<p>^it could’ve been used on #2 for parts of it but i decided to use f=ma and circular motion. I don’t know about #3, i bombed that one bad. i tried to use it for #1 but didn’t know how to really do the problem with conservation of energy</p>
<p>And what was with there being ‘f’ parts to each question (plus at least two sets of roman numerals)? It didn’t seem physically possible to write out all the solutions in only 45 minutes, especially considering that they all required some thought and insight rather than just rote formula number crunching.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure last year’s FRQs only had a-d parts per question…</p>
<p>^ last years was a piece of cake</p>
<p>Yea i used conservation for number 2, actually</p>
<p>For #3, did anyone not even use the section of the table about “time for ten oscillations”? B/c I really couldn’'t see how to apply the data from that part.</p>
<p>^yeah i didnt use that part either. I think it was just to show the amount of trials?</p>
<p>You didn’t need to, since you only had to plot T^2 vs I. Actually, I’m not sure why they even included that since you didn’t even need it for the calculation of Beta.</p>
<p>You mean you don’t need to use the T^2 values? How?</p>
<p>Mech MC: What the goddamn ****?
Mech FR: Not as bad as the MC. 1a and b seemed way too easy to be true. c and d were more challenging, and e and f were just insane. 2 wasn’t bad at all, especially with the calculus and graph and conservation of energy. And #3 wasn’t hard if you caught the little analogy that the test writers threw in (though it was still doable with Torque=Ia and small-angle approximation, etc.).</p>
<p>^^No, you did. Since that’s what you were plotting -.-</p>
<p>And what? What was the short cut? I used T=Ia and the small angle approximation and it didn’t take much time at all.</p>
<p>^They mentioned that the motion was analogous to a mass on a spring. So instead of going through the whole small-angle crap, period was 2pi times the square root of the rotational equivalent of mass divided by the rotational equivalent of the spring constant.</p>
<p>^Ok, and? You still had to go through T=Ia and use the approximation to set up the first differential equation of theta with respect to time.</p>
<p>We took two released practice tests in class, and I got solid fives, like 30/35 MC and 35/45 free response. This time? LOL NOPE I GOT PWNED
LIKE 25/35 MC IF I’M LUCKY, 30/45 ON FR HOPEFULLY</p>
<p>COLLEGEBOARD IS LIKE: U MAD BRO?
I AM</p>
<p>(It’s not that I couldn’t answer the questions, just not within a 45 minute time frame)</p>
<p>soo i think i got the graph right for 3d XD</p>
<p>Approximation? Wouldn’t it just be F=ma=-kx, with the variables replaced by their rotational equivalents?</p>
<p>I=m, B=k, that is all im sayin</p>
<p>Yes that’s what I did as well, I thought it was all very straightforward, what with the way they worded it and all…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but no small-angle approximation needed, since that was for part (b).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite…</p>
<p>Can someone explain what “angle approximation” is?</p>
<p>Small angle isnt need if you took the analogy route</p>