E1.

This question dealt with further combinational logic, a topic that was brought into this module
with the advent of the new specification. This question again dealt with the issue of converting a
logic diagram using any gates into one that used a single type of gate. It proved a good source of
marks for many candidates.

(a) More than half of all candidates were able to write the appropriate Boolean expression,
credit was not awarded for long strings of unfactorised terms. It is worth noting here that a
few spotted a simpler but more advanced solution, they were of course awarded equal
credit.

(b) Nearly half of all candidates drew the required logic diagram faultlessly and so gained full
credit. It is worth noting here that those candidates who spotted the simpler but more
advanced solution to the previous section, were of course awarded equal credit for the
appropriate diagram that went with it.

(c) This simpler section met with a surprisingly poor response. It was answered less well than
the preceding section despite being of a more accessible nature as it referred back to
basic theory and was “stand alone”. This section did not need input from the preceding
section, maybe this was not spotted by candidates.

(d) This was the most demanding section of the question and was attempted by virtually all
candidates, but met with the lowest response as was to be expected. Less than a quarter
of all candidates gained maximum marks here. Since there will always be a more
demanding logic question on this paper, candidates should expect and prepare for it.

E2. This question followed a format that was introduced several years ago. It continued this year
with some practical elements of choice to design a system. As was the case on last years
paper some simple calculations were required.

(a) The response to drawing the diagram was good, except for the issue of those candidates
who were not able to give the extra detail in the area of the comparators, at this level they
should be familiar with the need for a voltage divider to provide a reference voltage. Other
candidates thought the sensors connected directly to the logic gate and lost credit, as last
year. Most candidates were able to correctly draw the final stages of the system.

(b) This section was well answered. The majority of candidates are aware of the correct
devices to be used in the required subsystems.

(c) Many correct calculations were given here, although more candidates were able to
calculate the current than were able to calculate the power.

E3. This first question on logic continues to be the opening feature of the paper giving it a familiar
look to settle candidates. This question was generally well answered by the majority of
candidates who in the main appear to have been well prepared for this type of question. Only a
few mistakes were made by candidates largely in the final section.

(a) The truth table was correctly completed by nearly three quarters of all candidates.

(b) Two thirds of all candidates drew the correct diagram here, using the specified gates in the
correct relationship to each other. The other third either could not connect the gates
correctly, or used gates not given in the question.

(c) This was the most difficult section of this question; just over one third of all candidates
offered the correct logic function.

Page 1 of 10
E4. This final question as has been the custom before, returned to the topic of logic, which is
heavily represented in the specification and so this must be reflected in the examination. The
pattern is established now with a more accessible question earlier on in the paper, followed by a
more challenging question at, or near, the end of the paper. This year’s question went from the
meaning of logic levels and how to generate them, to Boolean algebra as preparations for
drawing a logic diagram that would perform the required function.

Finally, simplification of the logic circuit was examined. All but the final section met with a
response in the 50% to 60% range, the extension work at the very end was meant to be
challenging and proved to be so, only just over 20% of candidates were up to this.

(a) In part (i) only nearly 60% of candidates could adequately state the meaning of logic 1 in a
logic system. Again in part (ii), the requirement here was for some very simple circuit
diagram drawing, involving a resistor and a switch. This was answered correctly by just
over half of all candidates.

(b) The response here to the requirement to convert a written description of the operation of
the system into Boolean Algebraic expressions was a little better at over 60% gaining all
three marks.

(c) A good response was noted here. Over 65% of candidates could draw the logic diagram
and obtain full marks.

(d) Less than one candidate in four gained all three marks here, but this was a demanding
question aimed at the most able, and those with the time to complete it in what must have
been for them, a busy hour.

Most candidates again this year completed their answers to this paper and indeed most of them
attempted final question indicating that there was sufficient time to complete this years’ paper in
the allotted hour.

E5. This year the systems question was restored to the second question in the paper. The
question itself followed a format that was introduced several years ago, and continued this year
by asking for the location of various components within the system.

(a) The response to drawing the diagram was good with over 75% of candidates getting half
marks or more, this is a better response than last year. The main problem again was the
same as last year where candidates were not able to give the extra detail in the area of the
comparators; at this level they should be familiar with the need for a voltage divider to
provide a reference voltage in the form of the “set level” subsystem. Very few picked up the
reference to the low level of output from the microphone which then needed an amplifier.
Similar problems were noted in locating the logic gate to gate the pulses from the astable.
An improvement was noted where more candidates were able to locate a driver before the
AWD.

(b) This section was well answered except for part (i) where only just over 10% of candidates
were able to locate two places where an op-amp might be located, this was related to the
previous section where the need for a microphone amplifier was not spotted. In part (ii),
two-thirds knew where the potentiometer could be used and pleasingly nearly 90% could
locate the MOSFET in part (iii).

Page 2 of 10
E6. This year the format went back to previous practice of placing the simple logic question first.
Candidates in the main appear to have been fairly well prepared for this type of question and a
high level of success was noted here.

(a) The truth table entries were correctly completed by over 80% of all candidates. It was
necessary to get each column correct in its entirety for each mark so this is quite an
achievement.

(b) There were many good attempts at complex functions here, but some failed and did not
even heed the instruction to restrict the answers to input variables only. Two thirds of
candidates gained full credit here, which is worthy of note. Candidates should be
encouraged to make full use of brackets when compiling a Boolean algebraic expression
for the avoidance of doubt if nothing else.

(c) Over 80% of candidates correctly spotted the function of the whole circuit, even more than
those who correctly wrote down the Boolean expressions so there must have been the
sort of intuitive analysis going on here that is only common amongst those who are well
practised in this topic.

E7. (a) Most candidates produced creditworthy responses with a significant number gaining full
marks. A common error was to give resistor values below 1kohm, which would cause
errors when the op-amp was producing large output voltages.

(b) (i) Many correct responses were seen for this question.

(ii) Many correct responses were seen for this question.

(c) The responses from those candidates who attempted this section were pleasing, with a
significant number gaining full credit. A common error was for candidates to calculate the
new resistances of the sensor and then use these values in the difference amplifier
formula instead of calculating the new voltage from the sensor potential divider.

E8. This year the simple logic question focussed on a three input system, with the same mix of
questions which tests candidates’ skill in converting between logic diagrams, Boolean algebra
and truth tables.

(a) Being able to write the Boolean expression for an inverter was known to some 96% of
candidates, and 80% were able to do the same for the NAND gate, a pleasing, if
unsurprising result, this was after all, the accessible start to this question.

(b) Reading the question and doing as asked came into prominence again here; only answers
in terms of D and E were required. This caused a drop in response to some 65% of
candidates gaining both marks here.

(c) A pleasing 67% of candidates gained full marks in completing the truth table, no mean feat
as there were 24 entries of 1 or 0 required to fill in the table.

(d) Only 60% spotted that the whole system behaved as an AND gate and got the mark. It was
not necessary to state a three-input gate as that was given earlier in the question, but
many included this information.

E10. (a) (i) There were many correct responses but the equation 5 = 1 / 15 + 1 / R was
often seen. Some were unable to extract the important information that the external
resistance must equal 5 Ω from the context of the question.

Page 3 of 10
 (ii) Many resorted to lengthy calculations having failed to spot that with an external
resistance of 5.0 Ω and an internal resistance of 5.0 Ω the e.m.f. would divide equally
giving a terminal p.d. of 3.0 V.

(iii) A minority of the candidates obtained the correct answer. Most candidates were able
to quote a power formula but most were then unable to use appropriate data to
determine the power in the 15 Ω resistor. Many used the supply current calculated in
an earlier part (usually 0.6 A) and assumed that this was the current in the 15 Ω
resistor.

(iv) Many performed calculations to show that the resistance would need to be –20 Ω and
went on to state that this was not possible. Others pointed out successfully that the
resistance of a parallel combination of resistors is always less than the smallest
component and then drew an appropriate conclusion. Weak answers included those
who stated that the resistance would be negative without offering any evidence and
those who simply stated that the external resistance could not equal 5.0 n without
further discussion.

(b) (i) Although the majority was successful in this part many attempts failed because
candidates did not know the formula for the area of a circle.

(ii) As with the previous graphical communication question many candidates were
careless, showing only the general trend of the resistance-diameter curve. It was
expected that the inverse square shape would be clearly communicated in graphical
form.

E15. (a) (i) Many were unable to make any progress with this part. The only slight
complication was the requirement to understand that the voltage is a minimum when
the rheostat is set to 10 Ω but this usually seemed to be the least of the candidates’
concerns. The formula quoted was often that for terminal p.d. that led nowhere.
Some quoted the potential divider formula and were then unable to apply it. Other
candidates worked out the circuit current and gave this as the minimum voltage.

(ii) Most answers to this part were very vague and relatively few acknowledged the fact
that it was possible to vary the voltage from 0 V – 10 V. Some stated only that it
‘increased the range’ without further qualification. Some focused attention on the
resistor giving ‘finer control’ but this would depend on the structure of the
potentiometer (e.g. the resistance per unit length).

(iii) Although many stated that the 3 Ω resistor would be in parallel with 15 Ω of the
potentiometer relatively few continued the argument to a satisfactory conclusion.
Many assumed that the final situation was 3 Ω in series with 15 Ωand drew a
conclusion from this which gained some credit. Although only a correct qualitative
argument was required for full marks, the best candidates actually calculated the
voltage correctly.

(iv) Many placed the new position toward the bottom of the potentiometer even after
making progress to the correct explanation in part (iii). Generally this was not well
done.

(b) (i) Many assumed the currents in the two components to be equal. Some who quoted
the correct starting formula (V2 / R) tried to determine the power dissipated and
prove them to be the same. This was an acceptable approach but candidates were
expected to use the actual voltages in their explanations rather than the ratio given.

Page 4 of 10
 (ii) There was a good proportion of correct answers but often, even when part (i) was
correct, this part was wrong. A significant proportion calculated the total power using
102 / 13 and then halved it.

E16. (a) This is a fairly standard question at this level. Most were able to gain some credit for
stating that more electrons become free at higher temperatures but far fewer went on to
explain that this led to a higher rate of flow of charge and hence a higher current. A
significant proportion thought that free electrons would be given more energy so that they
moved more quickly. Some discussed the increase in the amplitude of lattice vibrations
and hence an increase in resistance which was the opposite of what they were asked to
explain.

(b) (i) Incorrect graph reading (320 Ω instead of 340 Ω) was not uncommon but there were
many correct responses to this part. Another common error was calculating current
from 5 / 120 A and then using this to determine the voltage across the thermistor.

(ii) Most were able to quote a correct formula for power and there was a good proportion
of correct answers (allowing errors carried forward in many cases). Assuming that
the p.d. across the thermistor was 5 V was a not uncommon error.

(c) (i) Few showed a clear transition temperature at which the resistance suddenly
dropped to zero at −80°C. A common response was a graph showing the resistance
falling continuously and reaching zero at this temperature.

(ii) Good applications and reasons were rare but the use in transmission of electrical
power was a frequent correct response. ‘Use in power stations’ without reference to
what part of the power station or ‘to produce electromagnets’ without reference to the
fact that the magnets could be made very strong were common as was ‘in
computers’ or in ‘electronic circuits’ without mention of what part they would be
useful for. That large currents could be produced or that there would be little or no
thermal energy generated in the application were the anticipated advantages. Some
thought that electrical signals would travel more quickly through superconductors
and some seemed to be confusing superconductivity with semiconductors.

Page 5 of 10
E19. (a) (i) Most obtained 124 kW. A number of candidates incorrectly gave the unit as‘kW
per year’.

(ii) The majority of the candidates obtained the correct answer. Many tried to determine
the input power to the solar cells that produced the required output. Such an
approach was often unsuccessful. The alternative approach of first determining the
useful power from the sun (97.5 W) was a method that led to more frequent
success.

(iii) There were many loose responses that simply referred to the fact that the sun may
not shine. If this were the case then having more cells would not help. It was
necessary to make clear that due to weather conditions some of the cells may not
be receiving sunlight ( due to partial cloud cover) or that the intensity of the sunlight
may be lower than the 650 W per square metre.

(iv) Acceptable answers, which were commonly given, included the need for another
source to provide power at night and during adverse weather conditions. Many wrote
of cost being a problem. This was not accepted since any other supply would also
have cost implications and without comparison this was an unjustified comment.

(b) (i) The majority of the candidates completed this successfully.

(ii) Again there were many correct answers but many candidates calculated the ‘lost
volts’ and then did not subtract the ‘lost volts’ from 230 V. Some candidates
incorrectly assumed that the resistance of the users' equipment was the same as in
part (i) which was not the case (0.706.Ω. in part (i) and 0.655 .Ω. in part (ii)). It was
the total resistance of the circuit that remained the same.

E20. (a) There were many correct responses but many made only partial progress toward the
answer. The latter group stated the formula for resistivity and calculated correctly either
the resistance or the cross sectional area. Of those unable to complete the question
correctly the main sticking point was usually calculation of the area. This was rather
surprising given that, since the formula was on the formulae sheet, the only knowledge
requirement was that the radius is half the diameter.

(b) Most arrived at 0.725 W for the power dissipation in the wire but many candidates did not
go on to determine the power per metre of the wire as was required.

E26. (a) (i) Most candidates were able to recognise that three resistors in series give a
maximum additive resistance.

(ii) Most completed this successfully.

(b) (i) The majority of the candidates knew that three in parallel combine to give a minimum
value.

(ii) Predictably, the parallel calculation gave more difficulty than that in (a) with only about
50% of the answers correct. The commonest fault was that the candidates forgot to
form the reciprocal of the sum of reciprocals and quoted 1.8 Ω instead of 0.55 Ω.
Another frequent error was to write Rt = 1 / R1+ 1 / R2 + 1 / R3

Page 6 of 10
E27. This question revealed a number of misconceptions about the physics of electrical circuits.
Strong candidates frequently scored high or full marks on the question. Weaker candidates were
confused by the physics of parallel and series circuits and did not understand the consequences
of the type of circuit for the values of potential difference across, and current in, the resistors.

(a) The calculation of current, given the power and p.d., was routine and well done by many.

(b) (i) There were many correct calculations of the current here.

(ii) However, the p.d. drop across each resistor was not well understood and
consequently there were frequent errors.

(c) (i) A common error was the failure to recognise that the current in each element of a
series circuit is equal to the total current.

(ii) Many candidates went on to use a value of 12V for the p.d. across each of the eight
elements.

(d) Most were able to suggest that, in the series arrangement, the entire heater fails if a single
element breaks.

(e) (i) About half of the candidates correctly stated the unit of resistivity. Common incorrect
responses included Ω m -1 and Ω m -3.

(ii) Although many were able to manipulate R = ρl / A well, they then failed to carry the
calculation through usually because conversions to metres in the wire dimensions
were poor.

E28. (a) In order to collect the data, the circuit requires either a variable resistor or a variable
power supply. A substantial number of candidates ignored this point. Thermistor symbols
were poorly drawn or simply ignored. The positioning of the ammeter was good but that of
the voltmeter much worse.

(b) Most completed this successfully, but failures were often due to a misunderstanding of the
SI prefixes k and m.

(c) Many knew that the resistance of thermistor decreases with increasing temperature
(although a significant minority did not) but the reasons given were vague or erroneous.

E29. (a) Many candidates got this section right and there many ways of tackling the problem.
Those who did not manage a full solution would have been more likely to get more credit
had they set their work out better and made it more obvious what they were trying to do.

(b) This part was also well done and, once again, there were several different approaches that
were used successfully.

(c) The majority of candidates managed to find the resistance of the parallel combination
correctly but there were some that could not remember how to do so or who forgot the
final invertion in their calculation.

Page 7 of 10
E30. (a) A surprisingly large number of candidates thought that the resistance was equivalent
to the gradient of the graph.

(b) Most of the candidates knew that the diode had zero current when the p.d. across it was
negative but few were able to give convincing graphs showing a steep rise in current for
p.d.s of less than 1 V. Some candidates were entirely unfamiliar with the required graph:
graphs seeming to show half wave rectification and diffraction patterns were seen.

E31. This question was answered well by many. Those with low scores rarely gave the
examiners much of a hint of what they were thinking. Too often a set of fairly random electrical
symbols would appear with no underlying physical thread.
Only the better candidates were able to find the terminal p.d. of the cell. Commonly, an equation
from the formula sheet would be used with an incorrect current. A substantial number were able
to find the ‘lost’ p.d. but did not then go on to subtract this from the e.m.f. of the cell.

E32. This easy question was answered well by a large majority. Even so, there was a minority of
candidates who were unable to calculate the current and it direction.

E33. (a) (i) Most knew the resistivity formula and were able to use it successfully.

(ii) This was generally answered well apart from those who are confused about the
potential difference in a parallel circuit.

(iii) Few appreciated that there were two resistors contributing to the total heat energy.

(iv) There were only a few serious attempts at this question and even amongst these
there were frequent failures with the units.

(b) (i) Many were able to show that the resistance would change by a factor of 10 when
every dimension changed by a factor of 10.

(ii) Very few managed to extend the understanding they had shown in the previous part.
Many considered the effect of colliding electrons and ions; marks were available for
this route, but candidates needed to consider the rate of collision and not simply the
overall number of collisions. The sophistication of this approach was beyond most.

Page 8 of 10
E34. (a) Too often candidates were content to state V = IR as a formulation of Ohm’s law.
Sometimes even the symbols were undefined. Clear statements that a named physical
condition or simply ‘physical conditions’ have to be constant were rare.

(b) There were many good graphs drawn, but also many that were discontinuous in some
way. Some candidates failed to use all the information in the question and drew straight
lines from the origin to (12,2).

(c) Despite the fact that an almost identical question appeared in June 2002, there were very
few fully correct solutions. Common errors included: failure to make clear that there is a
small current for negative p.ds; failure to show an appropriate forward p.d. at which the
diode begins to conduct; and, failure to appreciate that the current rises very quickly when
conduction has begun and the p.d. is increased further.

E35. (a) Too often candidates were content to state V = IR as a formulation of Ohm’s law.
Sometimes even the symbols were undefined. Clear statements that a named physical
condition or simply ‘physical conditions’ have to be constant were rare.

(b) There were many good graphs drawn, but also many that were discontinuous in some
way. Some candidates failed to use all the information in the question and drew straight
lines from the origin to (12,2).

(c) Despite the fact that an almost identical question appeared in June 2002, there were very
few fully correct solutions. Common errors included: failure to make clear that there is a
small current for negative p.ds; failure to show an appropriate forward p.d. at which the
diode begins to conduct; and, failure to appreciate that the current rises very quickly when
conduction has begun and the p.d. is increased further.

Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10