The common-emitter configuration has a ________ level of input impedance with a ________ voltage and current gain. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The common-emitter configuration has a level of input impedance with a voltage and current gain.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The voltage regulator in the combined voltage and current regulator of a d.c charging circuit contains....

QA->The impedance in an LCR circuit in which the inductive reactance is equal to the cacacitive reactance:....

QA->Who has been appointed as one-man committee by the Ministry of Railways to suggest a "proper system and procedure to ensure proper accountability and transparency" at General Manager level and other functionaries level for taking all commercial decisions?....

QA->A transformer has a turn ration of 1:If the current in the primary has a peak value of 5A, then the current in the secondary will be :....

QA->A person who tells the future and interprets character by reading the lines and configuration on the palm....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the given questions : A word and number arrangement machine when given an input line of words and numbers rearranges them following a particular rule in each step. The following is an illustration of input and rearrangement.Input : 96 gain 63 forest 38 78 deep house Step 1 : deep 96 gain 63 forest 38 78 house Step II : deep 38 96 gain 63 forest 78 house Step III : deep 38 forest gain 96 63 78 house Step IV : deep 38 forest 63 gain 96 78 house Step V : deep 38 forest 63 gain 78 96 house Step VI : deep 38 forest 63 gain 78 house 96 and Step VI is the last step of the rearrangement of the above input.As per the rules followed in the above steps, find out in each of the following questions the appropriate step for the given input.Input : train 59 47 25 over burden 63 sky. Which of the following steps will be the last but one ?
....

MCQ->A common-emitter amplifier has ________ voltage gain, ________ current gain, ________ power gain, and ________ input impedance.....

MCQ->The common-emitter configuration has a ________ level of input impedance with a ________ voltage and current gain.....

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-> Our Glory of Cricket’ club intends to give its membership to a selected few players based on the following criteria The player must be above 16 years and not more than 24 years of age as on 1.2.99. He must pay Rs. 15,000 as entrance fee and Rs. 1,000 as monthly fee throughout his membership period. In case, he pay Rs. 25,000 as additional entrance fee the monthly payment condition is waived. In addition to this he should satisfy at least one of the following conditions : (I) He has won any one inter-college cricket tournament by leading his college team and has scored at least one century in college level tournaments. (II) He has scored at least one century and two fifties in interuniversity of inter state tournaments. (III) He has led his cricket team at college level at least thrice and has taken 10 or more wickets either by bowling or while wicket-keeping or has made aggregate 1000 runs in college level matches. (IV) He has represented his state in national level matches at least thrice with a remarkable bowling or batting or wicket keeping record. (V) He has six centuries at his credit in college level matches and is a spin or medium fast bowler having taken at least one wicket per match in college level matches. Based on the above conditions and the data given in each of the following cases you have to take decision. You are not supposed to assume anything. All the facts are given as on 1.2.99.Ameya started his cricket career exactly 5 years ago by celebrating his 18th birthday by scoring a century. He is ready to pay Rs. 40,000/- at entry level. He scored three fifties representing his state as captain. He is an excellent leg spinner.
....

1. The common-emitter configuration has a ________ level of input impedance with a ________ voltage and current gain.

Write Comment

Comments

1. The common-emitter configuration has a level of input impedance with a voltage and current gain.