【導讀】花生脫殼機械研究重點，提高花生脫殼機械的通用性和適應性，提高機械脫。降低破損率，向自動控制和自動化方向發(fā)展大多數機具目前仍依賴人工喂料或。花生脫殼機械應用前景展望，刮板式花生去殼機的結構及工作原理，刮板式花。生去殼機主要部件的結構設計，設計前各項參數的確定。刮板的半徑及轉速初定，刮。板所需功率計算，傳動方案擬定，電動機的選擇。[3]孟憲珍．花生脫殼機的設計和試驗[J]．國外農機。[5]張效鵬，張嘉玉．花生脫殼機的不同部件對花生脫殼性能的影響[J]．萊陽農學院學報，1990，7. 綜合訓練的目的；、份量是否適當；生莢果的含水率降到一定程度后才能進行脫殼。肉制品、乳制口、糖果和煎炸食品的原料或添加劑。以花生蛋白粉為原料或添加劑制。成的食品，既提高了蛋白質含量，又改善了其功能特性。起酥油、色拉油、調和油等，也可用作工業(yè)原料?；ㄉ浐唵渭庸ぞ涂墒秤?

　　

【正文】 機制負責任它的起源幾乎已經提議在離子原子碰撞二十年之內以前。 想法是 , 電子能從離子原子碰撞涌現由在在子彈頭和殘余的目標離子潛力的備鞍點。 1772 年這個機制清楚地與平衡點的當中一個有關由拉格朗日發(fā)現 , 或對機制由 Wannier 提議為低能源電子放射。 在 離子原子碰撞案件 , 查尋這個機制的理論和實驗性證據是陰暗由生動的爭論 [ 1418 ] 。 在正子原子碰撞情況下 , 為電子被困住在正子和殘余離子潛力的馬鞍 , 電子和正子必須首先執(zhí)行二進制碰撞以便最終獲得正確的速度 那里 ei 是目標的結合能在初始狀態(tài)。 能量和動量保護原則的應用表示 , 正子偏離在角度 終于 , 為電子涌現在方向和正子一樣 , 它必須遭受隨后碰撞以殘余中堅力量在 a 托馬斯象過程。 在這第二碰撞 , 電子由 90 和殘余目標離子反沖偏轉在形成大約 135 角度與電子和正子的方向。 這個機制被描述在圖 4. 因而 , 檢查備鞍點的提案是正確的 , 我們看是否我們的演算顯示與備鞍點電子生產的這個描述是一致的結構。 38 圖 3 圖 4 極小值被觀察在無效性 QDCS 。 圖 3 和圖 4 精確地設置早先條件在任何能量和角度三個微粒符合的那些點。 我們做了其它測試在備鞍點機制的有效性和無效性。 圖 5 表示 , 結構完全出現從 tp 期限。 這個結果與提出的機制是一致的 , 那里備鞍點結構出現從第一正子電子碰撞之后 , 正子和電子被中堅力量驅散。 39 圖 5 8. 結論 總結結果提出了在這通 信 , 我們由正子的沖擊調查了分子氫的電離。 被獲得的四倍有差別的橫斷面為電子和正子涌現在同樣方向顯示三個統(tǒng)治結構。 你是知名的電子捕獲對連續(xù)流峰頂。 另外一個是托馬斯機制。 終于 , 有被解釋對象由于所謂的 備鞍點 電離機制的極小值。 雖然主要結論研究的非常充分但也有一些不足。橫剖面也許會被很多巨大的困難所阻礙 , 但值得高興的是 , 我們一直沒有錯過對問題許多不同的全方位的觀察 , 唯一的遺憾就是對總橫剖面的研究。 40 英文原文 Theory of ionization processes in positron–atom collisions Abstract We review past and present theoretical developments in the description of ionization processes in positron–atom collisions. Starting from an analysis that incorporates all the interactions in the final state on an equal footing and keeps an exact account of the fewbody kinematics, we perform a critical parison of different approximations, and how they affect the evaluation of the ionization cross section. Finally, we describe the appearance of fingerprints of capture to the continuum, saddlepoint and other kinematical mechanisms. Keywords: Ionization。 Collision dynamics。 Scattering。 Electron spectra。 Antimatter。 Positron impact。 Saddlepoint electrons。 Wannier。 CDW PACS classification codes: .+x。 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] 41 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,