sd 1.16. A standard problem on complex numbers that did not pose many
problems
A3. Mean 3.21/5, sd 2.04 A standard problem on differential equations solved by separation of
variables. Some students had difficulty with this problem.
A4. Mean 5.49/6, sd 1.4, A standard problem on differential equations solved by an integrating
factor.
A5. Mean 3.25/4, sd 1.3, standard problem on distances from a point to a plane.
A6. Mean 3.90/5, sd 1.7, A slightly more challenging problem on Hermitian operators,
A7. Mean 4.93/6, sd 1.6, A standard problem finding eigenvalues of a matrix.
A8. Mean 3.6/6, sd 1.8, A more challenging problem on vector identities.
4) Comments on section B

Q9, 153 attempts, mean 15.94/20, sd 4.92, (a) was a fairly standard problem using de Moivre’s
theorem, and students generally did well. (b) was somewhat more challenging, finding a
complex hyperbolic function (c) was in principle something students would not have seen, using
Vieta’s formula to find roots. Overall students did well on this problem, finding some creative
ways to solve (c) in particular.

Q10, 145 attempts, mean 11.66/20, sd 5.62. (a) was standard book work for a driven oscillator,
(b) is also a standard calculation of steady state, (c) was more challenging, it asks for the average
power, and (d) was the most challenging, looking at a resonance. Overall students did less well
on this question than on the others, even though there is little in it that is not in the lecture notes.

Q11, 94 attempts, mean 12.90, sd 4.78 (a) was a standard question about Hermition operators,
which nevertheless many students struggled with (b) was a standard exponentiation of a matrix.
Here students mainly dropped points through careless errors
(c ) was on idempotent operators, which would be something students had not seen before. By
and large students did quite well on the first parts of this problem, but struggled with the latter
more challenging parts.

Q12, 136 attempts, mean 13.08, sd 4.40. (a) was a fairly standard question on solving a set of
linear equations. While it could be done by matrix inversion, it is also possible by direct
substitution. Most points off here were for sloppy work, not a lack of understanding. (b) Was a
matrix differential equation problem. Students struggled with the concept of needing to
diagonalize the matrix to find eigenfunctions. (c) Was a question about rotation matrices – here
points were dropped on sloppiness, possibly affected by running out of time at the end of the
exam

5. Comments on the September 2019 resit

14 students sat the CP3 retake exam in September. There were no problems with the paper and the
marks were not rescaled. The average mark was 54.1 with a standard deviation of 14.3. The marks of
1 candidate was lower than the pass mark of 40 in this paper. A few candidates did much better than
in June.
Examiners Report, CP4 June 2019

1. Overall remarks

The average mark for the paper was a bit higher than aimed for. Overall, the statistics question in section
A stands out as the most difficult, and the section B questions were in general not sufficiently
challenging.

2. General statistics – Physics students

Total no. of candidates 176

Average mark 69.2
Top mark 97
Standard deviation 15.4
Number passing ( 40%) 168
Number passing with 70% 102
Number failing ( 40%) 7

3. Comments on Section A:

A1. Straightforward, most students understood that an expression for a single exact solution was possible.

A2. Also straightforward, although a significant majority were thrown by this and either did not attempt
or got completely wrong. Probably reflects lack of similar questions in papers used for revision.

A3. Fine, most students did well.

A4. Tricky. The first stats question in a CP4 paper, and quite a tricky one. Some got it, but most did not.

A5. Too easy, most got this.

A6. Straightforward Div theorem question, but with potential for mistakes. Very well done by most.

A7. Well done by most, some had trouble understanding how to do second part.

4. Comments on Section B:

B8. Stokes’ theorem question. Reasonably well done, had been discussed quite extensively in lectures.

B9. Waves question, probably too easy. Only tricky part with hindsight was the vertically hanging steel
cable, which still most managed to get.

B10. Reasonable question. Most students managed a good effort, but many failed to correctly calculate
the surface integral for the sides of the cylinder in the surface integral (part b).

B11. Three masses with springs. Too easy, most students managed to do this very quickly (although
some managed to take many pages).

5. Comments on the September 2019 resit

Nine students sat the CP4 retake exam in September. There were no problems with the paper and the
marks were not rescaled. Although the overall standard was low, with several scoring only just above the
pass mark, only one student failed. Section B was particularly poorly done.