Back to Daily Question archive

A2 Daily A Level Physics question

2026-03-30 OCR A Consolidation: mechanics & materials mixed reasoning; required practicals focus Module 3.4.2 Materials: stress, strain and Young modulus; experimental determination (PAG) Module 1.2.1 Practical skills: measurement uncertainty and percentage uncertainty Module 3.2.1 Forces in action: stress under load (context)

In the standard Young modulus practical, a 1.0 m copper wire of diameter 0.40 mm extends by about 1.0 mm under a 30 N load. The dominant reading uncertainty in extension is ±0.10 mm. You must repeat the experiment but reduce the percentage uncertainty in the value of E while ensuring the maximum stress does not exceed that in the original setup. You may change only one of the options below. Which is the best choice?

  1. A Use a 2.0 m length of the same 0.40 mm wire with the same 10–30 N load range. (correct)
  2. B Keep 1.0 m length and 10–30 N loads but swap to a thinner wire of diameter 0.28 mm.
  3. C Keep the same 1.0 m, 0.40 mm wire but increase the load range to 20–60 N.
  4. D Use two identical 1.0 m, 0.40 mm wires in parallel sharing the 10–30 N load.

Answer

The correct answer is A.

Correct: A — Use a 2.0 m length of the same 0.40 mm wire with the same 10–30 N load range. Doubling L doubles the extension (ΔL ∝ L), so the relative uncertainty falls from 0.10/1.0 ≈ 10% to 0.10/2.0 ≈ 5% while the stress F/A is unchanged, keeping within the original elastic limit. A — As shown, it both increases sensitivity and keeps maximum stress the same, satisfying the constraint. B — Thinner wire increases extension by about (0.40/0.28)^2 ≈ 2.0, but it also roughly doubles the stress for the same loads, risking exceeding the elastic region, which the question forbids. C — Increasing the load to 60 N also roughly doubles extension but doubles the stress too, again risking leaving the elastic region and violating the condition. D — Two wires in parallel double the area so extension halves (~0.5 mm), making the relative uncertainty worse (0.10/0.5 ≈ 20%); averaging does not fix resolution-limited uncertainty.