Polysemy in conceptual combination Testing the constraint theory of combination

Polysemy in conceptual combination Testing the constraint theory of combination
Polysemy in conceptual combination Testing the constraint theory of combination

Polysemy in Conceptual Combination: Testing the Constraint Theory of Combination Fintan Costello & Mark T. Keane

Dept. of Computer Science,

University of Dublin, Trinity College,

Dublin 2, IRELAND

fintan.costello, mark.keane@cs.tcd.ie

Abstract

Most novel noun-noun combinations are polysemous in that they tend to suggest several possible meanings. A finger cup can be a cup in which fingers are washed, a cup shaped like a finger, a narrow cup and so on. In this paper, we present a new theory of concept combination, the constraint theory, that accounts for the polysemy of noun-noun combinations. Constraint theory, which uses three constraints (diagnosticity, plausibility and informativeness) acting over a unitary mechanism that generates candidate interpretations, makes certain predictions about the polysemy of different combinations. In particular, it predicts that combinations involving artifact terms should be more polysemous than those involving natural kinds because the former have functional models that promote multiple interpretations. In a single experiment, this prediction is confirmed along with other predictions about the types of interpretation that tend to be produced.

Introduction

Research on concept combination lies at the heart of our understanding of natural language and concepts (see Gleitman & Gleitman, 1970; Murphy & Medin, 1985; Osherson & Smith, 1981). Most previous research has concentrated on how people arrive at a single interpretation for a modifier-head combination like car repair or plastic dog (see Murphy, 1988, 1990; Wisniewski, 1995; but see Kay & Zimmer, 1976). This research has tended to underplay the creativity of conceptual combination, and how inventive the products of combination can be. For concept combination can be viewed, like analogy, as a method for creating new knowledge from previous experience (see e.g., Keane, in press; Keane, Ledgeway & Duff, 1994). Taking this perspective, we look at the polysemy of conceptual combination, at the multiple interpretations an individual can produce to a single novel noun-noun combination 1.

1We assume that ambiguous words in combination will affect polysemy (e.g., bat ball); so, our concern is with how the conceptual representation of two normally unambiguous words affects polysemy (in Wisniewski & Gentner's, 1991, terms we examine the relational ambiguity not lexical ambiguity of combinations). So, typically, we present subjects with novel noun-noun combinations and note the frequency and variety of interpretations they produce to each combination. Table 1 shows just some of the interpretations produced to the novel combination bed pencil.

Table 1: Interpretations for bed pencil

______________________________________

(1) a pencil that you put beside your bed for

writing some messages

(2) a pencil used to draw patterns on bed-

clothes

(3) a bed made out of pencils

(4) a pencil shaped like a bed

(5) a thin bed

(6) a big, flat pencil that is a bed for a doll

(7) a pencil case

______________________________________

The present research is motivated by several aims. First, to examine several little-investigated factors that affect polysemy. Second, to determine whether the results from single-interpretation paradigms extend to this multiple-interpretation one. Third, to learn about the structure of our conceptual systems. Fourth, to determine the baseline ambiguity in combinations that is resolved by context (see e.g., Murphy, 1990). In the following sections, we review some of the empirical and theoretical work in this area before presenting a new theory of combination and a test of this theory.

Some Empirical Findings in Concept Combination Single-interpretation research has established several regularities about the content of interpretations (see e.g., Hampton, 1987; Murphy, 1988; Smith, Osherson, Rips & Keane, 1988; Wisniewski & Gentner, 1991). Three main categories of interpretation have been studied (typical percentages based on single-interpretation studies by Wisniewski and colleagues are indicated):

?Relational interpretations (30%-50%) establish some relationship between the modifier concept and the head concept (e.g., 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1)

?Property-mapping interpretations (30%-50%) assert a property of one concept as true of the other concept (e.g., 4 and 5 in Table 1)

?Hybrid interpretations (0-10%) which are both the modifier-concept and the head-concept (e.g., "a colorful fish that is kept as a pet" for pet fish.; closest example in Table 1 is 6 )

To these we add a fourth category that has not been closely examined before:

?Direct-reference interpretations (?%) where the interpretation is a known concept (e.g., 7 in Table 1)

The second main empirical regularity is that the referent of the interpretation (what it is about) is typically the 2nd noun or linguistic-head of the combination following the pragmatics of English noun-noun phrases (Gleitman & Gleitman, 1970; e.g., see 1, 2, 4, 6 in Table 1). However, in some cases, reversals occur in which the 1st noun or linguistic-modifier is the referent (e.g., 3 and 5 in Table 1). Wisniewski and Gentner (1991) found such reversals in substance-count phases (e.g., a plastic dog is a piece of plastic shaped like a dog). Finally, the referent can even be a concept other than those mentioned in the combination, which are termed exocentric in linguistics (Cannon, 1987; e.g., 7 in Table 1). It remains to be seen whether these empirical regularities hold when we consider the multiple interpretations produced by a single individual to a given combination.

Some Theories of Combination

Two main theories have concerned themselves with the above empirical regularities; concept-specialisation theory (e.g., Cohen & Murphy, 1984; Murphy, 1988) and alignment theory (e.g., Wisniewski & Markman, 1993; Markman & Wisniewski, in press).

Concept-specialisation theory maintains that the combination process specialises a slot of the head concept with the modifier concept. So, " a pencil used in bed" specialises the function-slot of bed with pencil (see Table 1). This theory expects relational interpretations with linguistic-head referents. However, it does not easily predict the other interpretation-types or reversals (i.e., it is not clear whether they could emerge from the theory's ill-specified elaboration process).

Alignment theory maintains that combination involves an alignment process, in which the concepts' slots are aligned to find commonalties (matching slot-value pairs) and alignable differences (matching slots with different values). These alignable differences are then used to identify properties to map (e.g., in elephant bird the size-slot matches but the values differ, allowing BIG to be mapped onto bird). On its own, this theory expects property-mapping and hybrid interpretations to be produced and seems to allow reversals to occur (see Wisniewski & Gentner, 1991). However, it is silent on direct-reference interpretations and requires a specialisation mechanism to deal with relational interpretations.

Both of these theories concentrate on explaining how a single, acceptable meaning for a compound is produced. In contrast, a theory of polysemy must account for the variety of meanings that are produced to a given compound and how these interpretations might vary in their relative acceptability. We propose a new constraint theory of concept combination that explicitly deals with polysemy using a unitary mechanism to explain all the interpretation-types, which makes specific predictions about the nature of reversals.

Constraint Theory of Concept Combination Constraint theory has three components: (i) a generative mechanism that produces a set of candidate interpretations (ii) three constraints -- diagnosticity, plausibility and informativeness -- that decide between these interpretations and (iii) a set of knowledge assumptions about the types of concepts used in the combination.

The Generative Mechanism

The generative mechanism forms all subsets of predicates of the constituent concepts, along with predicates from knowledge related to these concepts (see Costello, 1996). This unitary mechanism generates a wide range of candidate interpretations, which can have a variety of referents. Note that even though this mechanism can produce relational and property-mapping interpretations, it does so without using specialisation or alignment mechanisms.

The Three Constraints

At the heart of the theory, three constraints operate over the candidate interpretations produced. These constraints can reject some interpretations and/or promote some as being more acceptable than others; hence, dealing directly with the issue of relative acceptability.

The diagnosticity constraint requires interpretations to contain diagnostic predicates of both concepts. In our terms, a diagnostic predicate is one that strongly distinguishes the concept from other known, related concepts (similar to Rosch's, 1978, cue validity idea). Diagnosticity makes the second interpretation more acceptable than the first:

? a cactus fish is a green fish

? a cactus fish is a prickly fish

because PRICKLY is more diagnostic of cactus than GREEN. The diagnosticity constraint also requires that the referent of the interpretation possess diagnostic predicates of the linguistic-head (i.e., the 2nd noun). This does not disallow reversals but requires these linguistic-modifier referents to have the diagnostic predicates of the linguistic-

head. Usually, this will mean that diagnostic properties of the linguistic-head will be asserted of the linguistic-modifier. For example, Wisniewski & Gentner (1991) report a reversal interpretation for chair ladder of "a chair that is by necessity used as a ladder" where the diagnostic function of ladder is asserted of the chair. Thus, the theory makes the novel prediction that reversals should tend to be property-mapping interpretations (a prediction we test later).

The plausibility constraint requires that interpretations describe an object (or collection of objects) which could plausibly exist. Plausibility makes the second interpretation more acceptable than the first:

?an angel pig is a pig with wings on its tail

?an angel pig is a pig with wings on its torso

because prior experience dictates that wings are typically attached to the centre of gravity of an object (excepting Hermes). Plausibility is computed from the degree to which the semantic elements of an interpretation have occurred together in known concepts. Plausibility predicts direct-reference interpretations because, being known concepts, they have the highest possible plausibility score. The informativeness constraint requires interpretations to communicate something new (e.g., Grice, 1975). Informativeness excludes feasible interpretations that do not communicate anything new relative to either constituent concept. So, it would predict that people should not produce the following:

? A bed pencil is a pencil made of wood

because MADE-OF-WOOD does not convey any new information about either beds or pencils. It also accounts for Downing's (1977) finding that people find combinations with redundant modifiers unacceptable; for example, pig pork. Informativeness plays an important role in deciding between interpretations which tie on diagnosticity and plausibility.

Types of Knowledge

Constraint theory also has assumptions about the types of concepts used in combinations. As in the above theories, we assume that concepts have complex representational, predicate structure (consisting of attributes, objects and relations). In this paper, we examine an assumption about the basic ontological distinction between artifacts and natural kinds (see e.g., Keil, 1986).

Artifact concepts (guns, buildings, and cups) differ in several ways from natural kinds (birds, trees, and snails); predominantly, in that artifacts are functionally-related to other concepts. These functional models should facilitate polysemy because they typically have several possible roles (e.g., agent, object, recipient, instrument). For example, an elephant gun can be a gun used by an elephant to shoot things (agent role) or a gun used to shoot elephants (object role). Natural kinds do not normally have associated functional models and therefore should support less polysemy. Furthermore, the relational roles in artifacts tend to have a wider scope those of natural kinds, in the sense that a wide range of objects can be used to fill them (see Wisniewski & Gentner, 1991). A gun can be used to shoot almost anything but a snail can only eat vegetative matter.

Both of these factors, along with the diagnosticity constraint's requirement that the referent of an interpretation possess diagnostic properties of the linguistic-head, suggest that combinations with an artifact head should manifest significantly more polysemy than those with a natural-kind head.

Concept-Type & Polysemy

This experiment tested three main predictions of constraint theory. First, the prediction that all four types of interpretations should occur (notably the direct-reference predicted by plausibility). Second, that when reversals occur they should tend to be property-mappings (based on diagnosticity). Third, that concept-type should affect the polysemy of combinations; specifically, that artifact-head combinations should generate more interpretations than natural-kind head ones (based on more functional interpretations).

Subjects were given four sets of six combinations from the following categories: artifact~artifact (e.g., "pencil bed"), natural-kind~artifact (e.g., "river chair"), artifact~natural-kind (e.g., "chair river") or natural-kind~natural-kind combinations (e.g., "oak dog"). Method

Subjects & Design. Twenty undergraduates at Trinity College Dublin took part voluntarily in the experiment (one was excluded prior to data analysis). The design was a 2 (head-category) x 2 (modifier-category) one, both being within-subjects variables. Combinations were counterbalanced for the order of the specific words used (e.g., each subject got bed pencil and pencil bed). This variable which is not reported here does not change the effects found (see Costello, 1996, for details). Materials. Twenty-four basic-level words (12 artifact words and 12 natural-kind words) were used to construct the 24 combinations (see Appendix). Frequency of occurrence of the words in each set determined using the Oxford Psycholinguistic Database (Quinlan, 1992). A t-test comparing artifact and natural-kind word frequency showed no reliable difference between the categories (t(22) =.84, p >.4).

Procedure. The instructions asked subjects to say "what the phrase could plausibly mean and if you can think of more than one possible meaning for a phrase then report them in the order in which they occur to you", for the novel combinations they were shown. The combinations were presented individually on cards and subjects' responses were audio recorded. Subjects were tested individually.

Scoring. Subjects' interpretations were classified by both experimenters into the four interpretation-types2: relational, property-mapping, hybrid and direct reference. They were also classified by referent: head, reversal or other. Finally, the frequency of functional interpretations were noted. Differences were resolved by discussion (agreement was 97%).

Results & Discussion

The results confirmed the main predictions of the constraint theory in finding that head-artifact combinations were more polysemous than head-natural kinds ones, based on increased numbers of functional interpretations being produced in the former.

Types of Interpretation. Each of the four types of interpretation were found among the 1019 produced: relational 46% (468), property-mapping 33% (337), hybrid 0.3% (3), and direct-reference 15% (157), with 6% (57) in the other category. These results are in line with previous findings on the first three categories and confirm that direct-referent interpretations are a commonly produced type. The findings support the flexible generative mechanism used in the constraint theory and its proposed constraints.

Polysemy. On average each subject produced about two interpretations per combination (M = 2.24), although the frequency ranged from 1 to 6. The 2 head-category (artifact or natural-kind) x 2 modifier-category (artifact or natural-kind) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect of head-category; with artifact-head combinations producing reliably more interpretations (M = 2.36) than natural-kind-head ones (M = 2.12,; F(1,17) = 7.89, p =.01, MSe = .78). No other reliable effects or interactions were found. An item analysis revealed similar effects of head-category (F(1,22) =5.71, p < .05, MSe = 1.12).

An analysis of the percentage of functional interpretations produced to a given phrase showed that there was a higher percentage of functional interpretations produced to artifact-head (M = .40) than to natural-kind-head combinations (M =.12; F(1,17) = 72.96, MSe = .122, p < .0001). A similar, but lesser, difference was found between artifact-modifier (M= .33) and natural-kind-modifier combinations (M=.19; F(1,17)= 18.23, MSe = .115, p < .0005).

Both of these results support the core assumptions of the constraint theory. In particular, they show that artifacts are much more polysemous than natural kinds, especially when they are in the head position. Furthermore, it shows that this extra polysemy is based on their associated functional models.

Referents & Reversals. As expected, most of the referents of interpretations were to the linguistic-head of

2Operational definitions of the first three of these categories were similar to Wisniewski's (1996).the combination (68%), but reversals using the linguistic-modifier as the referent were relatively common (9%), with the remainder having some other concept as the referent (23%). This result confirms that such reversals are not limited to combinations of a substance-object form but occur more generally, albeit not as frequently (Wisniewski & Gentner, 1991, found rates as high as 38%).

The diagnosticity constraint predicts that when reversals occur they should tend to be property mappings (of the head's diagnostic predicates) rather than another interpretation-type. This prediction is confirmed by an analysis of interpretation types in the different referent categories. In the linguistic-head category, the interpretations produced tend to be relational (51%) rather then property-mappings (36%; a similar pattern is found in the Other category). In contrast, in the reversals category interpretations tend to be property mappings (54%) rather than relational ones (31%). All these differences are statistically reliable.

Significance of Finding s. With any new paradigm the issue of the relevance of the findings always arises. Does the process by which people produce multiple interpretations have anything to do with people's normal comprehension of novel compounds? In particular, do contextual influences normally banish the possibility of polysemy in novel combinations? We would like to argue that the combination process used to produce multiple interpretations is the same as that which produces a single interpretation, with contextual influences acting as an extra constraint in this process.

In support of this position it may be noted that the types of interpretations produced in the present study and the relative frequencies of these interpretation-types closely parallel those found in traditional, single-interpretation studies. This is strong evidence for the proposition that the same process is being tapped in this and previous studies.

Granted, people may not normally entertain all the possible meanings reported by our subjects when a novel combination is presented in context (Murphy, 1990). For example, a pencil bed could be a narrow bed, a container for pencils, a bed that is pencil-shaped and so on. If you are told that "the pencil bed is in the bedroom upstairs" you are likely to assume that a narrow bed is upstairs, whereas if you are told that "the pencil bed is in the middle of the exam hall" you are more likely to think that it is some receptacle for pencils. However, not all contexts will necessarily disambiguate a novel combination; if you are told "he moved the pencil bed last week" either of the above two meanings could still hold (Mulligan, 1997). So, context will not necessarily banish all ambiguity. Indeed, we believe that polysemy should be studied to tell us more about contextual influences in normal comprehension. At present we have little knowledge about the baseline ambiguity of novel combinations, and thus do not know what problems of ambiguity are resolved by context (see Mulligan, 1997).

General Discussion

The present paper reports a new theory of conceptual combination that aims to explain specific aspects of the multiple interpretations produced by people to novel noun-noun combinations. Using this theory, we have shown that different types of concepts differentially affect polysemy; that combinations with artifact heads are more polysemous than those with natural-kind heads (similar results have been found for the superordinate/basic-level distinction). Furthermore, we have confirmed the generality of these findings in other experiments using several hundred different combinations (see Costello, 1996). We have also simulated these results in a model of the theory called C3 (the Constraint Model of Concept Combination).

In constraint theory, we have tried to deal with the creative contents of interpretations produced by people to a single combination. At present, we have not concerned ourselves with more traditional concerns like typicality ratings (although ultimately we plan to extend the theory in this direction). In doing this we have tried to open up a new area of research on the factors that affect polysemy that appears to be very fruitful. In the course of this we have confirmed several ideas about the structure of the human conceptual system. Theoretically, we have been driven by the parsimony of using a single unitary mechanism and several simple explanatory constraints to account for these effects.

References

Cannon, G. (1987). Historical change and English word-formation. New York: Lang.

Cohen, B. & Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts.

Cognitive Science, 8, 27-58.

Costello, F. (1996). Noun-noun conceptual combination: the polysemy of compound phrases. PhD Thesis University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language,53, 810-842. Gleitman, L.R. & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase. New York: Norton.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol 3): Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory and Cognition,15, 55-

71.

Kay, P. & Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. Sixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings. San Diego, CA: Campile Press.Keane, M.T. (in press). What makes an analogy difficult ?: The effects of order and causal structure in analogical mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory & Cognition.

Keane, M.T., Ledgeway, T, & Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models.

Cognitive Science, 18, 287 - 334.

Keil, F. (1986). The acquisition of natural kind and artifact terms. In W. Demopoulos & A. Marras (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorisation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.) Cognition and categorisation.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Markman, A.B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (in press). Same and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory & Cognition.

Mulligan, M. (1997). Context & concept combination.

University of Dublin, Trinity College, Technical Report TCD-CS-97-04.

Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.

Cognitive Science, 12, 529-562.

Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language,29, 259-288.

Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.

Osherson, D. N. & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition,9, 35-58.

Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J. & Keane, M.

(1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485-527. Quinlan, P. T. (1992). The Oxford psycholinguistic database. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wisniewski, E. J. & Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.) Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Wisniewski, E. J. & Markman, A. B. (1993). The role of structural alignment in conceptual combination.

Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boulder, CO. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language,35, 434-453.

Appendix:

Combinations Used in the Experiment

Bed Pencil Pencil Bed artifact-artifact Bus Shirt Shirt Bus

Train Hat Hat Train

Chair River River Chair artifact-natural~kind Gun Horse Horse Gun

Shoe Herring Herring Shoe

Apple Knife Knife Apple natural-kind~artifact Potato Ball Ball Potato

Rose Hammer Hammer Rose

Boulder Grass Grass Boulder natural-kind~natural-kind Eagle Tulip Tulip Eagle

Oak Dog Dog Oak

常用二极管参数

常用整流二极管 型号VRM/Io IFSM/ VF /Ir 封装用途说明1A5 600V/1.0A 25A/1.1V/5uA[T25] D2.6X3.2d0.65 1A6 800V/1.0A 25A/1.1V/5uA[T25] D2.6X3.2d0.65 6A8 800V/6.0A 400A/1.1V/10uA[T60] D9.1X9.1d1.3 1N4002 100V/1.0A 30A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D2.7X5.2d0.9 1N4004 400V/1.0A 30A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D2.7X5.2d0.9 1N4006 800V/1.0A 30A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D2.7X5.2d0.9 1N4007 1000V/1.0A 30A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D2.7X5.2d0.9 1N5398 800V/1.5A 50A/1.4V/5uA[T70] D3.6X7.6d0.9 1N5399 1000V/1.5A 50A/1.4V/5uA[T70] D3.6X7.6d0.9 1N5402 200V/3.0A 200A/1.1V/5uA[T105] D5.6X9.5d1.3 1N5406 600V/3.0A 200A/1.1V/5uA[T105] D5.6X9.5d1.3 1N5407 800V/3.0A 200A/1.1V/5uA[T105] D5.6X9.5d1.3 1N5408 1000V/3.0A 200A/1.1V/5uA[T105] D5.6X9.5d1.3 RL153 200V/1.5A 60A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL155 600V/1.5A 60A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL156 800V/1.5A 60A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL203 200V/2.0A 70A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL205 600V/2.0A 70A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL206 800V/2.0A 70A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RL207 1000V/2.0A 70A/1.1V/5uA[T75] D3.6X7.6d0.9 RM11C 1000V/1.2A 100A/0.92V/10uA D4.0X7.2d0.78 MR750 50V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 MR751 100V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 MR752 200V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 MR754 400V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 MR756 600V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 MR760 1000V/6.0A 400A/1.25V/25uA D8.7x6.3d1.35 常用整流二极管(全桥) 型号VRM/Io IFSM/ VF /Ir 封装用途说明RBV-406 600V/*4A 80A/1.10V/10uA 25X15X3.6 RBV-606 600V/*6A 150A/1.05V/10uA 30X20X3.6 RBV-1306 600V/*13A 80A/1.20V/10uA 30X20X3.6 RBV-1506 600V/*15A 200A/1.05V/50uA 30X20X3.6 RBV-2506 600V/*25A 350A/1.05V/50uA 30X20X3.6 常用肖特基整流二极管SBD 型号VRM/Io IFSM/ VF Trr1/Trr2 封装用途说明EK06 60V/0.7A 10A/0.62V 100nS D2.7X5.0d0.6 SK/高速 EK14 40V/1.5A 40A/0.55V 200nS D4.0X7.2d0.78 SK/低速 D3S6M 60V/3.0A 80A/0.58V 130p SB340 40V/3.0A 80A/0.74V 180p SB360 60V/3.0A 80A/0.74V 180p SR260 60V/2.0A 50A/0.70V 170p MBR1645 45V/16A 150A/0.65V <10nS TO220 超高速

高中语文知识点大全-一词多义

一词多义 【考点讲解】 一、考查形式 以选择题的形式考查。 二、知识讲解 文言中词的多义现象非常普遍,一个词往往少则有几个义项,多则有十几个义项,在学习时要随时总结,不断深化。 例如“发”字: (1)见其发矢十中八九。(《卖油翁》)发:发射 (2)顷之,未发,太子迟之。(《荆轲刺秦王》)发:出发 (3)去北军二里余,同时发火。(《赤壁之战》)发:点燃 (4)发图,图穷而匕首见。(《荆轲刺秦王》)发:打开 (5)非常之谋难以猝发(《五人墓碑记》)发:发动 (6)扼腕墓道,发其志士之悲哉”(《五人墓碑记》)发:抒发 (7)孤当续发人众,多载资粮,为君后援(《赤壁之战》)发:派遣 (8)发闾左适戍渔阳九百人(《陈涉世家》)发:征发,征调 (9)即道意中事,无毫发爽(《促织》)发:极短的长度单位,十毫为一发 (10)野芳发而幽香”(《醉翁亭记》)发:开放 平时不断积累实词在具体语境中的意义,掌握得越来越多,就会形成触类旁通的能力,阅读能力自然会不断提高。下面总结了课内外一些常见的一词多义现象: 拂 ①入则无法家拂士(辅佐)《<孟子>二章》 ②行拂乱其所为(违背,不顺)《<孟子>二章》 故 ①故天将降大任于是人也(所以)《<孟子>二章》 ②温故而知新,可以为师矣(旧的知识)《<论语>十则》 ③广故数言欲亡(故意)《陈涉世家》 ④公问其故(原因,缘故)《曹刿论战》 ⑤而两狼之并驱如故(原样)《狼》 ⑥桓侯故使人问之(特意)《扁鹊见蔡桓公》

若 ①若为佣耕(你)《陈涉世家》 ②若夫霪雨霏霏《跟“夫”连用,用在一段话开关用以引起下文》《岳阳楼记》 ③海内存知己,天涯若比邻(像,如同)《送杜少府之任蜀州》 ④曾不若孀妻弱子《及,比得上》《愚公移山》 ⑤若听茶声然《好像,似乎》《核舟记》 得 ①……所识穷乏者得我欤?(通“德”,感激,感恩)《鱼我所欲也》 ②一狼得骨止(得到,获得)《狼》 入 ①意将隧入以攻其后也(进入)《狼》 ②入则无法家拂士(国内)《<孟子>二章》 夫 ①其夫呓语(丈夫)《口技》 ②夫环而攻之《发语词》《<孟子>二章》 ③遂率子孙荷担者三夫(成年男子的通称)《愚公移山》 ④嗟夫!予尝求古仁人之心(叹词,啊)《岳阳楼记》 观 ①予观夫巴陵胜状(看,观看)《岳阳楼记》 ②此则岳阳楼之大观也(景象)《岳阳楼记》 ③可远观而不可亵玩焉(看,细看)《岳阳楼记》 开 ①开我东阁门(打开)《木兰诗》 ②旁开小窗(设置)《核舟记》 ③连月不开(放晴)《岳阳楼记》 一 ①一碧万顷(都,一概)《岳阳楼记》 ②长烟一空(全部)《岳阳楼记》 ③孤帆一片日边来(数词)《望天门山》 ④传一乡秀才观之(全,满)《伤仲永》 ⑤一鼓作气,再而衰,三而竭(第一次)《曹刿论战》 芳 ①野芳发而幽香(花草)《醉翁亭记》

常用二极管参数

常用二极管参数 2008-10-22 11:48 05Z6.2Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=6~6.35V, Pzm=500mW, 05Z7.5Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=7.34~7.70V, Pzm=500mW, 05Z13X 硅稳压二极管 Vz=12.4~13.1V, Pzm=500mW, 05Z15Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=14.4~15.15V, Pzm=500mW, 05Z18Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=17.55~18.45V, Pzm=500mW, 1N4001 硅整流二极管 50V, 1A,(Ir=5uA, Vf=1V, Ifs=50A) 1N4002 硅整流二极管 100V, 1A, 1N4003 硅整流二极管 200V, 1A, 1N4004 硅整流二极管 400V, 1A, 1N4005 硅整流二极管 600V, 1A, 1N4006 硅整流二极管 800V, 1A, 1N4007 硅整流二极管 1000V, 1A, 1N4148 二极管 75V, 4PF, Ir=25nA, Vf=1V, 1N5391 硅整流二极管 50V, 1.5A,(Ir=10uA, Vf=1.4V, Ifs=50A) 1N5392 硅整流二极管 100V, 1.5A, 1N5393 硅整流二极管 200V, 1.5A, 1N5394 硅整流二极管 300V, 1.5A, 1N5395 硅整流二极管 400V, 1.5A, 1N5396 硅整流二极管 500V, 1.5A, 1N5397 硅整流二极管 600V, 1.5A, 1N5398 硅整流二极管 800V, 1.5A, 1N5399 硅整流二极管 1000V, 1.5A, 1N5400 硅整流二极管 50V, 3A,(Ir=5uA, Vf=1V, Ifs=150A) 1N5401 硅整流二极管 100V, 3A, 1N5402 硅整流二极管 200V, 3A, 1N5403 硅整流二极管 300V, 3A, 1N5404 硅整流二极管 400V, 3A, 1N5405 硅整流二极管 500V, 3A, 1N5406 硅整流二极管 600V, 3A, 1N5407 硅整流二极管 800V, 3A, 1N5408 硅整流二极管 1000V, 3A, 1S1553 硅开关二极管 70V, 100mA, 300mW, 3.5PF, 300ma, 1S1554 硅开关二极管 55V, 100mA, 300mW, 3.5PF, 300ma, 1S1555 硅开关二极管 35V, 100mA, 300mW, 3.5PF, 300ma, 1S2076 硅开关二极管 35V, 150mA, 250mW, 8nS, 3PF, 450ma, Ir≤1uA, Vf≤0.8V,≤1.8PF, 1S2076A 硅开关二极管 70V, 150mA, 250mW, 8nS, 3PF, 450ma, 60V, Ir≤1uA, Vf≤0.8V,≤1.8PF, 1S2471 硅开关二极管80V, Ir≤0.5uA, Vf≤1.2V,≤2PF, 1S2471B 硅开关二极管 90V, 150mA, 250mW, 3nS, 3PF, 450ma, 1S2471V 硅开关二极管 90V, 130mA, 300mW, 4nS, 2PF, 400ma, 1S2472 硅开关二极管50V, Ir≤0.5uA, Vf≤1.2V,≤2PF, 1S2473 硅开关二极管35V, Ir≤0.5uA, Vf≤1.2V,≤3PF,

joinin剑桥小学英语

Join In剑桥小学英语(改编版)入门阶段Unit 1Hello,hello第1单元嗨,嗨 and mime. 1 听,模仿 Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 站起来说"嗨" 拍手坐下来 Good. Let's do up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 好. 我们来再做一遍.站起来说"嗨"拍手坐下来 the pictures. 2 再听一遍给图画编号. up "hello" hands down 1 站起来 2 说"嗨" 3 拍手 4 坐下来说 3. A ,what's yourname 3 一首歌嗨,你叫什么名字 Hello. , what's yourname Hello. Hello. 嗨. 嗨. 嗨, 你叫什么名字嗨,嗨. Hello, what's yourname I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello,hello.嗨, 你叫什么名字我叫托比. 我叫托比 . 嗨,嗨,嗨. I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello, let's go! 我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨, 我们一起! Hello. , what's yourname I'm 'm Toby. 嗨.嗨.嗨, 你叫什么名字我叫托比.我叫托比. Hello,hello,hello. I'm 'm Toby. Hello,hello,let's go! 嗨,嗨,嗨.我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨,我们一起! 4 Listen and stick 4 听和指 What's your name I'm Bob. 你叫什么名字我叫鲍勃. What's your name I'm Rita. What's your name I'm Nick. 你叫什么名字我叫丽塔. 你叫什么名字我叫尼克. What's your name I'm Lisa. 你叫什么名字我叫利萨. 5. A story-Pit'sskateboard. 5 一个故事-彼德的滑板. Pa:Hello,Pit. Pa:好,彼德. Pi:Hello,:What's this Pi:嗨,帕特.Pa:这是什么 Pi:My new :Look!Pi:Goodbye,Pat! Pi:这是我的新滑板.Pi:看!Pi:再见,帕特! Pa:Bye-bye,Pit!Pi:Help!Help!pi:Bye-bye,skateboard! Pa:再见,彼德!Pi:救命!救命!Pi:再见,滑板! Unit 16. Let's learnand act 第1单元6 我们来边学边表演.

常用二极管型号及参数大全精编版

1.塑封整流二极管 序号型号IF VRRM VF Trr 外形 A V V μs 1 1A1-1A7 1A 50-1000V 1.1 R-1 2 1N4001-1N4007 1A 50-1000V 1.1 DO-41 3 1N5391-1N5399 1.5A 50-1000V 1.1 DO-15 4 2A01-2A07 2A 50-1000V 1.0 DO-15 5 1N5400-1N5408 3A 50-1000V 0.95 DO-201AD 6 6A05-6A10 6A 50-1000V 0.95 R-6 7 TS750-TS758 6A 50-800V 1.25 R-6 8 RL10-RL60 1A-6A 50-1000V 1.0 9 2CZ81-2CZ87 0.05A-3A 50-1000V 1.0 DO-41 10 2CP21-2CP29 0.3A 100-1000V 1.0 DO-41 11 2DZ14-2DZ15 0.5A-1A 200-1000V 1.0 DO-41 12 2DP3-2DP5 0.3A-1A 200-1000V 1.0 DO-41 13 BYW27 1A 200-1300V 1.0 DO-41 14 DR202-DR210 2A 200-1000V 1.0 DO-15 15 BY251-BY254 3A 200-800V 1.1 DO-201AD 16 BY550-200~1000 5A 200-1000V 1.1 R-5 17 PX10A02-PX10A13 10A 200-1300V 1.1 PX 18 PX12A02-PX12A13 12A 200-1300V 1.1 PX 19 PX15A02-PX15A13 15A 200-1300V 1.1 PX 20 ERA15-02~13 1A 200-1300V 1.0 R-1 21 ERB12-02~13 1A 200-1300V 1.0 DO-15 22 ERC05-02~13 1.2A 200-1300V 1.0 DO-15 23 ERC04-02~13 1.5A 200-1300V 1.0 DO-15 24 ERD03-02~13 3A 200-1300V 1.0 DO-201AD 25 EM1-EM2 1A-1.2A 200-1000V 0.97 DO-15 26 RM1Z-RM1C 1A 200-1000V 0.95 DO-15 27 RM2Z-RM2C 1.2A 200-1000V 0.95 DO-15 28 RM11Z-RM11C 1.5A 200-1000V 0.95 DO-15 29 RM3Z-RM3C 2.5A 200-1000V 0.97 DO-201AD 30 RM4Z-RM4C 3A 200-1000V 0.97 DO-201AD 2.快恢复塑封整流二极管 序号型号IF VRRM VF Trr 外形 A V V μs (1)快恢复塑封整流二极管 1 1F1-1F7 1A 50-1000V 1.3 0.15-0.5 R-1 2 FR10-FR60 1A-6A 50-1000V 1. 3 0.15-0.5 3 1N4933-1N4937 1A 50-600V 1.2 0.2 DO-41 4 1N4942-1N4948 1A 200-1000V 1.3 0.15-0. 5 DO-41 5 BA157-BA159 1A 400-1000V 1.3 0.15-0.25 DO-41 6 MR850-MR858 3A 100-800V 1.3 0.2 DO-201AD

常用稳压二极管大全,

常用稳压管型号对照——(朋友发的) 美标稳压二极管型号 1N4727 3V0 1N4728 3V3 1N4729 3V6 1N4730 3V9 1N4731 4V3 1N4732 4V7 1N4733 5V1 1N4734 5V6 1N4735 6V2 1N4736 6V8 1N4737 7V5 1N4738 8V2 1N4739 9V1 1N4740 10V 1N4741 11V 1N4742 12V 1N4743 13V 1N4744 15V 1N4745 16V 1N4746 18V 1N4747 20V 1N4748 22V 1N4749 24V 1N4750 27V 1N4751 30V 1N4752 33V 1N4753 36V 1N4754 39V 1N4755 43V 1N4756 47V 1N4757 51V 需要规格书请到以下地址下载, 经常看到很多板子上有M记的铁壳封装的稳压管,都是以美标的1N系列型号标识的,没有具体的电压值,刚才翻手册查了以下3V至51V的型号与电压的对 照值,希望对大家有用 1N4727 3V0 1N4728 3V3 1N4729 3V6 1N4730 3V9

1N4733 5V1 1N4734 5V6 1N4735 6V2 1N4736 6V8 1N4737 7V5 1N4738 8V2 1N4739 9V1 1N4740 10V 1N4741 11V 1N4742 12V 1N4743 13V 1N4744 15V 1N4745 16V 1N4746 18V 1N4747 20V 1N4748 22V 1N4749 24V 1N4750 27V 1N4751 30V 1N4752 33V 1N4753 36V 1N4754 39V 1N4755 43V 1N4756 47V 1N4757 51V DZ是稳压管的电器编号,是和1N4148和相近的,其实1N4148就是一个0.6V的稳压管,下面是稳压管上的编号对应的稳压值,有些小的稳压管也会在管体 上直接标稳压电压,如5V6就是5.6V的稳压管。 1N4728A 3.3 1N4729A 3.6 1N4730A 3.9 1N4731A 4.3 1N4732A 4.7 1N4733A 5.1 1N4734A 5.6 1N4735A 6.2 1N4736A 6.8 1N4737A 7.5 1N4738A 8.2 1N4739A 9.1 1N4740A 10 1N4741A 11 1N4742A 12 1N4743A 13

Join In剑桥小学英语.doc

Join In剑桥小学英语(改编版)入门阶段 Unit 1Hello,hello第1单元嗨,嗨 1.Listen and mime. 1 听,模仿 Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 站起来说"嗨" 拍手坐下来 Good. Let's do itagain.Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 好. 我们来再做一遍.站起来说"嗨"拍手坐下来 2.listen again.Number the pictures. 2 再听一遍给图画编号. 1.Stand up 2.Say "hello" 3.Slap hands 4.Sit down 1 站起来 2 说"嗨" 3 拍手 4 坐下来说 3. A song.Hello,what's yourname? 3 一首歌嗨,你叫什么名字? Hello. Hello.Hello, what's yourname? Hello. Hello. 嗨. 嗨. 嗨, 你叫什么名字? 嗨,嗨. Hello, what's yourname? I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello,hello. 嗨, 你叫什么名字? 我叫托比. 我叫托比 . 嗨,嗨,嗨. I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello, let's go! 我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨, 我们一起! Hello. Hello.Hello, what's yourname? I'm Toby.I'm Toby. 嗨.嗨.嗨, 你叫什么名字? 我叫托比.我叫托比. Hello,hello,hello. I'm Toby.I'm Toby. Hello,hello,let's go! 嗨,嗨,嗨.我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨,我们一起! 4 Listen and stick 4 听和指 What's your name? I'm Bob. 你叫什么名字? 我叫鲍勃. What's your name ? I'm Rita. What's your name ? I'm Nick. 你叫什么名字? 我叫丽塔. 你叫什么名字? 我叫尼克. What's your name ? I'm Lisa. 你叫什么名字? 我叫利萨. 5. A story-Pit'sskateboard. 5 一个故事-彼德的滑板. Pa:Hello,Pit. Pa:好,彼德. Pi:Hello,Pat.Pa:What's this? Pi:嗨,帕特.Pa:这是什么? Pi:My new skateboard.Pi:Look!Pi:Goodbye,Pat! Pi:这是我的新滑板.Pi:看!Pi:再见,帕特! Pa:Bye-bye,Pit!Pi:Help!Help!pi:Bye-bye,skateboard! Pa:再见,彼德!Pi:救命!救命!Pi:再见,滑板! Unit 16. Let's learnand act 第1单元6 我们来边学边表演.

二极管封装大全

二极管封装大全 篇一:贴片二极管型号、参数 贴片二极管型号.参数查询 1、肖特基二极管SMA(DO214AC) 2010-2-2 16:39:35 标准封装: SMA 2010 SMB 2114 SMC 3220 SOD123 1206 SOD323 0805 SOD523 0603 IN4001的封装是1812 IN4148的封装是1206 篇二:常见贴片二极管三极管的封装 常见贴片二极管/三极管的封装 常见贴片二极管/三极管的封装 二极管: 名称尺寸及焊盘间距其他尺寸相近的封装名称 SMC SMB SMA SOD-106 SC-77A SC-76/SC-90A SC-79 三极管: LDPAK

DPAK SC-63 SOT-223 SC-73 TO-243/SC-62/UPAK/MPT3 SC-59A/SOT-346/MPAK/SMT3 SOT-323 SC-70/CMPAK/UMT3 SOT-523 SC-75A/EMT3 SOT-623 SC-89/MFPAK SOT-723 SOT-923 VMT3 篇三:常用二极管的识别及ic封装技术 常用晶体二极管的识别 晶体二极管在电路中常用“D”加数字表示,如: D5表示编号为5的二极管。 1、作用:二极管的主要特性是单向导电性,也就是在正向电压的作用下,导通电阻很小;而在反向电压作用下导通电阻极大或无穷大。正因为二极管具有上述特性,无绳电话机中常把它用在整流、隔离、稳压、极性保护、编码控制、调频调制和静噪等电路中。 电话机里使用的晶体二极管按作用可分为:整流二极管(如1N4004)、隔离二极管(如1N4148)、肖特基二极管(如BAT85)、发光二极管、稳压二极管等。 2、识别方法:二极管的识别很简单,小功率二极管的N极(负极),在二极管外表大多采用一种色圈标出来,有些二极管也用二极管专用符号来表示P极(正极)或N极(负极),也有采用符号标志为“P”、“N”来确定二极管极性的。发光二极管的正负极可从引脚长短来识别,长

1N系列常用整流二极管的主要参数

1N 系列常用整流二极管的主要参数
反向工作 峰值电压 URM/V 额定正向 整流电流 整流电流 IF/A 正向不重 复浪涌峰 值电流 IFSM/A 正向 压降 UF/V 反向 电流 IR/uA 工作 频率 f/KHZ 外形 封装
型 号
1N4000 1N4001 1N4002 1N4003 1N4004 1N4005 1N4006 1N4007 1N5100 1N5101 1N5102 1N5103 1N5104 1N5105 1N5106 1N5107 1N5108 1N5200 1N5201 1N5202 1N5203 1N5204 1N5205 1N5206 1N5207 1N5208 1N5400 1N5401 1N5402 1N5403 1N5404 1N5405 1N5406 1N5407 1N5408
25 50 100 200 400 600 800 1000 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000
1
30
≤1
<5
3
DO-41
1.5
75
≤1
<5
3
DO-15
2
100
≤1
<10
3
3
150
≤0.8
<10
3
DO-27
常用二极管参数: 05Z6.2Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=6~6.35V,Pzm=500mW,

高中文言文特殊句式总结及一词多义

古今异义词150例 ( 一)词义扩大 (1)把ba [古义]动词。握住,端着。 ①手把文书口称敕,回车叱牛牵向北。(《卖炭翁)) ②把酒临风,其喜洋洋者矣。(《岳阳楼记》) [今义]①握住。②把持。③介词,将。④量词。 (2)股gu [古义]名词。大腿。 两股战战,几欲先走。(《口技》) [今义]①大腿。②事物的一部分。③量词。 (3)竟jing [古义]①动词。完毕,结束。②副词。终于,最后 ①秦王竟酒,终不能加胜于赵。 ②或竟成痼疾。(《狱中杂记》) [今义]①完毕。②终于。③居然。④全。 (4)履 [古义]①动词。践踏,踩。②名词。鞋子。 ①足之所履,(《庖丁解牛》) ②郑人有欲买履者。(《郑人买步履》) [今义]①践踏,踩。。②鞋子。③脚步。④实践。 (5)再zai [古义]数词。两次,第二次。 一鼓作气,再而衰,三而竭。(《曹刿论战》 [今义]①又一次,再一次,多次。②继续,还有。 (二)词义缩小 (6)夫fu [古义]①名词,成年男子。②丈夫。③夫子,对老师的称呼。④指从事体力劳动或奴役的人。⑤读fú,文言句首发语词、句中助词和句末语气助词。⑥读fú ,指示代词,这那种等。 ①一夫不耕,或受之饥。(《论积贮疏》) ②夫起大呼,妇亦起大呼。(《口技》) ③夫子何命焉为?(《公输》) ④渔夫、夫役 ③今若焉,悲夫。(《黔之驴》) ⑥是叶公好龙也,好夫似龙而非龙者也。(《叶公好龙》) [今义]丈夫。 (7)购gou [古义〕①动词。悬赏。②动词。购买。 ①穷饿无聊,追购又急。(《(指南录)后序》) ②于购三百盆皆病者。《病梅馆记》 [今义]指购买物品。 (8)或huo [古义]①不定代词,有人,有的。②副词,也许。③有时,间或。

剑桥小学英语Join_In

《剑桥小学英语Join In ——Book 3 下学期》教材教法分析2012-03-12 18:50:43| 分类:JOIN IN 教案| 标签:|字号大中小订阅. 一、学情分析: 作为毕业班的学生,六年级的孩子在英语学习上具有非常显著的特点: 1、因为教材的编排体系和课时不足,某些知识学生已遗忘,知识回生的现象很突出。 2、有的学生因受学习习惯及学习能力的制约,有些知识掌握较差,学生学习个体的差异性,学习情况参差不齐、两级分化的情况明显,对英语感兴趣的孩子很喜欢英语,不喜欢英语的孩子很难学进去了。 3、六年级的孩子已经进入青春前期,他们跟三、四、五年级的孩子相比已经有了很大的不同。他们自尊心强,好胜心强,集体荣誉感也强,有自己的评判标准和思想,对知识的学习趋于理性化,更有自主学习的欲望和探索的要求。 六年级学生在英语学习上的两极分化已经给教师的教学带来很大的挑战,在教学中教师要注意引导学生调整学习方式: 1、注重培养学生自主学习的态度 如何抓住学习课堂上的学习注意力,吸引他们的视线,保持他们高涨的学习激情,注重过程的趣味化和学习内容的简易化。 2、给予学生独立思考的空间。 3、鼓励学生坚持课前预习、课后复习的好习惯。 六年级教材中的单词、句子量比较多,难点也比较多,学生课前回家预习,不懂的地方查英汉词典或者其它资料,上课可以达到事半功倍的效果,课后复习也可以很好的消化课堂上的内容。 4、注意培养学生合作学习的习惯。 5、重在培养学生探究的能力:学习内容以问题的方式呈现、留给学生更多的发展空间。 二、教材分析: (一).教材特点: 1.以学生为主体,全面提高学生的素质。

常见二极管参数大全

1N系列稳压管

快恢复整流二极管

常用整流二极管型号和参数 05Z6.2Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=6~6.35V,Pzm=500mW, 05Z7.5Y 硅稳压二极管 Vz=7.34~7.70V,Pzm=500mW, 05Z13X硅稳压二极管 Vz=12.4~13.1V,Pzm=500mW, 05Z15Y硅稳压二极管 Vz=14.4~15.15V,Pzm=500mW, 05Z18Y硅稳压二极管 Vz=17.55~18.45V,Pzm=500mW, 1N4001硅整流二极管 50V, 1A,(Ir=5uA,Vf=1V,Ifs=50A) 1N4002硅整流二极管 100V, 1A, 1N4003硅整流二极管 200V, 1A, 1N4004硅整流二极管 400V, 1A, 1N4005硅整流二极管 600V, 1A, 1N4006硅整流二极管 800V, 1A, 1N4007硅整流二极管 1000V, 1A, 1N4148二极管 75V, 4PF,Ir=25nA,Vf=1V, 1N5391硅整流二极管 50V, 1.5A,(Ir=10uA,Vf=1.4V,Ifs=50A) 1N5392硅整流二极管 100V,1.5A, 1N5393硅整流二极管 200V,1.5A, 1N5394硅整流二极管 300V,1.5A, 1N5395硅整流二极管 400V,1.5A, 1N5396硅整流二极管 500V,1.5A, 1N5397硅整流二极管 600V,1.5A, 1N5398硅整流二极管 800V,1.5A, 1N5399硅整流二极管 1000V,1.5A, 1N5400硅整流二极管 50V, 3A,(Ir=5uA,Vf=1V,Ifs=150A) 1N5401硅整流二极管 100V,3A, 1N5402硅整流二极管 200V,3A, 1N5403硅整流二极管 300V,3A, 1N5404硅整流二极管 400V,3A,

高中文言文一词多义归纳

高中文言文一词多义归纳 爱秦爱纷奢,人亦念其家: 喜爱 不爱珍器重宝肥饶之地: 吝惜 使秦复爱六国之人: 爱护 晋陶渊明独爱菊: 喜欢 安君安与项伯有故: 怎麽 沛公安在: 那里 思国之安者,必积其德义: 安定 毅良久稍安 安心 燕鹊安知鸿鹄之志哉: 怎麽 衣食所安,弗赶加也: 享受 既来之,则安之: 使动 无情郎安在 哪里 按按诛五人: 查究 缇骑按剑而前: 按着 包举一滴可以包函谷 怀着 包住 包举宇内 名词用作状语 像……一样 暴暴霜露: 显露 忠义暴于朝廷: 显露 暴秦之欲无厌: 残暴 被幸被齿发 蒙受 如被冰雪 遭受 本予本非文人花士: 本来,原本 本图宦达: 希望 故有舍本而问末者耶: 根本 抑本其成败之迹: 推究 摇其本以观其疏密: 根 鄙言语粗鄙 粗俗 越国以鄙远 君知其难也 意动,以…为边境 肉食者鄙 未能远谋顾不如蜀鄙之僧载: 边远的地方敢竭鄙怀 浅陋 比比去,以手阖门: 及,等到 天涯若比邻: 并列,挨着 纳比笼中 并列,挨着 比权量力: 比较 比吾乡临之死则已后矣: 比较 比得软脚病 近来 宰严限追比 追征 敝侯生摄敝衣冠: 破旧 曹操之众远来疲敝: 疲劳,困乏 因人之力而敝之: 使动,损害 毕少选当毕 结束 毕尽于此 全

兵非我也,兵也: 兵器 非兵连祸结: 战争 斯用兵之效也:战争 必以长安君为质,兵乃出: 军队 穷兵黩武: 军队 而秦兵又至矣: 军队 草木皆兵: 士兵 病故病且殆: 穷困 病偻: 患病 君之病在肌肤: 疾病 予购三百盆,皆病者: 有病 以夭梅病梅为业: 使动 君子病无能焉,不病人之不己知也: 担心,忧虑 向吾不为斯役,则久已病矣: 困苦不堪 人皆嗤吾固陋,吾不以为病:缺点,弊病 (今日病矣,予助苗长矣: 疲劳,困乏) 并并受促织恩荫 一并 并虫亦不能行捉矣 连 搏水石相搏: 击,拍 森然欲搏人: 抓,扑 薄日薄西山: 迫近 门衰祚薄: 浅薄 有薄德于古今 浅薄的 厚古薄今: 意动 日以厌薄 轻视 拨曲终收拨当心划 拨子 弹奏弦乐所用的工具转轴拨弦三两声 拨动 弹奏 策振长策而御宇内: 鞭子 蒙故业,因遗策: 策略,计谋 策扶老以流憩: 著着 退而论书策: 竹简 策勋十二转: 书写,记 曾风景旧曾谙:曾经 则天地曾不能以一瞬: adv连…都 曾益其所不能: 增 常非常之观: 平常,寻常 常在于险远: 常常,副词 胜地不常 常存 长一技之长: 长处,特点 长歌当哭: 放声 求木之长: 生长 无长无少: 年纪大 朝燕赵韩魏闻之,皆朝于齐:朝拜

常用稳压二极管技术参数及老型号代换.

常用稳压二极管技术参数及老型号代换 型号最大功耗 (mW) 稳定电压(V) 电流(mA) 代换型号国产稳压管日立稳压管 HZ4B2 500 3.8 4.0 5 2CW102 2CW21 4B2 HZ4C1 500 4.0 4.2 5 2CW102 2CW21 4C1 HZ6 500 5.5 5.8 5 2CW103 2CW21A 6B1 HZ6A 500 5.2 5.7 5 2CW103 2CW21A HZ6C3 500 6 6.4 5 2CW104 2CW21B 6C3 HZ7 500 6.9 7.2 5 2CW105 2CW21C HZ7A 500 6.3 6.9 5 2CW105 2CW21C HZ7B 500 6.7 7.3 5 2CW105 2CW21C HZ9A 500 7.7 8.5 5 2CW106 2CW21D HZ9CTA 500 8.9 9.7 5 2CW107 2CW21E HZ11 500 9.5 11.9 5 2CW109 2CW21G HZ12 500 11.6 14.3 5 2CW111 2CW21H HZ12B 500 12.4 13.4 5 2CW111 2CW21H HZ12B2 500 12.6 13.1 5 2CW111 2CW21H 12B2 HZ18Y 500 16.5 18.5 5 2CW113 2CW21J HZ20-1 500 18.86 19.44 2 2CW114 2CW21K HZ27 500 27.2 28.6 2 2CW117 2CW21L 27-3 HZT33-02 400 31 33.5 5 2CW119 2CW21M RD2.0E(B) 500 1.88 2.12 20 2CW100 2CW21P 2B1 RD2.7E 400 2.5 2.93 20 2CW101 2CW21S RD3.9EL1 500 3.7 4 20 2CW102 2CW21 4B2 RD5.6EN1 500 5.2 5.5 20 2CW103 2CW21A 6A1 RD5.6EN3 500 5.6 5.9 20 2CW104 2CW21B 6B2 RD5.6EL2 500 5.5 5.7 20 2CW103 2CW21A 6B1 RD6.2E(B) 500 5.88 6.6 20 2CW104 2CW21B RD7.5E(B) 500 7.0 7.9 20 2CW105 2CW21C RD10EN3 500 9.7 10.0 20 2CW108 2CW21F 11A2 RD11E(B) 500 10.1 11.8 15 2CW109 2CW21G RD12E 500 11.74 12.35 10 2CW110 2CW21H 12A1 RD12F 1000 11.19 11.77 20 2CW109 2CW21G RD13EN1 500 12 12.7 10 2CW110 2CW21H 12A3 RD15EL2 500 13.8 14.6 15 2CW112 2CW21J 12C3 RD24E 400 22 25 10 2CW116 2CW21H 24-1

剑桥小学英语join in五年级测试卷

五 年 级 英 语 测 试 卷 学校 班级 姓名 听力部分(共20分) 一、Listen and colour . 听数字,涂颜色。(5分) 二、 Listen and tick . 听录音,在相应的格子里打“√”。 (6分) 三、Listen and number.听录音,标序号。(9分) pig fox lion cow snake duck

sheep 笔试部分(共80分) 一、Write the questions.将完整的句子写在下面的横线上。(10分) got it Has eyes on a farm it live sheep a it other animals eat it it Is 二、Look and choose.看看它们是谁,将字母填入括号内。(8分) A. B. C. D.

E. F. G. H. ( ) pig ( ) fox ( ) sheep ( ) cat ( ) snake ( ) lion ( ) mouse ( ) elephant 三、Look at the pictures and write the questions.看图片,根据答语写出相应的问题。(10分) No,it doesn’t. Yes,it is.

Yes,it does. Yes,it has. Yes,it does. 四、Choose the right answer.选择正确的答案。(18分) 1、it live on a farm? 2. it fly?

3. it a cow? 4. it eat chicken? 5. you swim? 6. you all right? 五、Fill in the numbers.对话排序。(6分) Goodbye. Two apples , please. 45P , please. Thank you.

常用稳压管型号参数对照

常用稳压管型号参数对照 3V到51V 1W稳压管型号对照表1N4727 3V0 1N4728 3V3 1N4729 3V6 1N4730 3V9 1N4731 4V3 1N4732 4V7 1N4733 5V1 1N4734 5V6 1N4735 6V2 1N4736 6V8 1N4737 7V5

1N4739 9V1 1N4740 10V 1N4741 11V 1N4742 12V 1N4743 13V 1N4744 15V 1N4745 16V 1N4746 18V 1N4747 20V 1N4748 22V 1N4749 24V 1N4750 27V 1N4751 30V

1N4753 36V 1N4754 39V 1N4755 43V 1N4756 47V 1N4757 51V 摩托罗拉IN47系列1W稳压管IN4728 3.3v IN4729 3.6v IN4730 3.9v IN4731 4.3 IN4732 4.7 IN4733 5.1

IN4735 6.2 IN4736 6.8 IN4737 7.5 IN4738 8.2 IN4739 9.1 IN4740 10 IN4741 11 IN4742 12 IN4743 13 IN4744 15 IN4745 16 IN4746 18 IN4747 20

IN4749 24 IN4750 27 IN4751 30 IN4752 33 IN4753 34 IN4754 35 IN4755 36 IN4756 47 IN4757 51 摩托罗拉IN52系列 0.5w精密稳压管IN5226 3.3v IN5227 3.6v

(完整版)剑桥小学英语Joinin六年级复习题(二)2-3单元.doc

2011-2012 学年度上学期六年级复习题(Unit2-Unit3 ) 一、听力部分 1、听录音排序 ( ) () ()() () 2、听录音,找出与你所听到的单词属同一类的单词 () 1. A. spaceman B. pond C . tiger () 2. A.mascots B. potato C . jeans () 3. A. door B. behind C . golden () 4. A. sometimes B. shop C . prince () 5. A. chair B. who C . sell 3、听录音,将下面人物与他的梦连线 Sarah Tim Juliet Jenny Peter 4、听短文,请在属于Mr. Brown的物品下面打√ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5、听问句选答句 () 1. A. Yes, I am B. Yes, I have C . Yes, you do () 2. A.Pink B. A friendship band C . Yes. () 3. A. OK B. Bye-bye. C . Thanks, too. () 4. A. Monday. B. Some juice. C . Kitty. () 5. A. I ’ve got a shookbag. B. I ’m a student. C . It has got a round face. 6、听短文,选择正确答案 () 1. Where is Xiaoqing from? She is from . A.Hebei B. Hubei C . Hunan () 2. She goes to school at . A.7:00 B.7:30 C . 7:15 () 3. How many classes in the afternoon? classes. A. four B. three C . two () 4. Where is Xiaoqing at twelve o ’clock? She is . A. at home B. at school C .in the park () 5. What does she do from seven to half past eight? She . A.watches TV B. reads the book C. does homework

相关文档
最新文档