Match the following: List I List II A.Digital counter1.Measurement of harmonicsB.Schering Bridge2.Measurement of frequencyC.Meggar3.Measurement of loss angle of dielectricD.Spectrum analyser4.Measurement of insulation resistance p> ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Match the following: List I List II A.Digital counter1.Measurement of harmonicsB.Schering Bridge2.Measurement of frequencyC.Meggar3.Measurement of loss angle of dielectricD.Spectrum analyser4.Measurement of insulation resistance

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who has been removed by the Supreme Court from the 2G spectrum case, saying he had attempted to help the accused in the spectrum scam and derail the investigation?....

QA->If the angle of intersection of a curve is φ., then deflection angle will be :....

QA->A liquid will not wet the surface of solid if the angle of contact is which angle?....

QA->Whichbank has estimated a loss of Rs. 5,380 Crore in the Final Quarter, the biggestever quarterly loss in India’s Bank History?....

QA->Kalabhavan Digital Studio is a digital post processing studio owned by?....

MCQ->Match the following: List I List II A.Digital counter1.Measurement of harmonicsB.Schering Bridge2.Measurement of frequencyC.Meggar3.Measurement of loss angle of dielectricD.Spectrum analyser4.Measurement of insulation resistance

....

MCQ-> In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match No. 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match No. 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match No. 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match No. 1 of first round plays the winner of match No. 16 of first round and is designated match No. 1 of second round. Similarly, the winner of match No. 2 of first round plays the winner of match No. 15 of first round, and is designated match No. 2 of second round. Thus, for instance, match No. 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match No. 8 of first round and the winner of match No. 9 of first round. The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well.

If there are no upsets (a lower seeded player beating a higher seeded player) in the first round, and only match Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the second round result in upsets, then who would meet Lindsay Davenport in quarter finals, in case Davenport reaches quarter finals?
....

MCQ->Read the following statements and answer the question that follows:An in-depth exploration of the Indian case and case studies of early adopters of mobile technology will provide spectrum managers a pragmatic and modern approach whereby they could utilize their resources efficiently and optimally. Even as spectrum management regimes are moving from a command and control regime to a flexible use regime, new technological developments are suggesting that there are significant opportunities in managing large swathes of spectrum as a common property resource, in addition to flexible use. Political legacies and market realities in different regimes pose unique challenges for spectrum managers who must negotiate a tricky path to the land promised by technological possibility. On the other hand, supply of spectrum is restricted due to competing nature of uses and vested interests of incumbent holders. The demand for spectrum has never been so acute as today's communication services extend beyond simple voice to complex data and video, augmented by evolving technologies such as peer-to-peer sharing, social networking, Fourth and Fifth Generation networks, Big Data, and cloud computing.Rank the above five statements so as to make it a logical sequence:....

MCQ->Match the following: List I List II A.Anderson Bridge1.Low resistanceB.Kelvin Bridge2.Medium resistanceC.Schering Bridge3.InductanceD.Wheatstone Bridge4.Capacitance

....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The wisdom of learning from failure is incontrovertible. Yet organisations that do it well are extraordinarily rare. This gap is not due to a lack of commitment to learning. Managers in the vast majority of enterprises that I have studied over the past 20 years —pharmaceutical. financial services, product design, telecommunications, and construction companies: hospitals; and NASA’s space shuttle program, among others— genuinely wanted to help their organisations learn from failures to improve future performance. In some cases they and their teams had devoted many hours to afteraction reviews, postmortems, and the like. But time after time I saw that these painstaking efforts led to no real change. The reason: Those managers were thinking about failure the wrong way. Most executives I’ve talked to believe that failure is bad (of course!). They also believe that learning from it is pretty straightforward: Ask people to reflect on what they did wrong and exhort them to avoid similar mistakes in the future—or, better yet, assign a team to review and write a report on what happened and then distribute it throughout the organisation. These widely held beliefs are misguided. First, failure is not always bad. In organisational life it is sometimes bad, sometimes inevitable, and sometimes even good. Second, learning from organisational failures is anything but straightforward. The attitudes and activities required to effectively detect and analyze failures are in short supply in most companies, and the need for context-specific learning strategies is underappreciated. Or – ganisations need new and better ways to go beyond lessons that are superficial (“Procedures weren’t followed”) or self-serving (“The market just wasn’t ready for our great new product”). That means jettisoning old cultural beliefs and stereotypical notions of success and embracing failure’s lessons. Leaders can begin by understanding how the blame game gets in the way. The Blame Game Failure and fault are virtually inseparable in most households. organisations, and cultures. Every child learns at some point that admitting failure means taking the blame. That is why so few organisations have shifted to a culture of psychological safety in which the rewards of learning from failure can be fully realised. Executives I’ve interviewed in organisations as different as hospitals and investment banks admit to being torn: How can they respond constructively to failures without giving rise to an anything-goes attitude? If people aren’t blamed for failures, what will ensure that they try as hard as possible to do their best work? This concern is based on a false dichotomy. In actuality, a culture that makes it safe to admit and report on failure can—and in some organisational contexts must–coexist with high standards for performance. To understand why, look at the exhibit “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure,” which lists causes ranging from deliberate deviation to thoughtful experimentation. Which of these causes involve blameworthy actions? Deliberate deviance, first on the list, obviously warrants blame. But inattention might not. If it results from a lack of effort, perhaps it’s blameworthy. But if it results from fatigue near the end of an overly long shift, the manager who assigned the shift is more at fault than the employee. As we go down the list, it gets more and more difficult to find blameworthy acts. In fact, a failure resulting from thoughtful experimentation that generates valuable information may actually be praiseworthy. When I ask executives to consider this spectrum and then to estimate how many of the failures in their organisations are truly blameworthy, their answers are usually in single digits—perhaps 2% to 5%. But when I ask how many are treated as blameworthy, they say (after a pause or a laugh) 70% to 90%. The unfortunate consequence is that many failures go unreported and their lessons are lost. Question : sophisticated understanding of failure’s causes and contexts will help to avoid the blame game and institute an effective strategy for learning from failure. Although an infinite number of things can go wrong in organisations, mistakes fall into three broad categories: preventable, complexity-related, and intelligent.Which of the following statement (s) is/are true in the context of the given passage ? I. Most executives believe that failure is bad and learning from it is pretty straightforward. II. The wisdom of learning from failure is disputable. III. Deliberate deviance, first on the list of the exhibit, “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure” obviously warrants blame.....