JZ-7型空气制动机工作风缸充气止回阀充气限制堵堵塞后，会使工作风缸压力由零增至480kPa的时间超过___。

列车制动机为一次缓解型，JZ-7型空气制动机客货车转换阀手柄置于客车位时，当制动管有漏泄，或自阀置于常用制动区后误将手把在制动区向左移动时，会使列车制动机发生___。

JZ-7型空气制动机自阀制动，机车制动缸压力不能按比例上升，且不能保压，工作风缸指示压力下降，为___泄漏。

JZ-7型空气制动机自阀制动后，工作风缸泄漏时，其压力___，机车自然缓解。

自阀管座上有___根管。

当风泵调压器失灵，总风缸空气压力超过___时，保安阀开启。

DF4B型机车闸瓦与踏面的间隙为___mm。

当空气压缩机停止工作时，防止总风缸的压缩空气向空压机___逆流。

自阀有___作用位置。

遮断阀管8直接与大气连通时，使中继阀___缓解作用。

18牵引总重吨公里=___×实际走行公里。P53T251

在坐标图形的机车周转图上,横轴线表示___。P57T258

在坐标图形的机车周转图上用纵轴线表示___。P57T258

内燃机车___作用后,在未判明原因前,禁止立即打开曲轴箱检查孔盖进行检查。P61T278

检查电机内部时,开关或闸刀上须___。P61T278

列车进站停车时,必须施行制动后的___ 。P62T284

安全电压一般是指___及以下的电压。P66T305

机车在运行中，电机轴承异音或损坏应先___。P66T310

所谓整备作业，就是对机车进行出发前的准备和供应，使其达到___规定的技术状态。P69T317

手触检查部件时，手背触及部件表面的持续时间为___S时相应的温度为70℃微热上下。P69T317

使用塞尺、直尺、卷尺及专用工具测量有关部件正常间隙、距离、行程等各限度尺寸的方法为___。P71T323

使用万用表测试电压、电阻、电流的数值,使用试灯测试电路中的断路、虚接等故障的方法为___。P71T323

机车进入挂车线后应注意距脱轨器、防护信号、车列前___m左右必须停车。P72T327

机车进入挂车线后应注意，确认脱轨器 、防护信号撤除后，显示连挂信号， 以不超过___的速度平稳连挂。P72T327

检查和保养电器时要切断电源，机车辅修、小修时要用___的压缩空气吹扫电器，或用毛刷、棉布擦拭电器，使各电器保持清洁干燥。P77T350

一般电机轴承的加油量应占轴承空间的___为宜。P80T359。

保证电器的机械强度、导电、导磁性以及介质的绝缘性不受损害的最高温度称为___。P80T360

机车无动力回送时分配阀安全阀调整至___。P84T374

旅客列车列尾装置尾部主机的安装与摘解、风管及电源的连结与摘解，由___负责。J254

补机原则上应挂于本务机车的___，在特殊区段或需途中返回时，经铁路局批准，可挂于列车后部。 J256

单机挂车的辆数，线路坡度不超过12‰的区段，以___辆为限；超过12‰的区段，由铁路局规定。 J258

单机挂车在区间被迫停车后的防护工作由___负责，开车前应确认附挂辆数和制动主管贯通状态是否良好。J258

机车、车辆长度的计算，以前后两钩舌内侧面距离按___m为换算单位（一辆）。 J259

旅客列车列尾装置尾部主机的安装与摘解、风管及电源的连结与摘解，由___人员负责。 J254

货物列车列尾装置尾部主机的安装与摘解，由___人员负责。J254

特快及快速货物班列自动制动机主管压力为___ kPa。J261

遇机车换挂需将自动制动机列车主管压力由600 kPa改为500 kPa时，摘机前应对列车主管实施一次___kPa的最大减压量操纵。J261

编入货物列车的关门车数超过现车总辆数的___时，按规定计算闸瓦压力，并填发制动效能证明书交与司机。 J262

关门车编入货物列车时，不得挂于机车后部___辆车之内。J262

关门车编入货物列车时，在列车中连续连挂不得超过___辆。 J262

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___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___