CRH380A 统型动车组辅助制动是 为了在制动控制器不良、制动指 令线断线、救援时等使用的目的 而设。

CRH380A 动车组的前端机械车钩 上部安装有总风管连接器（MRP 连接器），下部安装有列车管连接 器（BP 连接器）

CRH380A 统型动车组的辅助电源 装置（APU3）是向 4、5 号车的 牵引变流器等的各种通风机提供 AC400V、 3 相、50Hz 电源的装置， 额定容量 50KVA，安装在编组中的 5 号车的车底下。

CRH380A 统型动车组在头、尾车 靠司机室侧拉门及 7 号车一位端 侧拉门设置有单控隔离锁，能从车外和车内锁闭和打开。

CRH380A 型动车组（8 辆编组） 配备碱性蓄电池共 6 组 120Ah

CRH380A 统型动车组一等座椅布 置间距为 1000mm，采用 2+2 座 椅布置形式。

CRH380A 型动车组缓解制动时， 为使电空变换阀准确地移到缓解 位置，特意进行电空变换阀电流 的偏流控制。

CRH380A 型动车组将 2M1T 或单 独 M 车（ 4 或 5 号车）作为控制 单位进行延迟控制。

CRH380A 型动车组（8 辆编组） 2、 7 号车各装有一组蓄电池，3、5 号车各装有两组蓄电池。

CRH380A 统型动车组为了使被机 车救援成为可能，T1、T2 车上装 载了能把救援机车BP 管的BP 压 力指令转换成电气指令的 BP 救 援装置；同时为了救援它型动车 组，T1、T2 车上装载了救援转换装置。

传感器安装：在轴端压盖的方孔 内涂抹车轴轴承用润滑脂，用内 六角螺栓 M8×50（扭矩为 25～28N.m）安装传感器。

对注油枪进行试喷，要求在喷射 流量稳定时，喷射 10 次，并将这 10 次的油脂进行秤重，从而得出 每次喷射的数量（记为 A），该数 量 A 值≤1g。

滑板使用初期，应加强检查滑板 的磨损情况，如出现滑板偏磨情 况，应检查弓头是否水平，如必要应调整。

牵引电机注油的步骤有：使用乐 泰 755 及白布对油杯外漏位置进 行清理，要求手摸无油迹。

盥洗装置检查包括：按压延时水 阀、皂液器、洗面盆

餐饮区检查：电茶炉、冷藏柜、 冷冻柜、展示柜、保温柜、烤箱、 消毒柜、售货小车等无破损，外 观良好。

监控室检查：影视系统控制屏、 监控显示器、播音装置、联络电 话齐全，状态良好。

LKJ2000 轴箱前盖的拆卸：剪断防 松铁丝→松开轴箱前盖安装螺栓 M20×50、M20×105（每个螺栓 处各有 1 个 垫 圈 20( 镀锌)（GB/T93-1987）及 1 个垫圈 20(镀 锌)

空心轴探伤：系统开机，开机过 程为开总电源、启动 UPS、启动计 算机并开启检测软件。对样板轮 对进行校验探伤作业，确认探伤 设备状态良好。

探伤合格后注入规定的挥发性缓 释防锈油（VERZONE No.220）10cc →按照规定的顺序进行组装，其 中轴箱前盖顶部螺栓，在安装前 螺纹部涂抹扭矩系数稳定剂 Molykote 1000，用扭矩扳手以 98N·m 进行紧固。

踏面清扫装置检查包括：状态良 好，配件齐全，悬吊部件无裂纹， 研磨块无偏磨，厚度符合规定。

检查司机室前舱，头罩开闭控制 机构、冷风机、刮雨器驱动装置、 司机室空调室机、车内压力释放 阀等外观安装状态良好，暖风机 回风滤网无脏堵，舱内无漏气和 漏水。

检查警惕报警脚踏外观及动作状 态良好，脚踏无变形、损坏、卡 滞。检查无人警惕按钮无脱落、破损，字体标识清晰

将 BV 手柄置于 7N，操作主空压 机打风，总风压力至 880±10kPa， 空压机运转停止 1min 后，开始保 压。通过 MON 信息画面中观察靠 近主控端的总风压力值， 保压 5 分钟，确认总风压力下降不得大 于 10kPa。

检查 PLC 基本部分和增设部分 左右部指示灯显示状态，核对指 示灯显示与头罩开闭和重联状态 相一致。

检查刮雨器水箱水位不低于 1/2。

检查司机室灭火器规格数量齐 全，位置正确，外观良好，安装 座牢固

检查重联连接切换开关，分并装 置处于分割位，气路无漏泄，气 路截断塞门处于开启位，电线插 头无松动。（重联动车组重联端分 并装置处于闭合位）。

检查中央控制装置引入和引出光 纤及电线航空插（CNM1～CNM6） 无松动。

浪涌保护装置检查支架无破损，变形；安装螺栓无松动。浪涌保 护装置壳体无破损，变形；安装 螺栓无松动。浪涌保护装置保险 辅件无破损，变形；保险辅件及 其底座上的凸 型圈没有脱落。

更换闸片时用合适的工具将锁簧 从支撑凸台上挑下，使锁簧侧边 自行弹回制动闸片托架中的 U 形开口中。

检查安装 TCR 天线、 BTM（CAU） 天线及过分相的天线梁及天线安 装座无明显的机械损伤（如裂缝 或变形等）和安装螺栓防松标记 无错位。

旋转刮雨器功能选择开关到连续 位，调节刮雨器速度选择开关， 并按压刮雨器冲洗按钮，观察刮 雨器动作良好，喷水正常。雨刷 的动作无打滑，雨刷的橡胶无破 损。

轮对轴箱装置外观状态良好，无 明显错位损伤，零部件齐全、不 松动。

检查车钩接头、接头缓冲器、底 架框架支架、支座、支座弹簧箱、 滑板、释放手柄应没有弯曲、裂缝、损伤。

按下 00 车驾驶台面板电压表切 换按钮，测定无线电蓄电池的电 压应为 95V 以上。

转向架排障器安装牢固（1、 0 号 车），安装臂无裂损、变形，外观 状态良好，橡胶板无破损或变形， 下部距轨面距离符合限度要求

受电弓导流罩应安装牢固，罩体 无开裂、破损

半刚性终端及各支撑绝缘子表面 清洁，伞裙、护套材料无漏电起 痕与电蚀现象，螺栓、接线安装 状态良好，防松标记清晰、无错 位。

碳滑板边缘处磕碰导致滑板大面 积掉块（接近宽度的 1/2）需要更 换

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___