me and a group of about 14 other people are all going up there in week 3, it should be great there won't be as many toolies and it won't be as crazy as week 1 or 2!!
erm...the gradient of that graph had to be something close to plancks constant, which is 6.626*10 to the power of -34, or something along those lines
it was a pain to get though
yup chem was definately fairly hard, but on the other hand, i could at least answer all of the questions this time
in my trial i left out a 6 marker. ouch
still, wait for results aye??
i agree, it was pretty hard, and i'm pissed with myself that i couldn't do better
and the exponential growth and decay question was kinda weird, usually they give you an initial amount
i used simultaneous equations....anyone else do the same??
i don't think we needed to talk about them, cos they're not made by saponification
they're made from hydrocarbon chains from petroleum....or something like that
but yeah it was only a 4 mark question or something like that so just soap by itself would be fine i guess
heck yes, so much easier than i thought it'd be!
simple, straight forward questions, and the King Lear question fitted my essay great
the only kinda odd one was the Blade Runner/Brave New World question, may have screwed that up a bit
NO MORE ENGLISH!!!
boo ya!
Re: Section 2 - Who used quote as central idea, who just slotted the quote in somewhe
my story that i'd prepared earlier didn't fit ANY of the quotes they gave us, so i made one of them fit!!
it turned out pretty crap-i'd be lucky to get 10 for it
yeah heat losses to the environment do make the molar heat of combustion pretty inaccurate
but if you're comparing it to the molar heat of combustion of other fuels (eg. 1-butanol to 1-propanol) then the heat losses are all the same as each other, so you can still determine their relative heat's...