Astudent decides they would like to have hands-on experience when it comes to transformers. the student takes an iron core (square shaped) and wraps a wire around one side 10 times and call this side the primary side (so n, - 10). the student takes another wire and wraps it around the opposite side of the iron core 20 times and calls this the secondary side (so n, -20). the student then hooks the primary side to a 1.50-v lab battery a) (10 points) if the student then used a voltmeter to measure the voltage on the secondary side what voltage should the student measure. b) (10 points) if the student uses an amp-meter to measure 200-ma on the secondary side how much current was entering the primary coil?

a ) 3 v

b ) 400 mA

Explanation:

In case of transformer there is relation between no of turns in primary and secondary coils and voltage input and output as follows

V₁ / V₂ = n₁ / n₂

Where V₁ and V₂ are input and output voltage and n₁ and n₂ are no of turns of primary and secondary coils.

Here V₁ = 1.5 v , V₂ = ? , n₁ = 10 , n₂ = 20

Put the values in the equation above

1.5 / V₂ = 10 / 20

V₂ = 3 v.

Similarly formula for current is as follows

I₁ / I₂ = n₂ / n₁

Whereas I₁ and I₂ are current in primary and secondary coil

Put the values in the equation above

I₁ / 200 mA = 20 / 10

I₁ = 400 mA.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

see earlier answer