asdasdw
dfasdfasdfasdfasdf
Salience of guilty knowledge test items affects accuracyin realistic mock crimesAnne Jokinen a ,Pekka Santtila a,⁎,Niklas Ravaja b ,Sampsa Puttonen caDepartment of Psychology,Åbo Akademi University,20500Turku,FinlandbCenter for Knowledge and Innovation Research,Helsinki School of Economics,FinlandcDepartment of Psychology at the University of Helsinki,FinlandReceived 31August 2005;received in revised form 18April 2006;accepted 18April 2006Available online 12June 2006AbstractA Guilty Knowledge Test measuring electrodermal reactions was carried out in order to investigate the quality of different questions and the validity of the test in a situation that resembled a true crime.Fifty participants were randomly assigned to commit one of two realistic mock crimes,and were later tested with GKTs concerning both the crime they had enacted and the one they had no knowledge of.Different scoring systems (SCRs and peak amplitudes as well as raw and standardised scores)were employed and compared when analyzing the results.Although there were some false positives,the test was able to differentiate between the groups of guilty and innocent participants.With the best scoring systems,the test was able to classify up to 84%of the innocent and up to 76%of the guilty correctly according to a logistic regression analysis.ROC areas reflecting these same results reached values above .80.Questions on matters that demanded the participants'attention and were easier to remember had better discriminative power.With nearly all scoring methods,there was a significant interaction between the salience of the relevant items and the guilt of the participants.Participants reacted more strongly to salient relevant items when they were guilty,while no different reactions were observed for the non-salient items between guilty and innocent participants.It is suggested that,although the Guilty Knowledge Test appears to be a valid measure of guilty knowledge even in crimes that are close to real crimes,the principles on which guilty knowledge test questions are constructed should be more clearly specified.©2006Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.Keywords:Guilty Knowledge Test;Memory;Lie detection;Electrodermal reactionsPsychophysiological detection of guilt can be done through analysing electrodermal reactions,respiration,cardiovascular and other measures (Ben-Shakhar and Furedy,1990;Kircher and Raskin,2002).Due to its ability to provide protection for the innocent,the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT),also known as the Concealed Information Test (CIT),has been supported for the detection of guilt in criminal cases (Lykken,1998;Hira and Furumitsu,2002).The purpose of this test is not to detect lying per se,but rather to detect the presence of guilty knowledge (Lykken,1998).Guilty knowledge stands for any such information relevant to the crime that the perpetrators remember and that can only be known by the perpetrators themselves and the police.An example of a question could be:“In which room did the offender leave the body?Was it …“the hall ”,“the living room ”,“the bed room ”,“the kitchen ”,“the dining room ”,“the toilet?”It is important that noalternative seems more likely than any other to an innocent suspect (Myers and Arbuthnot,1997).The assumption behind the GKT is that recognising the items relevant to the crime will lead to enhanced physiological re-sponses (Ben-Shakhar and Furedy,1990).Many experiments provide support for this assumption starting with the classical studies of Lykken (1959,1960).It is also congruent with psy-chophysiological theory that relates differential responsivity in the GKT to orienting responses (e.g.Kleiner,2002).All stimuli in the GKT are in principle capable of evoking an OR.The basic assumption is,however,that recognizing the relevant item will produce a differentially greater OR,and thus stronger autonomic arousal because the relevant item is associated with a higher signal value (Furedy,1986;Lykken,1974).However,it has been shown that,in addition to the cognitive phenomenon of OR,the reactions are also influenced by emotional factors such as giving a deceitful verbal response (as opposed to remaining silent)to the alter-natives (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad,2003).International Journal of Psychophysiology 62(2006)175–184⁎Corresponding author.Tel.:+35822154406;fax:+35822154833.E-mail address:pekka.santtila@abo.fi (P.Santtila).0167-8760/$-see front matter ©2006Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.04.004The GKT has performed well in a number of laboratory tests using mock-crime situations(Ben-Shakhar and Elaad,2003; Lykken,1998).Ben-Shakhar and Elaad(2003)carried out a meta-analysis to examine the validity of the GKT.Including all studies of GKT with different designs,the combined effect size for GKTs was1.55standard deviations,which can be considered a good figure and to represent relatively high validity.The validity was even higher in mock-crime studies that are more akin to real crimes(effect size2.09).In the studies employing the mock-crime paradigm,the correct detection rate for guilty participants ranged from25%to100%in studies with both guilty and innocent participants.In the same studies,the correct detection rate for innocent participants ranged from40%to 100%.Finally,Ben-Shakhar and Elaad(2003)identified a subset of mock-crime studies in which motivational instructions, deceptive verbal responses and at least five GKT questions were used.The average effect size in this subset with10 experimental conditions was3.12.There are few field studies assessing the GKT in real-life criminal investigations(Elaad, 1990;Elaad et al.,1992;Suzuki et al.,2004).The results of the field studies indicate that,even if the GKT is able to provide reasonable protection for the innocent,false positives do occur.Memory is a decisive factor for the effectiveness of the GKT. Two questions are particularly important:what the perpetrator can remember and for how long.The perception and recall of crime-relevant details may be limited by a number of factors(Elaad, 1990;see also Wells and Loftus,1984).These may be related to the examinees,such as their level of attention to details while expe-riencing the event,their emotional and physical state at the time of the event,as well as the psychological trauma associated with the experience.They may also be related to the physical setting,the complexity of the event,the time elapsed since the event, subsequent exposure to additional information about the event and the type of questioning that the examinees have undergone. Elaad(1997)who used a relatively realistic mock-crime procedure found that some relevant items were not recalled when the GKT was administered a few days after the event.An additional question which has not been addressed earlier is whether the GKTcan detect information that the participants themselves are not aware of possessing.This may well be possible as Bauer(1984)has shown that a patient with prosopagnosia reacted to facial identity at the psychophysiological level even if he had no ability to consciously recognise the presented faces.The existence of the phenomenon of covert discrimination is not in doubt,but its underlying basis remains open.Covert or“unconscious”recognition abilities may reflect preattentive stages of processing which make available conceptual information about the stimulus even though the observer may be consciously unaware of this and/or unable to identify the stimulus(Bauer,1984).Previously,the focus has been on running GKTs on details the participants remember.Carmel et al.(2003)divided their relevant items into central items,which were directly related to the theft,and peripheral items,which happened to be at the crime scene.The results of the study indicated that weaker detection efficiency in realistic crimes could be accounted for by poor recall for some of the items.The detection was more efficient when items central to the crime were used as discriminating questions instead of items peripheral to the crime.When the test was carried out immediately after the realistic crime(the realistic-immediate condition),a short question series of four central questions had better detection efficiency than a full series of seven questions.In the realistic-delayed condition,the detection efficiency was largely unaffected by eliminating the peripheral items.However,these results indicate that a short question series can be quite effective,in departure from prior research suggesting that a greater amount of questions improves test efficiency(Ben-Shakhar and Elaad,2003).In the present study,it was expected that–in accordance with previous studies–the test should be able to differentiate guilty and innocent participants even under relatively realistic conditions.The literature suggests that the GKT is difficult to use due to the lack of availability of sufficient details to construct the test.A reasonably large number of questions was planned,in order to later compare if different questions provide similar differentiation and to see if salient items improve the efficiency of the test.The question series was divided into salient and non-salient items in order to see whether four salient items were enough for detection.Saliency was defined as consisting of features that were easier to remember.According to Sokolov(1963),when stimuli are presented repeatedly,the reactions they cause are gradually diminished. This phenomenon is called habituation.The term signal value is associated with a stimulus that is stronger and more resistant to habituation than a non-signal stimulus(Sokolov,1963).A stimulus that has no signal value can cause a response due to its novelty even if it is otherwise neutral(Kleiner,2002).Based on these considerations,it was expected that the participants would give the strongest reactions in response to the first of two question series they were subjected to.Also,it was expected that the position of the question series as first or second would interact with the guilt of the participants so that the effect of the position would be especially strong when the participant was guilty.In sum,the purpose of the present study was to investigate the validity of the GKT based on electrodermal reactions in relatively more realistic conditions than has previously been the case in most laboratory studies.In order to see if an unusual approach would provide additional information,electrodermal reactions were analyzed with four different methods(SCRs and peak amplitudes as well as raw and standardised scores).Environments with realistic stimuli were used and the tests were presented at a separate time point from the mock crime at a police station instead of the usual university environment.Also,participants had a real chance of getting caught by personnel who were not aware of their participation in a mock crime.Two different environments were included.The situations were complex in order to provide a more stringent test of the validity of the GKT under ecologically valid conditions.All participants performed one of the crimes but were questioned on both crimes thus belonging to both guilty and innocent groups.The two environments provided two indepen-dent tests of the validity—no a priori predictions were made as to which of them might lead to better accuracy.The following predictions were made:(1)guilty participants will have stronger reactions to relevantitems than innocent participants176 A.Jokinen et al./International Journal of Psychophysiology62(2006)175–184(2)the guilt of the participant will interact with the salience ofthe items so that accuracy is increased for salient as opposed to non-salient items(3)the participants will have stronger reactions to thequestion series presented first(as opposed to second) and this effect will be especially pronounced when the participants are guilty(4)the participants will react to some of the relevant itemseven if they have no conscious memory of them1.Methods1.1.ParticipantsParticipants consisted of30men and20women.Their ages ranged from20to38(M=25.5,S.D.=4.2).The participants were students and academics who were recruited through e-mail lists.The participants received a movie ticket as a reward for their participation.1.2.Methods of assessment1.2.1.Experimental settingThe mock crimes were conducted in two different environ-ments.The library of the Police College served as the first environment with minor modifications to its normal appear-ance.The library is quite small and consists of two rooms that have shelves,tables,chairs and computers.A few extra items like a stretching mat,a piece of wood and an empty film case were placed close to the books that the participants were instructed to steal.A typical classroom served as the second environment.The class room decoration consisted of typical elements like tables,chairs and a blackboard,which had written text on it(i.e.course).A computer and a case of diskettes were placed at one spot in the room.A poster,a plastic mattress and a cookie on a small plate served as additional items.The GKTs were carried out at a police station in a laboratory that the police normally use for testing crime suspects.The laboratory consists of a sound proof research room and a separate equipment room,where the examiner operates the machine and follows the test through a video image.The sound was transmitted to the research room through a Spirit Folio Lite microphone and loudspeakers.1.2.2.Question seriesThe GKT consisted of questions with six alternatives.The first one was always a buffer that was not included in the analysis.The following five alternatives consisted of the relevant crime item and of four control alternatives that were irrelevant to the crime.The position of the relevant item among the control alternatives was chosen at random.A separate library series(“library items”)and a separate class room series(“class room items”)both consisted of eight questions.The salient items consisted of the four relevant items in the series,which were mentioned most often when the participants were asked for which questions they remembered the correct item.The non-salient items consisted of the four relevant items in the series,which were mentioned least often when the participants were asked for which questions they remembered the correct item. The questions were posed only concerning the mock crime the participants committed.The salient items were on information about guilty actions or details that the participants could have noticed only through their actions(see Table1).Among the salient items,there were also matters like colour,number of noticed items(How many rows of shelves…?)and an observation about a detail in the proximity of the main item of the mock crime.The non-salient items handled guilty knowledge on such matters that the participants could have seen at the crime scene.1.2.3.Psychophysiological measuresThe Hagfors Polygraphy System that has been designed at the University of Jyväskyläwas used to collect the data from the tests.Physiological activity was recorded with a PC for the analyses.The sampling rate was10per second.A Trilock Genlock Adapter was used as a connector.The whole test occasion,including the reaction curves of the participants,were recorded with a video recorder for monitoring of the participant.Skin conductance(SC)was recorded with two thin tin lined plates measuring4.5cm around the finger and3.2cm along the finger.These were bent around the upper phalanges of the first and third fingers of the non-preferred hand on the palmar side. Fingers were disinfected with a solution(Neo Amisept)before attaching the electrodes.A saline solution(Teca Electrode Electrolyte NO028-201210)was used as electrolyte.SC was chosen as a main indicator because the electrodermal measure has been the most effective measure in studies so far.Thoracic respiration and finger pulse amplitude were also recorded,but data from these channels were not analyzed.1.3.ProceduresParticipants were randomly assigned to commit one of the two mock crimes.After arriving at the Police College,participants were instructed either to go to the library or to the classroom through means of task envelopes.In the library,they were instructed to take a good look around and also look outside the window,then find a specified book from a determined spot,steal the book and leave.In the classroom,the participants were also instructed to take a good look around and also look outside the window,then go to a computer,locate a specific file,copy it to a diskette,steal the diskette and leave.The library and classroom situations were intended as two independent replications that are reported within the same study and no differences were a priori expected between them in the accuracy of the GKT.Only the experimenter was aware of the participants conducting the mock crimes in the building of the Police College.The library personnel and the police personnel moving about in the building did not know that the experiment was in progress.This means that there was an actual possibility that the participant would have been caught on suspicion of committing an offence(this would of course have been immediately cleared up by the experimenter).The GKT was performed later on the same day or the following day at the police station in a neighbouring city.The177A.Jokinen et al./International Journal of Psychophysiology62(2006)175–184examiner brought the participants directly to the research room, where they were given more written information and signed a written consent of their participation to the test.Participants were told that the examiner would present them different GKT questions,each including different alternatives, and that they would not know the answers to all of the ques-tions.They were instructed to reply“no”to all of the questions, regardless of what they thought about them.During the test the participants sat on a chair which is used in test situations and were told to sit as still as possible.The measuring devices were attached.The examiner said the test would be videotaped,which was also the means through which the examiner followed what happened in the research room.The examiner told that she could hear the participant all of the time in case the participant wanted to communicate.After this,the examiner went to the equipment room.The examiner,who did not know which mock crime each participant was guilty of,read the GKT questions from paper. Participants were presented two different question series,out of which one concerned the mock crime in the library and the other concerned the mock crime in the classroom.The series were presented in a balanced order,in such a way that in every other test the library series was first and in every other the class room series was first.Before each question,the examiner told what the next ques-tion would concern,e.g.“the next question concerns stolen items”.Then the examiner read the question.The examiner marked the beginning of each alternative in the recorded data. This served as a marker for the reaction time as well as impeded the examiner from putting forward the next alternative during the following15s.Between the questions and alternatives,there was only a short break.After the time set by the marker ran out, the next alternative was presented.After the actual test,the participants were asked to report which of the eight relevant items they had remembered.Due to a failure during the administration of the questions,some of this memory information was missing.After this,the participants were told about the purpose of the experiment and were given their reward.The GKT took altogether about1h.1.4.Response scoring and statistical analysisFour different methods of scoring the electrodermal reactions of the participants were used:(a)standardised peak amplitudesTable1Test questions and observed numbers of highest standardised SC responses to the relevant items in the innocent and guilty conditionsQuestion Content of thealternative Innocent condition Guilty conditionObs.n of highestreactions to therelevant itemχ2Obs.n of highest reactionsto the relevant itemχ2Library situationWhat was the overall colour of the library?Colour2 2.041 3.76a How many rows of shelves were therein the middle of the room in the mainroom of the library?Number3 1.007 1.26What odd article was present in the room?Article:mat7 1.001 4.00⁎What was on the wall behind the computers?Article:poster40.259 4.00⁎Which book did the perpetrator steal?Stolen item:book7 1.001949.00⁎⁎Under which group of books was the stolen book?Class of articles2 2.2540.25 What was by the side of the stolen book on the shelf?Article:film case8 2.257 1.00 What was on the opposite side of the stolen books?Article:piece ofwood60.2550.01Classroom situationWhat odd article was present in the room?Article:mattress40.108 3.14a What animal was there in the poster on the wall?Article:koalaposter9 4.00⁎8 2.25 What was there on the table to eat?Article:cookie50.001420.25⁎⁎What was written on the blackboard?Text:course119.00⁎⁎⁎1316.00⁎⁎What did the perpetrator do in the room?Action:copy40.251736.00⁎⁎What did the perpetrator steal from the room?Stolen item:diskette3 1.001213.50⁎⁎What was written on the diskettethe perpetrator was looking for?Letter on diskette50.019 4.00⁎What was the name of the filethe perpetrator was looking for?File name:keys9 4.59⁎1316.00⁎⁎The bold items are the ones that the participants indicated they remembered best.Df=1for all analyses,expected n of highest reactions to the relevant item in the innocent condition=5.a p b.10.⁎p b.05.⁎⁎p b.001.⁎⁎⁎p b.01.178 A.Jokinen et al./International Journal of Psychophysiology62(2006)175–184(peak amplitudes are highest SC amplitudes within5s from the start of stimulus presentation),(b)raw peak amplitudes,(c) standardised SCRs(skin conductance reactions as a difference between the highest amplitude within five seconds from the start of stimulus presentation and the base point)and(d)raw SCRs. Standardised z scores were calculated so that comparisons of within subjects and within blocks z scores could be made (blocks refer to the different groups of questions,see Ben-Shakhar and Dolev,1996).The data for questions that contained movement or other artefacts were removed if the artefact was on a relevant alternative or if more than one of the alternatives contained an artefact.If an artefact occurred on a single control alternative,only that alternative was removed from the data.Mean values were calculated across the eight relevant items separately for both question series for all four score types. Means were also calculated separately for salient and non-salient items.The main purpose was to find out if it would be possible to differentiate guilty and innocent participants and whether the differentiation would be more effective for salient when com-pared to non-salient items.Three different statistical methods were used in the analyses.First,analyses of variance were con-ducted in order to investigate differences in means as a function of the guilt of the participant and the salience of the items and their interaction.Second,classification was accomplished through means of a logistic regression using all items and only salient or non-salient items.Third,to examine the effectiveness of the test,receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curves were gen-erated for the different mock crimes again for all items and separately for only salient and non-salient items.The receiver operating characteristic(ROC)graph is a plot of two basic probabilities,the probability that the decision is positive when the condition of interest is present,or positive,and the probability that the decision is positive when the condition is absent,or negative(Swets et al.,2000).These are calculated from proportions of observed frequencies.A ROC provides a measure that can directly be compared from one study to another. In a GKT the probabilities can be interpreted so that,if one randomly picks a guilty person and an innocent person,the ROC area presents the probability that the guilty person will score higher than the innocent person in a test.A ROC is a measure of area under the curve.The statistic can be used to differentiate two distributions.As the area statistic ranges from0to1,the null hypothesis is at the value of.5with no differentiation between the distributions and perfect differentiation is reached at the value of1with no overlap between the two distributions.In addition,the effects of the presentation position of the question series(as first or second)was investigated using analyses of variance.The interaction of this factor with the guilt of the participant and the salience of the items was also explored.Finally,we tested if guilty and innocent participants could be differentiated on the basis of items that the participants did not remember.In addition to the above analyses,Lykken points analysis was computed.In a typical Lykken points analysis(see Lykken, 1998),the relevant alternative that produces the highest amplitude among the set is assigned two points,the relevant alternative that produces the second highest amplitude is assigned a score of one and any other position is assigned a score of zero.The amount of questions serves as a cutoff point for guilt or innocence.This scoring system demands that the participants have to produce second largest reactions and at least one largest reaction to the relevant alternatives across the series.2.Results2.1.Preliminary analysesIn a correlation analysis,no relationship was found between the electrodermal reactions and the age or sex of the participants in either mock crime.Sex had also no effect on the accuracy of the test based on any of the scoring methods.When three outliers were removed from the analysis of the association between age and accuracy,only one correlation out of26was significant which can be attributed to chance.Neither age nor sex was analyzed further.In order to make sure that the question alternatives were not obvious and such that both guilty and innocent participants could guess them,χ2tests were carried out for the guilty and innocent participants separately.As seen in Table1,three relevant alternatives in the classroom mock crime produced largest SC reactions in the innocent participants more often than expected by chance.These were either unexpected alternatives (a koala bear does not belong to European fauna)or the most logical alternatives(“course”can be expected to be written on a blackboard and“keys”may easily be related to a burglary). 2.2.The effects of guilt of the participants and the salience of the relevant items on electrodermal reactionsAnalyses of variance were conducted to investigate the effects of the guilt of the participants and the salience of the presented relevant items on electrodermal reactions with guilt (guilty vs.innocent)as a between-subjects factor and salience (salient vs.non-salient)as a within-subjects factor.Separate analyses were conducted for the library and the classroom situations and for the different scoring methods.First,results for the library situation are presented followed by those for the classroom situation.The results are presented in Fig.1.In the library situation,using standardised peak amplitudes resulted in significant main effects of both the guilt of the participant[F(1,48)=8.11,p b.01,η2=.14]and the salience of the items[F(1,48)=9.16,p b.01,η2=.16].These main effects were moderated by a significant interaction between them [F(1,48)=5.05,p b.05,η2=.10].The participants reacted with stronger peak amplitudes to salient relevant items when they were guilty.No difference was found for non-salient relevant items between guilty and innocent participants.When measured using raw peak amplitude,the pattern of the results was the same as when standardised amplitudes were used.There were significant main effects of both the guilt of the participant[F(1,48)=18.12,p b.001,η2=.27]and the salience of the items[F(1,48)=33.89,p b.001,η2=.41].These main effects were moderated by a significant interaction between them[F(1,48)=16.76,p b.001,η2=.26].179A.Jokinen et al./International Journal of Psychophysiology62(2006)175–184。
四方保护与测控装置103规约实施细则
鬼泣4但丁技能
8.发射导弹：在导弹飞艇模式下，按L（14枚全部发出）
注：5和8最重要一点就是耗能先按J 就是一连炮 不消耗能量可以聚集能量
然后就是按住J不放 按2下人物左边或右边的方向键2下为大炮模式在大炮模式的基础之上按住不放旋转你的方向键为 大大炮模式枪神模式下 WLS +空格+JSLS+空格+J 然后就是按L 变成飞船状态按K解除按L 为N炮齐发 J为发一炮 我想我说的很仔细了
空格＋I是双管炮，射程短。
空格＋I按住，连按AA或者DD，也就是左左或者右右，潘朵拉变三管炮，射程长了点。
空格＋I按住，连按左左或者右右，三管炮形态中，速度按ASDASD，潘朵拉变激光炮，射程超长，威力不小，可调节上下方向，左右不行。
枪神风格下，空格+S(后)＋L（风格键），潘朵拉变成飞镖，自动寻找敌人，按住不放，潘朵拉杀死一个敌人后自动寻找下一个目标。正常状态下会被打断，魔人状态不会。
空格＋W（前）＋L，Dante将潘朵拉摔地上，打开之后将潘朵拉所积蓄的能量一次施放出来，对大范围敌人找出伤害（相当于圣水）。正常状态可以打断，魔人状态不可。
风格键变身高达，再按可发射一堆火箭...自动寻找敌人
普通
1.弩炮：按J发射
2.火箭炮：按住J，然后按左右键各一次
3.在火箭炮模式下（按住），按左上右两次
特殊，先按4转成枪神风格
4.飞镖：（按住空格）后+L
5.箱子闪光：（按住空格）前+L
6.变形（把箱子变成一个导弹飞艇）：L
7.发射导弹：在导弹飞艇模式下，按J（一次一枚）
计算机二级c 上机考试题库80题答案
第1套一、填空题给定程序的功能是求1/4的圆周长。
函数通过形参得到圆的直径，函数返回1/4的圆周长(圆周长公式为：L=Πd,在程序中定义的变量名要与公式的变量相同)。
例如：输入圆的直径值：19.527，输出为：15.336457请勿改动主函数main与其他函数中的任何内容，仅在横线上填写所需的若干表达式或语句。
#include<stdio.h>double fun(double d){return 3.14159*d/4.0;}main(){double z;printf("Input the d of the round:");scanf("%lf",&z);printf("L=%lf\n",fun(z));}二、改错题下列给定程序中函数fun的功能是：计算正整数m的各位上的数字之积。
例如，若输入202，则输出应该是0。
请修改程序中的错误，得出正确的结果注意：不要改动main函数，不能增行或删行，也不能更改程序的结构#include<stdio.h>#include<conio.h>long fun(long n){long r=1;do{r*=n%10;n/=10;}while(n);return(r);}main(){long m;printf("\nplease enter a number:");scanf("%ld",&m);printf("\n%ld\n",fun(m));}三、编程题请编写一个函数fun,它的功能是：求出1到m之内(含m)能被7或11整初的所有整数放在数组b中，通过n返回这些数的个数。
例如，若传送给m的值为20，则程序输出7 11 14。
请勿改动主函数main与其他函数中的任何内容，仅在函数fun的花括号中填入所编写的若干语句。
鬼泣4出招表
Yamato(阎魔刀)
技能名指令说明
Devil Trigger [魔化] 发动魔人状态, 发动瞬间无敌, 并有浮空攻击判定Summoned Swords 魔化时[射击] 发动幻影剑, 威力小
Trigger Heart 无被动技, 减少魔人状态下魔力消耗速度
Maximum Bet 魔化时[锁定]+后+[攻击]+[投技] 直线剑气攻击, 蓄力后攻击力增加, 攻击多段化判定
Showdown 魔化时[锁定]+前+[攻击]+[投技] 最强乱舞技, 出招准备时间长且无法取消, 魔力消耗大
潘朵拉魔盒
空格＋I是双管炮，射程短。
空格＋I按住，连按AA或者DD，也就是左左或者右右，潘朵拉变三管炮，射程长了点。
空格＋I按住，连按左左或者右右，三管炮形态中，速度按ASDASD，潘朵拉变激光炮，射程超长，威力不小，可调节上下方向，左右不行。
枪神风格下，空格+S(后)＋L（风格键），潘朵拉变成飞镖，自动寻找敌人，按住不放，潘朵拉杀死一个敌人后自动寻找下一个目标。
正常状态下会被打断，魔人状态不会。
空格＋W（前）＋L，Dante将潘朵拉摔地上，打开之后将潘朵拉所积蓄的能量一次施放出来，对大范围敌人找出伤害（相当于圣水）。
正常状态可以打断，魔人状态不可。
风格键变身高达，再按可发射一堆火箭...自动寻找敌人。
sdasda文档
用户名UIDEmail安全提问(未设置请忽略)母亲的名字爷爷的名字父亲出生的城市你其中一位老师的名字你个人计算机的型号你最喜欢的餐馆名称驾驶执照最后四位数字注册[Register]找回密码用户名记住密码密码登录关闭安全验证安全提问(未设置请忽略) 注册新用户，开通自己的个人中心切换到窄版我的中心门户吾爱破解论坛门户站点论坛吾爱破解论坛--[LCG][LSG]LCG[LCG]——LoVe CrAcK GrOup——是由吾爱破解论坛自发组织的一个软件逆向安全组织。
LSGLove Security Group 成立于2011年2月2日,是一个研究网络安全的民间组织.家园吾爱家园红包每日签到红包任务,每位会员每天只能领一次,相隔24小时后即可再次申请任务.博客吾爱破解论坛导航论坛公告原创发布区脱壳破解区软件调试区病毒分析区逆向资源区安全工具区招聘求职申请专区投诉举报区百度博客腾讯微博新浪微博搜索本版搜索搜索本版用户吾爱破解论坛【LCG 】【LSG 】›论坛›『精品软件区』›pqmagic 9.0中文版下载绿色专业版[分区魔术师9.0中文版...返回列表查看: 18585|回复: 5 gopqmagic 9.0中文版下载绿色专业版[分区魔术师9.0中文版] [复制链接]3think 发短消息加为好友3think 当前离线贡献值0 点主题79 阅读权限20 UID80960 帖子421 精华0 威望0 点吾爱币407 CB 热心值1 点违规1 次积分211 在线时间177 小时注册时间2009-5-28 最后登录2011-4-23 前途无量前途无量, 积分211, 距离下一级还需189 积分UID80960 帖子421 精华0 威望0 点吾爱币407 CB 热心值1 点违规1 次积分211 在线时间177 小时注册时间2009-5-28 最后登录2011-4-23 1#快速分享：发表于2011-3-19 20:06 |只看该作者|倒序浏览|打印-pqmagic 9.0中文版下载绿色专业版[分区魔术师9.0中文版]2 X& a6 L! t! t软件名称：[B]pqmagic 9.0中文版下载绿色专业版[分区魔术师9.0中文版][/B]8 x$ A% z, U7 ^% q% v! {- y/ F1 I软件类型：绿色软件, p9 l( }) `- |) j: E运行环境：Win9X/Win2000/WinXP/Win2003/: e7 D% v+ s$ n7 H! Q软件语言：简体中文* |# f2 w$ H, d5 ^% P* T. @/ N授权方式：免费软件- \) w0 D4 M/ W% \! o, {7 | H& a1 p软件大小：6.00 MB' y* P! \* e! l6 @$ ]+ m R* [8 r0 H' DParagon Partition Manager 是一套磁盘管理软件，是目前为止最好用的磁盘管理工具之一，能够优化磁盘使应用程序和系统速度变得更快，不损失磁盘数据下调整分区大小，对磁盘进行分区，并可以在不同的分区以及分区之间进行大小调整、移动、隐藏、合并、删除、格式化、搬移分区等**作，可复制整个硬盘资料到分区，恢复丢失或者删除的分区和数据，无需恢复受到破坏的系统就可磁盘数据恢复或拷贝到其他磁盘。
欧美风格国外PPT模版(34)
03
was a huge apple tree. A little boy loved to
come and play
A Boy and His Tree A long time ago, there was a huge apple tree. A little boy loved to come and play
A Boy and His Tree A long time ago, there was a huge apple tree. A little boy loved to come and play
AON ONE 04
AON ONE
A Boy and His Tree
A long time ago, there
WqdasDafwdasdasdasdasdasfaasda asda sjsakanckascacasc
THE AON ONE
WqdasDafwdasdasdasdasdasfaasda asda sjsakanckascacasc
PONAG SSDA AON ONE WE ARE THE AON ONE ADFGAS
03
WE ARE THE AON
A Boy and His Tree A long time ago, there was a huge apple tree.
PONAG SSDA AON ONE WE ARE THE AON ONE ADFGAS
AG SSA AON ONE
was a huge apple trA Boy
45%
75%
45%
45%
PONAG SSDA AON ONE WE ARE THE AON ONE ADFGAS
货币名称代码表
Bond Markets Unit
XBA
955
European Composite Unit
欧洲货币单位（E.M.U.- (BEoUnRdCMOa)rkets Unit
XBB
956
6）
European Monetary Unit
欧洲账户9单位（E.U.A.- (BEo.nMd.UM.-a6r)kets Unit
银
Silver
XAG
961
XSU
994所罗门群岛元源自Solomon Islands Dollar
SBD
090
索马里先令
Somali Shilling
SOS
706
南苏丹镑
South Sudanese Pound
SSP
728
斯里兰卡卢比
Sri Lanka Rupee
LKR
144
苏丹镑
Sudanese Pound
SDG
938
苏里南元
MXN
484
MXV
979
MDL
498
图格里克
Tugrik
MNT
496
摩洛哥迪拉姆
Moroccan Dirham
MAD
504
莫桑比克麦梯卡尔
Mozambique Metical
MZN
943
缅元
Kyat
MMK
104
纳米比亚元
Namibia Dollar
NAD
516
尼泊尔卢比
Nepalese Rupee
NPR
524
金科多巴
Cordoba Oro
NIO
558
奈拉
Naira
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
1．课程设计的目的2 课程设计题目描述和要求本设计的题目是苯-甲苯连续精馏浮阀塔的设计，即需设计一个精馏塔用来分离易挥发的苯和不易挥发的甲苯，采用连续操作方式，需设计一板式塔，板空上安装浮阀，具体工艺参数如下：原料苯含量：质量分率= (30+0.5*学号)%原料处理量：质量流量=（10-0.1*学号） t/h [单号]（10+0.1*学号） t/h [双号]产品要求：质量分率：xd=98%，xw=2% [单号]xd=96%，xw=1% [双号]工艺操作条件如下：常压精馏，塔顶全凝，塔底间接加热，泡点进料，泡点回流，R=（1.2～2）Rmin。
3．课程设计报告内容3.1 流程示意图冷凝器→塔顶产品冷却器→苯的储罐→苯↑↓回流原料→原料罐→原料预热器→精馏塔↑回流↓再沸器←→塔底产品冷却器→甲苯的储罐→甲苯3.2 流程和方案的说明及论证3.2.1 流程的说明首先，苯和甲苯的原料混合物进入原料罐，在里面停留一定的时间之后，通过泵进入原料预热器，在原料预热器中加热到泡点温度，然后，原料从进料口进入到精馏塔中。
因为被加热到泡点，混合物中既有气相混合物，又有液相混合物，这时候原料混合物就分开了，气相混合物在精馏塔中上升，而液相混合物在精馏塔中下降。
气相混合物上升到塔顶上方的冷凝器中，这些气相混合物被降温到泡点，其中的液态部分进入到塔顶产品冷却器中，停留一定的时间然后进入苯的储罐，而其中的气态部分重新回到精馏塔中，这个过程就叫做回流。
液相混合物就从塔底一部分进入到塔底产品冷却器中，一部分进入再沸器，在再沸器中被加热到泡点温度重新回到精馏塔。
塔里的混合物不断重复前面所说的过程，而进料口不断有新鲜原料的加入。
最终，完成苯与甲苯的分离。
3.2.2 方案的说明和论证本方案主要是采用浮阀塔。
精馏设备所用的设备及其相互联系，总称为精馏装置，其核心为精馏塔。
常用的精馏塔有板式塔和填料塔两类，通称塔设备，和其他传质过程一样，精馏塔对塔设备的要求大致如下：3一：生产能力大：即单位塔截面大的气液相流率，不会产生液泛等不正常流动。
二：效率高：气液两相在塔内保持充分的密切接触，具有较高的塔板效率或传质效率。
三：流体阻力小：流体通过塔设备时阻力降小，可以节省动力费用，在减压操作是时，易于达到所要求的真空度。
四：有一定的操作弹性：当气液相流率有一定波动时，两相均能维持正常的流动，而且不会使效率发生较大的变化。
五：结构简单，造价低，安装检修方便。
六：能满足某些工艺的特性：腐蚀性，热敏性，起泡性等。
而浮阀塔的优点正是：而浮阀塔的优点正是：1．生产能力大，由于塔板上浮阀安排比较紧凑，其开孔面积大于泡罩塔板，生产能力比泡罩塔板大 20%～40%，与筛板塔接近。
2．操作弹性大，由于阀片可以自由升降以适应气量的变化，因此维持正常操作而允许的负荷波动范围比筛板塔，泡罩塔都大。
3．塔板效率高，由于上升气体从水平方向吹入液层，故气液接触时间较长，而雾沫夹带量小，塔板效率高。
4．气体压降及液面落差小，因气液流过浮阀塔板时阻力较小，使气体压降及液面落差比泡罩塔小。
5．塔的造价较低，浮阀塔的造价是同等生产能力的泡罩塔的 50%～80%，但是比筛板塔高 20%～30。
但是，浮阀塔的抗腐蚀性较高（防止浮阀锈死在塔板上），所以一般采用不锈钢作成，致使浮阀造价昂贵，推广受到一定限制。
随着科学技术的不断发展，各种新型填料，高效率塔板的不断被研制出来，浮阀塔的推广并不是越来越广。
近几十年来，人们对浮阀塔的研究越来越深入，生产经验越来越丰富，积累的设计数据比较完整，因此设计浮阀塔比较合适。
3.3 设计的计算与说明3.3.1 全塔物料衡算根据工艺的操作条件可知：料液流量 F=（10-0.5*19）t/h=2.25Kg/s =94.285Kmol/h料液中易挥发组分的质量分数 xf =（30+0.5*19）%=39.5%；塔顶产品质量分数 xd = 98%，摩尔分数为 97.6%；塔底产品质量分数 xw= 2%，摩尔分数为 1.7%；由公式：F=D+WF*xf=D*xd+W*xw代入数值解方程组得：塔顶产品(馏出液)流量 D=41.067 Kmol/h=0.89Kg/s；塔底产品(釜液)流量 W=53.218Kmol/h=1.360 Kg/s。
3.3.2．分段物料衡算lgPa*=6.02232-1206.350/(t+220.237) 安托尼方程lgPb*=6.07826-1343.943/(t+219.377) 安托尼方程xa=(P 总-Pb*)/(Pa*-Pb*) 泡点方程根据xa从《化工原理》P204表6—1查出相应的温度根据以上三个方程，运用试差法可求出 Pa*,Pb*当 xa=0.395 时，假设t=92℃ Pa*=144.544P，Pb*=57.809P,当 xa=0.98 时，假设t=80.1℃ Pa*=100.432P，Pb*=38.904P,当 xa=0.02 时，假设t=108℃ Pa*=222.331P，Pb*=93.973P,t=92℃，既是进料口的温度，t=80.1℃是塔顶蒸汽需被冷凝到的温度，t=108℃是釜液需被加热的温度。
根据衡摩尔流假设，全塔的流率一致，相对挥发度也一致。
a=Pa*/Pb*=144.544P/57.809P =2.500（t=80.1℃）所以平衡方程为 y=ax/[1+(a－1)x]=2.500x/（1+1.500x），最小回流比 Rmin 为Rmin=[xd/xf-a(1-xd)/(1-xf)]/(a-1)＝1.426，所以 R=1.5Rmin＝2.139，所以精馏段液相质量流量 L(Kg/s)＝RD＝2.139*0.89=1.904，精馏段气相质量流量 V(Kg/s)＝(R+1)D＝3.139*0.89=2.794，所以，精馏段操作线方程 yn+1=R*xn/(R+1)+xd/(R+1)=0.681xn+0.311因为泡点进料，所以进料热状态 q=1所以，提馏段液相质量流量 L'(Kg/s)＝L+qF＝1.904+1*2.25=4.154，提馏段气相质量流量 V'(Kg/s)＝V-(1-q)F＝2.794。
所以，提馏段操作线方程 ym+1= L'xm/ V'-Wxw/ V'=1.487xm-0.0083.3.3 理论塔板数的计算（1）联立精馏段和提馏段操作线方程解得xd=0.3759且前面已算得xw=0.017（2）用逐板计算法计算理论塔板数第一块板的气相组成应与回流蒸汽的组成一致，所以 y1=xd,然后可以根据平衡方程可得 x1,从第二块板开始应用精馏段操作线方程求 yn,用平衡方程求 xn,一直到 xn<xd,共需 n-1 块精馏板，第 n 块板为进料板。
第一板 y1=xd 0.98x1=y1/[y1+a(1-y1)] 0.9514第二板 y2=0.681x1+0.311 0.9592x2=y2/[y2+a(1-y2)] 0.9039第三板 y3=0.681x2+0.311 0.9268x3=y3/[y3+a（1-y3)] 0.8351第四板 y4=0.681x3+0.311 0.8799x4=y4/[y4+a(1-y4)] 0.7456第五板 y5=0.681x4+0.311 0.8189x5=y5/[y5+a(1-y5)] 0.6440第六板 y6=0.681x5+0.311 0.7497x6=y6/[y6+a(1-y6)] 0.5451第七板 y7=0.681x6+0.311 0.6823x7=y7/[y7+a(1-y7)] 0.4621第八板 y8=0.681x7+0.311 0.6258x8=y8/[y8+a(1-y8)] 0.4008第九板 y9=0.681x8+0.311 0.5840x9=y9/[y9+a(1-y9)] 0.3596x9<xd所以本设计中共需八块精馏板，第九块板为进料板。
从第十块板开始，用提馏段操作线求 yn, 用平衡方程求 xn，一直到 xn<xw。
第十板 y10=1.487x9-0.008 0.5267x10=y10/[y10+a(1-y10)] 0.3080第十一板 y11=1.487x10-0.008 0.4500x11=y11/[y11+a(1-y11)] 0.2466第十二板 y12=1.487x11-0.008 0.3587x12=y12/[y12+a(1-y12)] 0.1828第十三板 y13=1.487x12-0.008 0.2638x13=y13/[y13+a(1-y13)] 0.1254第十四板 y14=1.487x13-0.008 0.1784x14=y14/[y14+a(1-y14)] 0.0799第十五板 y15=1.487x14-0.008 0.1108x15=y15/[y15+a(1-y15)] 0.0475第十六板 y16=1.487x15-0.008 0.0626x16=y16/[y16+a(1-y16)] 0.0260第十七板 y17=1.487x16-0.008 0.0307x17=y17/[y17+a(1-y17)] 0.0125x17<xw，因为釜底间接加热，所以共需要17-1=16块塔板。
精馏段和提馏段都需要八块板。
3.3.4 实际塔板数的计算根据内插法，可查得：苯在泡点时的黏度μa(mPa.s)＝0.25，甲苯在泡点是的黏度μb(mPa.s)＝0.27，所以：平均黏度μav(mPa.s)＝μa*xf+μb*(1-xf)＝0.25*0.395+0.27（1-0.395）=0.262所以：总板效率 E=1/[0.49 (a*μav)e0.245]＝0.544实际板数 Ne=Nt/Et＝29.412＝30实际精馏段塔板数为 Ne1=14.705=15实际提馏段塔板数为 Ne2=14.705=15由上可知，在求取实际板数时，以精馏段，提馏段分别计算为佳。
而且设计时，往往精馏段，提馏段都多加一层至几层塔板作为余量，以保证产品质量，并便于操作及调节。
3.3.5塔径计算因为液流量不大，所以选取单流型，因为提馏段液相流量较大，所以以提馏段的数据确定全塔数据更为安全可靠。
所以：气相体积流量 Vh(m^3/h)＝3325.713219，Vs(m^3/s)＝0.923809227，液相体积流量 Lh(m^3/h)＝25.123146， Ls(m^3/h)＝0.006978652。
查表得，液态苯的泡点密度ρa(Kg/m^3)＝792.5，液态甲苯的泡点密度ρb(Kg/m^3)＝790.5，根据公式1/ρl=x1/ρa+(1-x1)/ρb得，液相密度ρl(Kg/m^3)＝791.1308658，根据公式苯的摩尔分率＝(y1'/78)/[yi'/78+(1-yi')/92]M’=苯的摩尔分率*M 苯＋甲苯的摩尔分率*M 甲苯ρv=M’/22.4*273/(273+120)*P/P0得气相密度ρv(Kg/m^3)＝2.742453103。