机组甩负荷时，转子表面产生的热应力为___。

提高蒸汽初温，其他条件不变，汽轮机相对内效率___。

中间再热使热经济性得到提高的必要条件是___。

在汽轮机启动过程中，发生___现象，汽轮机部件可能受到的热冲击最大。

对于一种确定的汽轮机，其转子或汽缸热应力的大小主要取决于___。

选择蒸汽中间再热压力对再热循环热效率的影响是___。

回热加热系统理论上最佳给水温度相对应的是___。

采用回热循环后，与之相同初参数及功率的纯凝汽式循环相比，它的___。

如对50MW机组进行改型设计，比较合理的可采用方案是___（原机组参数为p0=3.5MPa，t0=435℃，pc=0.5kPa）。

再热机组在各级回热分配上，一般采用增大高压缸排汽的抽汽，降低再热后第一级回热的抽汽来___。

高强度材料在高应变区具有（ ）寿命，在低应变区具有___寿命。

汽轮机转子的疲劳寿命通常由___表示。

汽轮机变工况时，采用___负荷调节方式，高压缸通流部分温度变化最大。

汽轮机的寿命是指从投运至转子出现第一条等效直径为___mm的宏观裂纹期间总的工作时间。

协调控制系统共有五种运行方式，其中最为完善、功能最强的方式是___。

汽轮机负荷过低时，会引起排汽温度升高的原因是___。

协调控制系统由两大部分组成，其一是机、炉独立控制系统，另一部分是___。

当汽轮机转子的转速等于临界转速时，偏心质量的滞后角___。

强迫振动的主要特征是___。

交流电___mA为人体安全电流。

直流电___mA为人体安全电流。

生产厂房内外工作场所的常用照明，应该保证足够的亮度。在操作盘、重要表计、主要楼梯、通道等地点还必须设有___。

电缆着火后无论何种情况都应立即___。

如发现有违反《电业安全工作规程》，并足以危及人身和设备安全者，应___。

汽轮机变工况运行时，容易产生较大热应力的部位是___。

汽轮机启动进入___时，零部件的热应力值最大。

衡量凝汽式机组的综合性经济指标是___。

降低初温，其他条件不变，汽轮机的相对内效率___。

在机组允许的负荷变化范围内，采用___对寿命的损耗最小。

高压加热器在工况变化时，热应力主要发生在___。

汽轮机停机后，转子弯曲值增加是由于___造成的。

当汽轮机膨胀受阻时，___。

当汽轮发电机组转轴发生动静摩擦时，___。

当转轴发生自激振荡时，___。

当转轴发生油膜振荡时，___。

摩擦自激振动的相位移动方向___。

间隙激振引起的自激振荡的主要特点是___。

汽轮机的负荷摆动值与调速系统的迟缓率___。

当转子的临界转速低于工作转速___时，才有可能发生油膜振荡现象。

滑参数停机时，___作汽轮机超速试验。

“机不可失，时不再来”指的是___

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

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?___