Thursday, 10 July 2008

S282: TMA-3

It can't be put off any longer - another TMA to submit.

Question 1 (25%) looks at stellar evolution and reactions - and its in three parts.
Part a) gives you 6 nuclear reactions and then asks a number of true/false type questions. However the joke in the pack is that if you think it is false, you have to give a reason why it is false. So this means getting your reasons in order.
Part b) is similar, in that you are given 8 statements, and told to pick out two that are false, and then explain why they are false. All the questions concern binary star systems in one way or another.
Part c) is another list of 8 statements about stellar evolution, and again pick out the true ones, and explain why the false ones are incorrect.

Question 2 (20%) is split into a-c with subparts for each.
Part a) looks at the stability of stars and you need to draw a diagram showing the forces in balance in a star, then to consider what forces are important in various sized stars.
Part b), with 4 subparts, looks at the collapse of a stellar remnant to a white dwarf and a neutron star and what conditions each are formed in.
Part c) takes the part b) further and introduces black holes into the mix and you have to do some calculations on back hole radii.

Question 3 (18%) looks at supernovae, and its just 4 subparts. Its based around a given table and you need to consider what type or supernova each represents, what they can be used for, and what would happen to the remnant left over.

Question 4 (22%) is a little different in that you are given a spreadsheet of cepheid data from M81 and you have to calculate various equations and end up with a value for its distance. There are a few formulas to rearrange and some averaging to be done, and then some general questions about the results.

Question 5 (20%) is again different in that you have to read one of three recent articles published on the website and then write a short account of its significance

Its not too bad as there is a bit of variety in amongst it, although I found the first question dragged on a bit as I trawled through various pages looking for clear refutation of this point or that.

No comments: