【正文】 對花生進行預(yù)處理加工?；ㄉ念A(yù)處理主要包括花生的剝殼和分級、破碎、軋胚和蒸炒等。 花生剝殼的原理很多， 因 此產(chǎn)生了很多種不同的花生剝殼機械。所以不得不增設(shè)循環(huán)機構(gòu)，以使花生經(jīng)多次擠壓脫殼， 致使 機器結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜、龐大，造價較高。甩料盤使花生莢果產(chǎn)生一個較大的離心力撞擊壁面，只要撞擊力足夠大，莢果外殼就會產(chǎn)生較大的變形，進而形成裂縫。莢果能否順利地進入兩擠壓輥的間隙，取決于擠壓輥及與莢果接觸的 情況。因此應(yīng)使花生莢果盡量保持最適當(dāng)?shù)暮剩? 以保證外殼和果仁具有最大彈性變形和塑性變形的差異，即外殼含水率低到使其具有最大的脆性，脫殼時能被充分破裂，同時又要保持仁的可塑性，不能因水分太少而使果仁在外力作用下粉末度太大，可減少果仁破損率。 1． 4． 3 向自動控制和自動化方向發(fā)展大多數(shù)機具目前仍依賴人工喂料或定位， 影響了作業(yè)速度和作業(yè)質(zhì)量。經(jīng)過分離的花生仁往下落，落入花生仁收集通道，將此通道與花生殼收集通道的底面設(shè)計成一個整體，這樣的設(shè)計可以讓被風(fēng)吹走的花生仁通過自身的重量往下回滾到花仁收集通道。 半柵籠 半柵籠在機器中的作用是讓已經(jīng)被剝殼的花生與未被剝殼的花生進行分離，其分離的原理就是 “小個通過，大個不過”。具體結(jié)構(gòu)見裝配圖。 碰撞動力學(xué) 。 （ 2）對于電子和正子原子碰撞 , 一個微粒 (目標中堅力量 ) 比其它兩個原子要重的多。 獨立可變物一個相似的選擇是標準的為原子電離的描述由電子沖擊 , 理論上和實驗性地 [ 3,4 ] 。 但是 , 我們必須記住 , 分析只微粒的當(dāng)中一個在最后狀態(tài)的任一個實驗性技術(shù)可能只提供部份洞察入電離過程。 另外 , Garibotti 和 Miraglia 忽略了互作用潛力的矩陣元素在接踵而來的子彈頭和目標離子之間 , 并且做銳化的略計評估轉(zhuǎn)折矩陣元素。 并且這一定是如此。 但有其它結(jié)構(gòu) , 在大約 。 圖 5 8. 結(jié)論 總結(jié)結(jié)果提出了在這通信 , 我們由正子的沖擊調(diào)查了分子氫的電離。 1. Introduction The simple ionization collision of a hydrogenic atom by the impact of a structureless particle, the “threebody problem”, is one of the oldest unsolved problems in physics. The twobody problem was analyzed by Johannes Kepler in 1609 and solved by Isaac Newton in 1687. The threebody problem, on the other hand, is much more plicated and cannot be solved analytically, except in some particular cases. In 1765, for instance, Leonhard Euler discovered a “collinear” solution in which three masses start in a line and remain linedup. Some years later, Lagrange discovered the existence of five equilibrium points, known as the Lagrange points. Even the most recent quests for solutions of the threebody scattering problem use similar mathematical tools and follow similar paths than those travelled by astronomers and mathematicians in the past three centuries. For instance, in the centerofmass reference system, we describe the threebody problem by any of the three possible sets of the spatial coordinates already introduced by Jacobi in 1836. All these pairs are related by lineal point canonical transformations, as described in [1]. In momentum space, the system is described by the associated pairs (kT,KT), (kP,KP) and (kN,KN). Switching to the Laboratory reference frame, the final momenta of the electron of mass m, the (recoil) target fragment of mass MT and the projectile of mass MP can be written in terms of the Jacobi impulses Kj by means of Galilean transformations [1] For decades, the theoretical description of ionization processes has assumed simplifications of the threebody kinematics in the final state, based on the fact that ? in an ion–atom collision, one particle (the electron) is much lighter than the other two, ? in an electron–atom or positron–atom collision, one particle (the target nucleus) is much heavier than the other two. For instance, based on what is known as Wick’s argument, the overwhelming majority of the theoretical descriptions of ion–atom ionization collisions uses an impactparameter approximation, where the projectile follows an undisturbed straight line trajectory throughout the collision process, and the target nucleus remains at rest [2]. It is clear that to assume that the projectile follows a straight line trajectory makes no sense in the theoretical description of electron or positron–atom collisions. However, it is usually assumed that the target nucleus remains motionless. These simplifications of the problem were introduced in the eighteenth century. The unsolvable threebody problem was simplified, to the socalled restricted threebody problem, where one particle is assumed to have a mass small enough not to influence the motion of the other two particles. Though introduced as a means to provide approximate solutions to systems such as Sun–pla–et within a Classical Mechanics framework, it has been widely used in atomic physics in the socalled impactparameter approximation to ion–atom ionization collisions. Another simplification of the threebody problem widely employed in the nieenth century assumes that one of the particles is much more massive than the other two and remains in the center of mass unperturbed by the other two. This approximation has been widely used in electron–atom or positron–atom ionization collisions. 2. The multiple differential cross section A kinematically plete description of a threebody continuum finalstate in any atomic collision would require, in principle, the knowledge of nine variables, such as the ponents of the momenta associated to each of the three particles in the final state. However, the condition of momentum and energy conservation reduces this number to five. Furthermore, whenever the initial targets are not prepared in any preferential direction, the multiple differential cross section has to be symmetric by a rotation of the threebody system around the initial direction of motion of the projectile. Thus, leaving aside the internal structure of the three fragments in the final state, only four out of nine variables are necessary to pletely describe the scattering process. Therefore, a plete characterization of the ionization process may be obtained with a quadruple differential cross section: There are many possible sets of four variables to use. For, instance, we can chose azimuthal angles of the electron and of one of the other two particles, the relative angle between the planes of motion, and the energy of one particle. Such a choice is arbitrary, but plete in the sense that any other set of variables can be related to this one. A similar choice of independent variables has been standard for the description of atomic ionization by electron impact, both theoretically and experimentally [3] and [4]. A picture of the very general quadruple differential cross section is not feasible. Thus, it i