20190516

Astronomy quiz archive: Milky Way, nucleosynthesis, cosmology

Astronomy 210 Quiz 7, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

Section 30674, version 1
Exam code: quiz07N4pP


Section 30674
0- 8.0 :  
8.5-16.0 :   **** [low = 12.0]
16.5-24.0 :   *********
24.5-32.0 :   ******* [mean = 26.3 +/- 8.5]
32.5-40.0 :   ******** [high = 40.0]


Section 30676, version 1
Exam code: quiz07SgD0


Section 30676
0- 8.0 :  
8.5-16.0 :   ********** [low = 9.5]
16.5-24.0 :   *********** [mean = 23.9 +/- 8.2]
24.5-32.0 :   ************
32.5-40.0 :   ********* [high = 40.0]

20190515

Physics quiz archive: radioactive decay, Feynman diagrams

Physics 205B Quiz 7, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA
Sections 30882, 30883, version 1
Exam code: quiz07SGnD



Sections 30882, 30883 results
0- 6 :   * [low = 6]
7-12 :   ****
13-18 :   ***********
19-24 :   ************* [mean = 20.3 +/- 5.9]
25-30 :   ******* [high = 30]

20190510

Physics midterm problem: brightness of light bulbs in circuit

Physics 205B Midterm 2, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

An ideal 9.0 V emf source is connected to several light bulbs that all have the same resistance. Calculate the powers dissipated (in watts) for each of these light bulbs. Show your work and explain your reasoning using Kirchhoff's rules, Ohm's law, and properties of electrical power.

Solution and grading rubric:
  • p:
    Correct. Solves for the powers dissipated by each light bulb by:
    1. finding equivalent resistance of the circuit by recognizing that the top light bulb is in series to the lower three parallel light bulbs);
    2. applying Ohm's law to determine the current of the equivalent circuit, which is the current flowing through the top light bulb;
    3. determines the power dissipated by the top light bulb;
    4. applies Kirchhoff's loop and/or junction rules to solve for the voltage difference used by and/or the current flowing through each of the lower three parallel light bulbs; and
    5. determines the power dissipated by each of the lower three parallel light bulbs.
  • r:
    Nearly correct, but includes minor math errors. Typically incorrect calculation in (1) or in (5), but otherwise everything else is consistent with this error.
  • t:
    Nearly correct, but approach has conceptual errors, and/or major/compounded math errors. Multiple issues in (1)-(5), but still attempts to systematically analyze most of (1)-(5) even with wrong numerical values.
  • v:
    Implementation of right ideas, but in an inconsistent, incomplete, or unorganized manner. Some attempt at applying Kirchhoff's rules, Ohm's law, and properties of electrical power.
  • x:
    Implementation of ideas, but credit given for effort rather than merit. No clear attempt at applying Kirchhoff's rules, Ohm's law, and properties of electrical power.
  • y:
    Irrelevant discussion/effectively blank.
  • z:
    Blank.
Grading distribution:
Sections 30882, 30883
Exam code: midterm02u7aH
p: 10 students
r: 6 students
t: 7 students
v: 18 students
x: 2 students
y: 0 students
z: 0 students

A sample "p" response (from student 1982):

Another sample "p" response (from student 8812):

20190502

Astronomy midterm question: possible IAU classification of "cubewano" 
2014 MU69?

Astronomy 210 Midterm 2, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

A "cubewano" is defined as a Kuiper belt object whose orbit around the sun is not gravitationally controlled by Neptune or other planets[*]. Discuss whether or not a "cubewano" such as 2014 MU69 (nicknamed "Ultima Thule," shown at right[**]) could be considered a dwarf planet, and why. Explain using the International Astronomical Union classification scheme.

[*] wiki.pe/Cubewano.
[**] nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ultima-thule-1-ca06_022219.png.

Solution and grading rubric:
  • p:
    Correct. Discusses IAU classification scheme to argue that 2014 MU69 would meet qualification I (orbits the sun directly), but with its irregular shape would not meet qualification II (rounded shape), and thus be classified as solar system debris. (Note that as a Kuiper belt object, 2014 MU69 does not meet qualification III (dominates its orbit), but this does not affect its solar system debris classification. But may instead interpret 2014 MU69's shape is "round enough" in order to conclude that it would be classified as a dwarf planet.)
  • r:
    Nearly correct (explanation weak, unclear or only nearly complete); includes extraneous/tangential information; or has minor errors.
  • t:
    Contains right ideas, but discussion is unclear/incomplete or contains major errors. Explicitly lists IAU requirements, but does not apply them correctly/consistently.
  • v:
    Limited relevant discussion of supporting evidence of at least some merit, but in an inconsistent or unclear manner. Discussion only tangentially related to the IAU classification scheme.
  • x:
    Implementation/application of ideas, but credit given for effort rather than merit. Discussion unrelated to the IAU classification scheme.
  • y:
    Irrelevant discussion/effectively blank.
  • z:
    Blank.
Grading distribution:
Section 30676
Exam code: midterm02SpsR
p: 27 students
r: 4 students
t: 5 students
v: 3 students
x: 2 students
y: 0 students
z: 0 students

A sample "p" response (from student 7563):

Astronomy midterm question: possible IAU classification of "twotino" 
2002 WC19?

Astronomy 210 Midterm 2, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

A "twotino" is defined as a Kuiper belt object whose orbit around the sun is periodically perturbed by Neptune's gravity[*]. Discuss whether or not a "twotino" such as 
2002 WC19 (shown at right[**], as depicted by an artist) could be considered a dwarf planet, and why. Explain using the International Astronomical Union classification scheme.

[*] wiki.pe/Twotino.
[**] se-database.fandom.com/wiki/2002_WC19.

Solution and grading rubric:
  • p:
    Correct. Discusses IAU classification scheme to argue that 2002 WC19 would meet qualification I (orbits the sun directly), and appear to meet qualification II (rounded shape), but does not meet qualification III (dominates its orbit), it would be classified as a dwarf planet.
  • r:
    Nearly correct (explanation weak, unclear or only nearly complete); includes extraneous/tangential information; or has minor errors.
  • t:
    Contains right ideas, but discussion is unclear/incomplete or contains major errors. Explicitly lists IAU requirements, but does not apply them correctly/consistently.
  • v:
    Limited relevant discussion of supporting evidence of at least some merit, but in an inconsistent or unclear manner. Discussion only tangentially related to the IAU classification scheme.
  • x:
    Implementation/application of ideas, but credit given for effort rather than merit. Discussion unrelated to the IAU classification scheme.
  • y:
    Irrelevant discussion/effectively blank.
  • z:
    Blank.
Grading distribution:
Section 30674
Exam code: midterm02nwF7
p: 19 students
r: 1 student
t: 7 students
v: 4 students
x: 2 students
y: 0 students
z: 0 students

A sample "p" response (from student 2815):

Astronomy midterm question: comparing distances from apparent and absolute magnitudes (1)

Astronomy 210 Midterm 2, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

The following claim was made by a student on an astronomy exam[*]:
1022: For example, a star could have an apparent magnitude of –3 and an absolute magnitude of +8. This star would be closer to Earth than a star with an apparent magnitude of +8 and an absolute magnitude of +3.
Discuss why this claim is correct, and how you know this. Explain using the relationships between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude, and distance.

[*] waiferx.blogspot.com/2013/05/astronomy-midterm-question-relative.html.

Solution and grading rubric:
  • p:
    Correct. Understands difference between apparent magnitude m (brightness as seen from Earth, when placed at their actual distance from Earth) and absolute magnitude M (brightness as seen from Earth, when placed at the "comparison distance" of 10 parsecs away), and discusses:
    1. the m = −3, M = +8 star must be closer than 10 parsecs away, as moving it from its actual location to 10 parsecs makes it dimmer; and
    2. the m = +8, M = +3 star must be farther than 10 parsecs away, as moving it from its actual location to 10 parsecs makes it brighter; such that
    3. the m = −3, M = +8 star must be located closer to Earth than the m = +8, M = +3 star.
  • r:
    Nearly correct (explanation weak, unclear or only nearly complete); includes extraneous/tangential information; or has minor errors.
  • t:
    Contains right ideas, but discussion is unclear/incomplete or contains major errors. At least discussion demonstrates understanding of relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • v:
    Limited relevant discussion of supporting evidence of at least some merit, but in an inconsistent or unclear manner. At least attempts to use relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • x:
    Implementation/application of ideas, but credit given for effort rather than merit. Discussion based on garbled definitions of, or not based on proper relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • y:
    Irrelevant discussion/effectively blank.
  • z:
    Blank.
Grading distribution:
Section 30674
Exam code: midterm02nwF7
p: 19 students
r: 1 student
t: 7 students
v: 4 students
x: 2 students
y: 0 students
z: 0 students

A sample "p" response (from student 2815):

Astronomy midterm question: comparing distances from apparent and absolute magnitudes (2)

Astronomy 210 Midterm 2, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA

The following claim was made by a student on an astronomy exam[*]:
1022: For example, a star could have an apparent magnitude of –3 and an absolute magnitude of +8. This star would be farther away from Earth than a star with an apparent magnitude of +8 and an absolute magnitude of +3.
Discuss why this claim is incorrect, and how you know this. Explain using the relationships between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude, and distance.

[*] waiferx.blogspot.com/2013/05/astronomy-midterm-question-relative.html.

Solution and grading rubric:
  • p:
    Correct. Understands difference between apparent magnitude m (brightness as seen from Earth, when placed at their actual distance from Earth) and absolute magnitude M (brightness as seen from Earth, when placed at the "comparison distance" of 10 parsecs away), and discusses:
    1. the m = −3, M = +8 star must be closer than 10 parsecs away, as moving it from its actual location to 10 parsecs makes it dimmer; and
    2. the m = +8, M = +3 star must be farther than 10 parsecs away, as moving it from its actual location to 10 parsecs makes it brighter; such that
    3. the m = −3, M = +8 star must be located closer to Earth than the m = +8, M = +3 star.
  • r:
    Nearly correct (explanation weak, unclear or only nearly complete); includes extraneous/tangential information; or has minor errors.
  • t:
    Contains right ideas, but discussion is unclear/incomplete or contains major errors. At least discussion demonstrates understanding of relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • v:
    Limited relevant discussion of supporting evidence of at least some merit, but in an inconsistent or unclear manner. At least attempts to use relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • x:
    Implementation/application of ideas, but credit given for effort rather than merit. Discussion based on garbled definitions of, or not based on proper relationships between apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes, and distances.
  • y:
    Irrelevant discussion/effectively blank.
  • z:
    Blank.
Grading distribution:
Section 30676
Exam code: midterm02SpsR
p: 26 students
r: 2 students
t: 5 students
v: 5 students
x: 4 students
y: 0 students
z: 0 students

A sample "p" response (from student 4815):

20190501

Physics quiz archive: magnetism, induction

Physics 205B Quiz 6, spring semester 2019
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA
Sections 30882, 30883, version 1
Exam code: quiz06riQ1



Sections 30882, 30883 results
0- 6 :  
7-12 :   ***** [low = 9]
13-18 :   ********
19-24 :   ************** [mean = 21.4 +/- 5.5]
25-30 :   *********** [high = 30]