Ponchon Savarit method is based on the use of enthalpy concentration diagram, which contains the bubble point curve (saturated liquid curve), dew point curve (saturated vapour curve) and equilibrium tie lines. As compared to McCabe-Thiele's method, t ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Ponchon Savarit method is based on the use of enthalpy concentration diagram, which contains the bubble point curve (saturated liquid curve), dew point curve (saturated vapour curve) and equilibrium tie lines. As compared to McCabe-Thiele's method, this method

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->What is Water vapour beyond the dew point?....

QA->The process by which water diffuses through a semi-permeable membrane from a region of higher concentration of a solution to a region of lower concentration of a solution?....

QA->If the dew point is below freezing; it is referred to which point?....

QA->If the dew point is below freezing, it is referred to which point?....

QA->The imaginary line tangential to the longitudinal curve of the bubble tube at its midpoint is known as :....

MCQ->Ponchon Savarit method is based on the use of enthalpy concentration diagram, which contains the bubble point curve (saturated liquid curve), dew point curve (saturated vapour curve) and equilibrium tie lines. As compared to McCabe-Thiele's method, this method....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Govind’s father was a rich landlord, who was loved and respected by all his tenants. When he died. he left large tracts of land to Govind. But Govind did not spend a single day looking after his land. He had a funny idea, that there existed a magic potion which, if it was poured on any object would turn it into gold. He spent all his time trying to learn more about this potion. People took advantage of him and cheated him. His wife grew anxious. Given the amount of money Govind was spending, she was sure that they would soon be paupers. One day, a widely respected sage who had been to the Himalayas came to their town. Govind asked him about the potion. To his surprise the sage answered, “I have learnt how to brew such a potion. But it is a difficult process.” -Fell me!” insisted Govind, hardly able to believe his luck. “You have to collect the dew which settles on the leaves of a banana tree every morning during.winter. There is a condition though. The tree should be planted and watered regularly with your own hands. Store the collected dew in an earthen vessel and when you have five litres, bring it to me. I will recite a sacred mantra to transform the dew into the potion. A drop of the potion will be sufficient to change any object into gold.” Govind was worried. “Winter is only for a few months in the year. It will take me years to collect the dew.” “You can plant as many trees as you want.” replied the sage. Govind went home and after talking to his wife, began clearing the large fields which has been lying vacant for years. He planted rows of banana saplings. He tended them with great care. His wife helped him too. She would take the banana crop to market and get a good price. Over the years the plantation grew and finally after six years Govind had live litres of dew. He went to the sage who smiled, uttered a mantra and sprinkled a few drops of dew on a copper vessel. To Govind’s dismay, nothing happened. “You have cheated me!” he shouted at the sage. The sage however smiled. Govind’s wife then came forward with a box. The sage opened it and revealed stacks of gold coins inside. Turning to Govind he said, “You worked hard on your land and created a plantation. Your wife sold ‘the produce in the market. It was your hard work which created this wealth, not magic. If I had told you this earlier, you would not have listened.” Govind understood the wisdom behind the sage’s words and worked even harder from that day on.Why did Govind’s father give him large plots of land?
....

MCQ-> Read the following information and answer the given questions. (I) Six friends Ramesh, Dinesh, Lokesh, Nilesh, Shailesh and Hitesh work in different companies namely ‘P’, ‘Q’, ’R’, ‘S’, ‘T’, and ‘U’, and each one wears company sponsored different coloured tie, i.e., Blue, Green, Pink, Yellow, Purple and Red though not necessarily in the same order. (II) The one wearing Blue tie works in company ‘S’ and the one wearing Green tie works in company ‘P’. (III) Hitesh does not work in company ‘R’ or ‘T’. (IV) Ramesh wears Pink tie and works in company ‘Q’. (V) Nilesh does not work in company ‘T’ and Purple colour tie is not sponsored by company ‘R’. (VI) Shailesh works in company ‘U’ and neither Nilesh nor Dinesh works in company ‘S’. (VII) Company ‘T’ does not sponsor Purple or Yellow coloured tie and Lokesh works in company P.Which colour is sponsored by Company ‘R’ ?
....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ-> Answer questions on the basis of information given in the following case. MBA entrance examination comprises two types of problems: formula - based problems and application - based problem. From the analysis of past data, Interesting School of Management (ISM) observes that students good at solving application - based problems are entrepreneurial in nature. Coaching institutes for MBA entrance exams train them to spot formula - based problems and answer them correctly, so as to obtain the required overall cut - off percentile. Thus students, in general, shy away from application - based problem and even those with entrepreneurial mind - set target formula - based problems. Half of a mark is deducted for every wrong answer.ISM wants more students with entrepreneurial mind - set in the next batch. To achieve this, ISM is considering following proposals: I. Preparing a question paper of two parts, Parts A and Part B of duration of one hour each. Part A and Part B would consist of formula - based problems and application - based problems, respectively. After taking away Part A, Part B would be distributed. The qualifying cut - off percentile would be calculated on the combined scores of two parts. II. Preparing a question paper comprising Part A and Part B. While Part A would comprise formula - based problems, Part B would comprise application - based problems, each having a separate qualifying cut - off percentile. III. Assigning one mark for formula - based problems and two marks for application based problems as an incentive for attempting application - based problems. IV. Allotting one mark for formula - based problems and three marks for application - based problem, without mentioning this is the question paper. Which of the following proposal (or combination of proposals) is likely to identify students with best entrepreneurial mind - set?....