Advanced Higher Physics
Project 2016
Commentary
Candidate 1 – Surface Tension of Water
Marks
Marks
Available Awarded
Category
Sub-category
Abstract
Aim and
findings
1
0
Introduction
Underlying
physics*
4
1
Description of
apparatus
2
1
Description of
procedures
2
2
Complexity /
level of demand
of procedures*
3
2
Data
1
1
Analysis*
4
1
Uncertainties*
3
1
Procedures
Results
Commentary
The candidate’s aim ‘prove the surface tension of
water to be true’ is unclear. The three methods to be
used are named, but there are no findings included.
The candidate has quoted the relevant relationships
and defined most, but not all symbols correctly. The
label ‘g=gravity’ indicates a lack of quality.
There are attempts to justify the relationships used,
but there is little deviation from the information in the
source referenced.
The candidate has included photographs, which are
uncluttered, but with so much background that the
relevant details are difficult to see. In addition, the
photos are not labelled.
Overall the description of apparatus is not sufficient
for ease of replication.
The description of procedures has been written in the
appropriate voice and tense. The candidate has not
made clear some details, like the range of capillary
radius in the first procedure and number of repeats in
the second and third procedures.
Overall, while not perfect, the description of
procedures would support replication.
The candidate has attempted three procedures, fairly
straightforward to set up. They lack any great
sophistication, but are original to the candidate. The
range of variables and the number of repeats is also
limited and may fall short of the nominal 10-15 hours
lab time.
The candidate’s data is relevant to the aim of the
project and, with the repeated measurements,
sufficient to draw a conclusion.
In all three procedures, the opportunity for the
graphical analysis, which might be expected of an
Advanced Higher candidate attempting this project
topic, has been missed.
In addition, no value for surface tension is quoted for
each temperature for the second procedure. There is
a unit missing from some tables, which may be
caused by a font issue. In the second and third
procedures, the candidate has not obtained a single
final value for the surface tension of water.
The analysis does, however, include a number of
calculations with few slips, and was judged to fall just
below the 2 mark threshold.
There is an awareness of uncertainty, but the sources
of uncertainty for each measurement are not
explained. There are combinations of uncertainties in
measurements to find an uncertainty in a value for
surface tension for each procedure, but the candidate
has not calculated an absolute uncertainty in the
1 of 4
Advanced Higher Physics
Discussion
Project 2016
Conclusion
1
0
Evaluation of
procedures*
3
1
Discussion and
critical
evaluation*
3
0
Quality of
project*
1
0
Structure
1
1
References
1
1
30
12
Presentation
TOTAL
Commentary
values obtained for surface tension.
Most candidates are awarded this mark, but in this
case, the stated conclusion - that γ=72nNm-1 at 25˚C
is not supported by data because the candidate did
not measure the surface tension of water at 25˚C.
The candidate’s discussion comprises a paragraph of
Conclusion and a paragraph on Evaluation, which
covers some reflection on results, limitations of
apparatus and sources of uncertainty, including the
method from ‘the Tyler experimental book’. This was
judged not to be a quality evaluation.
The candidate’s report was not felt to be evidence of
a good project, well worked through.
The report has an informative title, a contents page
and page numbers. The structure, though not ideal,
can be followed, and the word count was judged
within the maximum limit.
The candidate has references to at least three
sources, cited in the text.
* Indicates sub-categories in which quality can be rewarded.
2 of 4
Advanced Higher Physics
Project 2016
Commentary
Candidate 2 – Investigation of Planck’s Constant
Marks
Marks
Available Awarded
Category
Sub-category
Abstract
Aim and
findings
1
1
Introduction
Underlying
physics*
4
2
Description of
apparatus
2
1
Description of
procedures
2
1
Complexity /
level of
demand of
procedures*
3
2
Data
1
1
Analysis*
4
1
Uncertainties*
3
2
Conclusion
1
1
Evaluation of
procedures*
3
1
Procedures
Results
Discussion
Commentary
The candidate’s abstract immediately follows the
contents page and contains a clear statement of the
aim and findings of the project.
The candidate has included background physics on
atomic spectra, which is both interesting and well
written. The descriptions are mostly qualitative,
concentrate on background physics rather than the
physics behind the procedures, and are borderline
Higher / Advanced Higher level.
Figures 5 and 6 are both a small unlabeled photo of
a spectrometer. There is no indication of a coloured
filter in front of grating. Figure 7 is a small circuit
diagram, lacking the level of detail necessary for
straightforward replication.
The description of procedures has been written in the
appropriate tense.
The descriptions are adequate for replication.
However, the description given would require more
information regarding the photodiode circuit to
support replication.
The candidate has completed three procedures, but
the overlap of apparatus from procedures 1 and 2,
even with repeats would probably mean less than the
10-15 hours lab time. The level of demand was
judged just sufficient to be awarded 2 marks.
The candidate’s data is relevant to the aim of the
project and, with the repeated measurements,
sufficient to draw a conclusion.
The candidate has omitted some units from tables
and has not taken advantage of the opportunity of
graphical analysis, with resulting invalid averaging.
The candidate has used the appropriate graphical
treatment for the third procedure, but the graph is
small, with incorrect labeling on the x-axis and
excessively large data points, making the checking of
plotting difficult.
The candidate has shown an awareness of
uncertainties in measurement, their combination and
has shown some sample calculations.
The sample calculations, however, are brief and
insufficient in number which makes some values
difficult to check.
The quality of the analysis of uncertainties was
judged to be just sufficient to be awarded 2 marks.
The candidate has included a conclusion for each
procedure.
The candidate’s evaluation of procedures consists of
a brief paragraph at the end of each procedure.
These cover difficulties encountered, with similarities
between the evaluations of the first and second
3 of 4
Advanced Higher Physics
Project 2016
Discussion and
critical
evaluation*
3
1
Quality of
project*
1
0
Structure
1
1
References
1
1
30
16
Presentation
TOTAL
Commentary
procedures. The rather large uncertainty in the
gradient of the best fit line in the third procedure is
not addressed.
The overall discussion concentrates mainly on the
issue with the red filter, rather than a wide ranging
discussion of the project as a whole. The candidate
has also commented briefly on the significance of
findings and further work.
The candidate’s report was not felt to be evidence of
a good project, well worked through.
The report has an informative title, a contents page
and page numbers. The structure, despite out-ofplace sample u/c calculations, can be followed, and
the word count was judged within the maximum limit.
The candidate has references to at least three
sources, cited in the text.
* Indicates sub-categories in which quality can be rewarded.
4 of 4