中国名人老照片
食品放心工程消费者满意度评价方案

附件2:食品放心工程消费者满意度评价方案一、调查对象和抽样调查对象为16-65岁的消费者。
调查对象为农民工的,必须在本地有连续6个月以上(含6个月)工作经历,而且同一工地或集体宿舍只能调查一人。
调查采用分层随机抽样、问卷访问的方法。
各地样本抽取要做到“条、块”分布均匀。
“条”是指:调查对象的年龄、文化程度、职业或身份等的分布情况与当地分布情况基本一致。
“块”是指:选取调查对象的区域要分散,避免在同一单位选取过多同一身份的调查样本。
为此,抽取样本时必须严格按照如下要求:(一)城镇样本的选取方法1、每个县、区(市)随机选取不少于5个乡镇,并将样本平均分配至各乡镇;2、从每个乡镇中随机选取1~2个居委会参加调查,并将样本平均分配至各居委会。
(二)农村样本的选取方法每个县、区(市)选择一个能代表本地农村平均水平的乡(镇),调查走访50个农村家庭,每个家庭随即调查一位年满16-65岁的家庭成员二、调查规模和样本分布每个地区抽样比例以城镇人口万分之六为基础,保证各地区的基本统计。
三、食品放心工程消费者满意度评价调查问卷□一、您是否知道本地实施了食品放心工程、食品安全专项整治工作?(单选题)1.知道2.不知道□二、您对本地食品安全监管工作的评价是:(单选题)1.满意2.一般3.不满意□三、您对本地食品市场的感觉是:(单选题)1.放心2.一般3.不放心□四、本地食品安全监管部门对受理的投诉、举报、咨询、提建议的处理情况如何?(单选题)1.比较好2.一般3.不好4.不了解□五、“某市发生一起餐厅集体食物中毒事件后得到及时有效地处理。
此事若发生在您所居住的城市,您认为有关部门处理效果会怎样?”1.满意2.一般3.不满意六、请您对本市的以下食品的放心情况进行评价:…请在选项对应的方框内画√‟七、您对某类食品评价为“一般”或“不放心”说明您对该食品有所担心。
请分别说出您具体担心那个环节有问题。
…请在选项对应的方框内画√‟□八、与城市食品市场相比,您认为农村的食品市场状况如何?1.比城市要好2.和城市差不多3.比城市要要差4.不了解□九、目前,农村食品安全仍存在问题。
无卤阻燃

M od ified Va lue R a n ge of ST D T es t 1 Pe rm ittivity (D k o r E r), m axim u m @ 1M H z @ 1G H z Scan ran g e 1-20 G H z Los s Tan g ent (D f), m axim u m @ 1M H z @ 1G H z Scan ran g e 1-20 G H z M ois tu re Ab so rptio n , m a xim um F lexu ral Stren gth , m inim u m Le n gth d ire ction C ro ss dire ction F lam m a b ility D e com position T em pe ratu re (T d ) Z -A xis C T E Alp ha 1 Alp ha 2 50 -260 C Yo u ng's M odu lu s T he rm a l R esista nce T2 60 T2 88 NA NA
2. Commit appropriate resources to meet project timeline
• Participate in Electrical and Material WG efforts to define technology envelope and test metrologies • Provide materials, components, test vehicles, and assist with modeling/design/assembly/test/failure analysis as needed
FR 4
ECE R100 第1次修订

E/ECE/324 Rev.2/Add.99/Amend.1 E/ECE/TRANS/505 Regulation No. 100 page 2
The title of the Regulation, amend to read: “UNIFORM PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, FUNCTIONAL SAFETY AND HYDROGEN EMISSION” Paragraph 4.1., amend to read: “4.1. If the vehicle submitted for approval pursuant to this Regulation meets the requirements of paragraph 5 below and annexes 3, 4, 5 and 7 to this Regulation, approval of this vehicle type shall be granted.”
E/ECE/324 Rev.2/Add.99/Amend.1 E/ECE/TRANS/505 Regulation No. 100 page 3
5.3.3.
During a normal charge procedure in the conditions given in annex 7, hydrogen emissions must be below 125 g during 5 h, or below 25 x t2 g during t2 (in h). During a charge carried out by an on-board charger presenting a failure (conditions given in annex 7), hydrogen emissions must be below 42 g. Furthermore the on-board charger must limit this possible failure to 30 minutes. All the operations linked to the battery charging are controlled automatically, included the stop for charging. It shall not be possible to take a manual control of the charging phases. Normal operations of connection and disconnection to the mains or power cuts must not affect the control system of the charging phases. Important charging failures must be permanently signalled to the driver. An important failure is a failure that can lead to a disfunctioning of the on-board charger during charging later on. The manufacturer has to indicate in the owner's manual, the conformity of the vehicle to these requirements. The approval granted to a vehicle type relative to hydrogen emissions can be extended to different vehicle types belonging to the same family, in accordance with the definition of the family given in annex 7, appendix 2.”
GTR No 1

ECE/TRANS/180/Add.11 April 2005GLOBAL REGISTRYCreated on 18 November 2004, pursuant to Article 6 of the AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHING OF GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATIONS FOR WHEELED VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND PARTS WHICH CAN BE FITTED AND/OR BE USED ON WHEELED VEHICLES(ECE/TRANS/132 and Corr.1)Done at Geneva on 25 June 1998AddendumGlobal technical regulation No. 1DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS(Established in the Global Registry on 18 November 2004)UNITED NATIONSECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 3TABLE OF CONTENTSA. STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION (4)B. TEXT OF REGULATION (17)1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE (17)2. APPLICATION (17)3. DEFINITIONS (17)REQUIREMENTS (19)4. GENERALREQUIREMENTS (19)5. PERFORMANCECONDITIONS (23)6. TESTPROCEDURE (23)7. TESTANNEXESAnnex 1 Latch Test for Load Test One, Two, and Three Force Applications (25)Annex 2 Inertial Test Procedures (31)Annex 3 Hinge Test Procedure (39)Annex 4 Sliding Side Door, Full Door Test (44)Annex 5 Vehicle Category Definitions (48)* * *ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 4A. Statement of Technical Rationale and JustificationI. IntroductionCurrent regulations were designed to test for door openings in vehicles that were built in the 1960s. Aside from changes made to United States of America and Canadian requirements in the early to mid-1990s to address rear door openings, no significant changes have been made to any of the current regulations. While existing regulations governing door openings have proven largely effective, door openings continue to present a risk of serious injury or death to vehicle occupants, particularly when an occupant is unbelted.The precise size of the safety problem posed by inadvertent door openings is difficult to quantify because very few jurisdictions gather the type of crash data needed to evaluate the problem. This task is further compounded by the effect of occupant belt use on injury risk. Notwithstanding the difficulty in quantifying the overall benefit associated with the establishment of a global technical regulation internationally, the types of changes to door retention components needed to upgrade existing regulations and standards appear to be quite small. Additionally, vehicle manufacturers and the ultimate consumers of motor vehicles can expect to achieve further cost savings through the formal harmonization of differing sets of regulations and standards that already largely replicate each other.Research conducted by the United States of America indicates that there are approximately 42,000 door openings in crashes in the United States of America per year. 1/ While this number corresponds to less than one per cent of the roughly six million crashes that occur in that country each year, the majority of those crashes do not occur at speeds where a door opening is likely. Rather, door failures appear to be most common in moderate- to high-speed crashes. 2/ Structural failures of the latch and striker are the leading cause of door openings. The United States of America’s evaluation of its data indicates that about two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of door openings involve damage to the latch or striker, either alone or in combination with damage to one or more hinges. The next most likely causes of a door opening are the failure of the vehicle structure holding the door in place or the door itself. In 8.37 per cent of the evaluated cases, the door support, e.g., B-pillar or C-pillar, was damaged; while in 9.68 per cent of the evaluated cases, the door structure caused the door to open without damaging the actual door retention components. Only rarely did a door open with no damage to the door whatsoever (2.15 per cent). 1/ At the request of the Working Party on Passive Safety, the United States of America provided data on the magnitude of the door ejections and door openings based on 1994-99 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) annual estimates. No data from other jurisdictions were presented.2/ In the United States of America the average change of velocity (delta V) for crashes where a door opens is approximately 30.5 km/h; the average delta V for crashes where there is no failure of the door retention system is approximately 21 km/h.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.15pageThe type of crash also has an impact on the likely type of door failure. The primary source offailure in side impact crashes was damage to the latch/striker assembly, while damage to the doorsupports was a distant secondary source. In rollover crashes, non-structural failures, i.e., thosewhere there is no damage to the door, are more common.In 1991, the United States of America conducted an engineering analysis of door latch systems incases involving vehicle side door openings to determine the loading conditions and failure modesof door latch systems in crashes. 3/ This analysis revealed the following four distinct failuremodes:Structural FailuresStructural failures are characterized as physical damage to the latch, striker, or hinges. Othertypes of structural failures include broken attachment hardware or separation of a latch, striker, orhinge from its support structure.Detent Lever-Fork Bolt Misalignment (Bypass) FailuresDetent lever-fork bolt misalignment (bypass) failures may occur when the striker is subjected tolongitudinal forces in conjunction with lateral forces. These forces cause the fork bolt to moveand become misaligned with the detent lever, causing the latch to open. These forces mosttypically occur in frontal and oblique frontal impacts.Linkage Actuation FailuresLinkage actuation failures are caused by forces being transmitted to the door’s linkage system(i.e., the connection between the door handle and the door latch) due to vehicle deformationduring a crash. It may be possible to observe some bowing of the door after a linkage actuationfailure.Inertial Force FailuresInertial force failures are latch openings due to acceleration of latch system components relative toeach other, which produce sufficient inertial force to activate the latch. Often, there is no visibledamage to the latch or striker system. Inertial loading typically occurs in rollover crashes or whena portion of the vehicle other than the door is impacted at a high speed.These four failure modes can be categorized as either structural failures or actuation failures.Structural failures usually leave clear evidence of the component failure and result in aninoperable door retention system. Actuation failures consist of latch by-pass, linkage actuation,and inertial force failures. Often a door opening caused by an actuation failure will not leave anyreadily visible evidence that the crash caused the door to open and will not affect the retentionsystem’s subsequent ability to open and close correctly. Thus, many of the failures associatedwith a latch by-pass, linkage actuation, or inertial force failure will be represented by the 2.15 percent of crashes where no damage to the door was observed.3/ Door Latch Integrity Study: Engineering Analysis and NASS Case Review,December, 1991, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 6According to the United States of America statistics, less than one per cent of occupants who sustain serious and fatal injuries in tow-away crashes are ejected through doors. Yet, despite the relatively rare occurrence of door ejections in crashes, the risk of serious or fatal injury is high when ejection does occur. Door ejections are the second leading source of ejections in all crashes in the United States of America. They are particularly likely in rollover crashes. Door ejections constitute 19 per cent (1,668) of all ejection fatalities and 22 per cent (1,976) of all ejection serious injuries in the United States of America each year. Of the approximately 42,000 door openings in the United States of America each year, side door openings constitute approximately 90 per cent (1,501) of all door ejection fatalities and 93 per cent (1,838) of the serious injuries.The rate of ejections through doors is heavily dependent on belt use. 94 per cent of serious injuries and fatalities attributable to ejections through doors in the United States of America involve unbelted occupants. While the risk of ejection will likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based on differing rates of belt use, the incidence of door openings should be relatively constant among various jurisdictions given the similarity in door designs and the lack of occupant behaviour patterns as a factor in door failures.BackgroundII. ProceduralDuring the one-hundred-and-twenty-sixth session of WP.29 of March 2002, the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Global Agreement (1998 Agreement) adopted a Programme of Work, which includes the development of a global technical regulation (gtr) to address inadvertent door opening in crashes. The Executive Committee also charged the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to form an informal working group to discuss and evaluate relevant issues concerning requirements for door locks and door retention components to make recommendations regarding a potential gtr.The informal working group was established in September 2002. The United States of America volunteered to lead the group’s efforts and develop a document detailing the recommended requirements for the gtr. The United States of America presented a formal proposal to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement, which was adopted in June 2003 (TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). The GRSP developed the door locks and door retention gtr. At its May 2004 session, the GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the establishment of this gtr to the Executive Committee.III. Existing Regulations, Directives, and International Voluntary StandardsThere are several existing regulations, directives, and standards that pertain to door locks and door retention components. All share similarities. The Canadian and US regulations are very similar to each other and the Japanese and UNECE regulations are very similar to each other. The European Union Directive is an exact alternative of the UNECE regulation requirements. The Australian regulation has commonalities to both of the above-mentioned pairs. A preliminary analysis has been made to identify the differences in the application, requirements, and test procedures of the North American and UNECE Regulations (TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2001/1 and TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). There are no apparent conflicts between the gtr and other existing international regulations or standards. However, the gtr does incorporate aspects of the existing regulations, directives and standards that are not common to all existing requirements. Given theECE/TRANS/180/Add.17pagegenerally minor variability in the door retention designs among these jurisdictions that currentlyregulate door design, it is not expected that the additional requirements imposed by the gtr arelikely to drive major, costly changes to existing door retention designs.IV. Discussion of Issues Addressed by the gtrThe proposed gtr provides that certain door retention components on any door leading directlyinto an occupant compartment, i.e., a compartment containing one or more seatingaccommodations, must comply with the requirements of the gtr. Tractor trailers are excludedbecause they do not meet this criterion. Likewise, doors leading into cargo compartments that areseparated by a barrier would not be regulated since an individual could not access the occupantcompartment through those doors. The gtr excludes folding doors, roll-up doors, detachabledoors, and doors that provide emergency egress, as these types of doors would require entirelynew test procedures and are not in such common use as to justify the development of newrequirements and test procedures. Thus, for certain vehicle designs, some, but not all doors wouldbe regulated by the gtr.During the development of the gtr, all issues were thoroughly discussed. The followingdiscussions reflect the evaluation of the issues that lead to the final recommendations.(a) ApplicabilityThe application of the requirements of this gtr refers, to the extent possible, to the revised vehicleclassification and definitions that the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) Common TaskInformal Group has prepared. Difficulties were encountered in determining which vehicles wouldbe covered. Currently, UNECE Regulations only apply to M1 vehicles (passenger vehicles withup to 9 seats in total) and N1 vehicles (goods vehicles weighing up to 3,500 kg gross vehiclemass). It was posited that it would be difficult to apply full door tests, such as the proposedinertial load, to large trucks and specialized vehicles. With the decision not to propose theinclusion of two full door tests, discussed in greater detail below, these concerns were largelyresolved. Likewise, the retention of a calculation for meeting the inertial load requirements wouldallow a jurisdiction to avoid applying a full-door inertial load test for doors on heavier vehicles.To address concerns about the applicability of door retention requirements to heavier vehicles, itwas proposed that the gtr only apply to passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, and vans andthat other vehicles be excluded initially, then added in the future after further evaluation ofvarious door designs. The argument in favour of a more inclusive gtr focuses attention on thecurrent United States of America, Canadian, Japanese, and Australian requirements that alreadyapply to all vehicles other than buses (M2 and M3 vehicles) and that the applicability of existingrequirements to commercial trucks has not proven problematic for vehicle manufacturers. Thisargument supports the exclusion of specific door types rather than entire classes of vehicles.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 8Heavy trucks in the United States of America have been subject to that country’s door retention requirements since 1972. The United States of America requirement was extended to trucks because researchers from a major United States of America university determined in a study published in 1969 that the rate of door ejection from truck doors was approximately twice that from doors on passenger cars that met the door retention requirements. The authors of the study concluded that at 40.3 per cent, the level of door failure in the truck fleet was approximately four times the failure rate of regulated passenger cars and roughly equivalent to the rate of failure in passenger cars manufactured before 1956. They also concluded that insufficient door retention was a problem across vehicle weight classifications, with pick-up trucks, medium-weight trucks and tractor trailers all exhibiting a door failure rate in excess of 33 per cent.To accommodate both positions, the gtr will apply to all vehicles except buses, with exceptions for specific door designs. The gtr incorporates the definitions of Category 1-1 vehicles and Category 2 vehicles developed in draft Special Resolution 1 (S.R. 1) concerning common definitions and procedures to be used in global technical regulations, which will be submitted as an informal document at the one-hundred-and-thirty-fourth WP.29 session and with an expected adoption at the one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth WP.29 session. If a jurisdiction determines that its domestic regulatory scheme is such that full applicability is inappropriate, it may limit domestic regulation to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 3,500 kg or less. The jurisdiction could also decide to phase-in the door retention requirements for heavier vehicles, delay implementation for a few years, or even to impose only some of the gtr requirements to these heavier vehicles. For example, it is unlikely that a jurisdiction would want to require heavier truck doors to meet the dynamic inertial test rather than the calculation. On the other hand, the longitudinal and transverse load requirements have been applicable to heavy trucks in the United States of America and Canada for over thirty years without imposing any hardship on vehicle manufacturers.(b) DefinitionsDefinitions, used in this gtr, are defined in section B, paragraph 3. of this regulation, with the exception of those related to the applicability. Definitions that relate to the applicability are drawn from a draft version of S.R. 1 and are listed in Annex 5.(c) General RequirementsGRSP agreed to recommend that the gtr should specify requirements for side and back doors, door retention components and door locks. The United States of America, Canadian, and Australian regulations have provisions for back doors and door locks, the UNECE Regulations do not. Currently, UNECE Regulations require that the sliding door systems be tested in a fully latched position and an intermediate latched position. If there is no intermediate position, when unlatched, the door must move into an apparent open position. The United States of America and Canadian regulations have no latching system requirements for the sliding doors. The Working Party decided that it was appropriate to regulate the sliding side door latching system, but recognized that the existing UNECE requirement to determine whether a sliding side door was unlatched was too subjective. Accordingly, the gtr specifies a door closure warning system that activates when the sliding side door is not latched and there is no intermediate/secondary latching position.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.19pageThe inclusion of a requirement in the gtr that side doors remain shut during vehicle dynamic crashtests, as well as a requirement that at least one door per row be operable following a crash test,was considered. Existing UNECE Regulations with dynamic crash test components alreadyrequire all doors to stay closed during the test and at least one door per seat row to be operableafterwards. It is believed that it is unnecessary to repeat this requirement in the gtr and itsinclusion would make the certification process under this regulation very difficult. However,recognizing the value of such a requirement, non-UNECE countries have agreed to considerincluding a similar requirement in their domestic regulations. This will result in a harmonizedrequirement outside of the context of the gtr.Force levels identified in the current component static tests for latches and hinges have beenharmonized to eliminate variations due to rounding of unit conversions.(d) Performance Requirements(i) Hinged Doors IssuesCurrently, UNECE Regulation No. 11 has similar hinged door requirements to the NorthAmerican regulations, although UNECE Regulation No. 11 does not distinguish between cargoand non-cargo door latches. The Working Party agreed to recommend that cargo doors (i.e.,double doors) meet the same requirements as hinged doors if they provide access to the occupantseating compartment. Additionally, the term "cargo door" has been eliminated to clarify thatdoors that do not lead into an occupant compartment with one or more seat positions are notregulated by the gtr.(ii) Load TestsBoth regulations require load tests of the hinge systems in the longitudinal and transversedirections. These tests remain, but have been reworded such that the loads are applied based onthe alignment of the hinge system and not the alignment of the vehicle. A load test in the verticaldirection was evaluated and ultimately rejected except for back doors. Since a large number ofdoor openings occur during vehicle rollovers, it was suggested that perhaps a load test in thevertical direction would help reduce these types of openings. However, it was ultimatelydetermined that the addition of a load test conducted in a direction orthogonal to the existing testscould not be justified at the present time. Those countries concerned about protecting againstrollover crash door openings may determine that such a test would be useful outside the context ofthe gtr.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 10(iii) Inertial TestA dynamic inertial test requirement was added to the gtr, as an option to the inertial calculation. There are provisions for this type of testing in both the UNECE and North American regulations, but there is no specified test procedure. A test procedure was developed based on the testing currently conducted for the UNECE requirement and validated by the United States of America and Canada. In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, tests in the vertical direction were considered. Conducting the inertial test in the vertical direction is feasible, but it is much more difficult to conduct than the tests in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Since the most common failure mode demonstrated in the inertial tests conducted by Canada was in the direction of door opening, it was determined that a test in the vertical direction appeared to be beneficial only for back door designs, which commonly open in the vertical direction. However, those countries concerned about protecting against rollover crash door openings may determine that such a test would be useful outside the context of the gtr.(iv) New Combination Component TestThe United States of America developed a new combination test procedure for hinged side doors that is representative of the combination of longitudinal compressive and lateral tensile forces that occur in real-world latch failures. Currently, no regulation, directive, or international voluntary standard has such a requirement, although it is possible that a test developed by one vehicle manufacturer may be suitable for substitution once it has been fully evaluated and a benefits correlation has been conducted.Examples of the types of crashes in which forces addressed by the combination test could occur are crashes in which either the front or the rear of the vehicle is impacted (including in an offset mode). The proposed combination test procedure was a static bench test capable of evaluating the strength of the latching systems and designed to detect fork bolt detent bypass failures. No other test procedure within the gtr simulates these types of latch failure conditions.In the combination test, the latch is mounted on a flat steel plate that moves horizontally and the striker is mounted on a vertically moving ram device. During the test, the latch and striker, while in their primary coupled position, are simultaneously moved such that lateral tension (i.e., force applied perpendicularly to the coupled latch and striker) and longitudinal compressive forces (i.e., force applied against the latch toward the striker) are applied at their interface.The required forces for the primary position of the hinged side door latching systems would be simultaneous forces of 16,000 N longitudinal compressive force and 6,650 N lateral tensile force. The longitudinal force application device is moved at a rate of one centimeter per minute until the longitudinal force is achieved.There is widespread support for a test that addresses the door failure modes represented by this test. However, in some vehicles, the test setup is such that the striker cannot interface with the faceplate of the latch, rendering the test meaningless. While it is possible to modify the striker portion of the latch system so that the test can be conducted, there is strong concern regarding the adoption of this type of procedure and its potential for enforceability questions.The adoption of the combination test into the gtr is not supported at this time due to the technical difficulties in conducting the test. Instead, the Working Party delegates and representatives will continue to review work on the modification of the United States of America-based procedure, or the development of a new procedure, to capture the benefits associated with a test addressing door failures due to simultaneous compressive longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of latch systems in real world crashes. Any acceptable procedure developed could then be added to the gtr as an amendment.(v) Door HingesBoth the UNECE and North American regulations have the same load testing requirements for door hinges. The current side door requirements for hinges, which are based on SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, appear to test adequately the strength and design of door hinges. The United States of America’s comprehensive analysis of its data and possible failure modes has not revealed problems with door hinges. Accordingly, these requirements have been included in the gtr. The current UNECE requirements only allow for the hinges to be mounted on the forward edge in the direction of travel. This requirement was based on the safety concern of a possible inadvertent opening while the vehicle is in motion. This requirement, as stated, was found to be design restrictive and the safety concerns were resolved by developing text to regulate the design and not prohibit it.(vi) Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)A new series of test procedures was designed to simulate real world door openings in crashes. These tests consist of door-in-frame quasi-static (full door) tests in both longitudinal and lateral directions, independent from the door system.The lateral full door test is designed to simulate latch failures in crashes that produce outwards forces on the door (i.e., through occupant loading or inertial loading) such as side crashes that result in vehicle spin and rollover. The longitudinal full door test is designed to simulate a collision in which the side of the vehicle is stretched, leading to the possibility that the striker could be torn from its mated latch (i.e., far side door in side impacts, and front and rear offset crashes on the opposite side door).The inclusion of the full door tests in the gtr was not supported because the tests raise concerns about unduly restricting door designs, developing a repeatable and enforceable test procedure, and addressing door openings under real world conditions. Because of the current UNECE requirement for both the component tests and a door closure requirement in dynamic tests, there is some question as to whether a full door test provides any additional value. In an analysis of the proposed tests using its FARS and NASS databases, the United States of America was unable to correlate the proposed tests with a reduction on door openings in real world crashes at a level that was statistically significant.The contemplated test procedures were evaluated and concerns were expressed that the new procedure will end up being unduly design restrictive, given the limitations of the test frame. For example, it may be that multiple test frames would be required to ensure an appropriate "fit" between the door and the test frame. This is because placement of the test load relative to the latch mechanism may be sufficiently different to produce significantly different results, andbecause door specific holes must be drilled into the test frame. Additionally, the test frame may not adequately address new latch designs that may be mounted in non-traditional locations. Likewise, the procedure does not allow manufacturers the benefit of non-latch attachments that are primarily used for side impact purposes but also may have a positive effect on door closure. Concerns were voiced that conducting the proposed tests on a test frame rather than on the full vehicle is impractical because not all loads can be applied to a closed door. However, it may be possible to cut the door frame and attach it to the test fixture, although such an approach may not fully replicate the actual door-in-frame as installed in the vehicle since cutting the door frame may change its characteristics. Such an approach may address the fit between the latch and striker, as well as the physical characteristics of the door and the doorframe. Accordingly, it was finally agreed not to include these proposals.(vii) Side Sliding Doors IssuesThe requirements and test procedures in both UNECE Regulation No. 11 and the North American standards for the track and slide combinations of side sliding doors are included in the gtr. The latch/striker system requirements of UNECE Regulation No. 11 are also included. However, neither regulation has a detailed full vehicle sliding door test procedure that simulates real world door openings in crashes.Simply testing the strength of the latch fails to fully account for the design of a sliding door. The current regulations for hinged doors adequately address door retention components because they test both the latch system and the hinge system. Since a sliding door has no hinges, only the latch is evaluated. The lack of a test for retention components other than the latch is an obvious weakness in the existing standards. Yet evaluating these components through a bench test would be impossible. The retention components simply are not amenable to a component test. The full-door test overcomes the lack of a component test similar to the hinge test for other doors by evaluating all retention components while the door interfaces with the doorframe.The procedure involves a full vehicle test in which a sliding door is tested by applying force against the two edges of the door. The test setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior of the door. The loading plates are placed adjacent to the latch/striker system located at the door edge. If the door edge has two latch/striker systems, the loading plate is placed between the two systems. If a door edge does not have a latch/striker system, the loading plate is placed at a point midway along the length of the door edge. An outward lateral force of 18,000 N total is then applied to the loading plates, placing force against the two door edges. A test failure would be indicated by a 100 mm separation of the interior of door from the exterior of the vehicle’s doorframe at any point or either force application device reaching a total displacement of 300 mm. The gtr requires that there be no more than 100 mm of separation, even if the latch system does not fail, because, unlike hinged doors, the configuration of sliding doors allows for separation of the door from the frame without the latch system failing. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used measurement for maximum allowable open space in the United States of America and Canada for school bus opening requirements.The sliding door test procedure specifies that the test be conducted with force application devices that, when installed as part of the test setup, are each capable of reaching a total displacement of at least 300 mm after placement of the loading plates against the interior of the door. Under the test,。
中国名人老照片

林黛
原名程月如。在香港萊頓書 院及新亞書院肄業。1950年入長 城影片公司。1952年轉入永華影 業公司,因主演根據沈從文小說 《邊城》改編的影片《翠翠》而 成名。後主演歌舞片《千嬌百媚》 和文藝片《不了情》,蟬聯第八 屆、第九屆亞洲影展最佳女主角 獎,並獲第十三屆亞洲影展特別 紀念獎,入美國哥倫比亞大學戲 劇系為榮譽生。後下嫁龍承勳, 誕下一子,事業愛情兩得意……
梅娘
現代女作家,1920年生於符拉 迪沃斯托克,長於長春一個仕 宦大家庭。本名孫嘉瑞,另有 敏子、孫敏子、柳青娘、青娘、 落霞等筆名,早年喪母,梅娘 諧「沒娘」之音。 1942年北帄的馬德增書店和上 海的宇宙風書店聯合發起「讀 者最喜愛的女作家」評選活動, 梅娘與張愛玲雙雙奪魁,從此 有「南玲北梅」之譽。
1900年八國聯軍攻陷北 京時,居北京石頭胡同為 妓,曾與部分德國軍官有 過接觸,也曾改換男裝到 皇家園林西苑(今中南海) 遊玩。 1903年在北京因涉嫌虐 待帅妓致死而入獄,解返 蘇州後出獄再至上海。
賽金花(中年)
鄭蘋如(王佳芝原型) 中日混血。為上海名媛,當年上 海第一大畫報「良友畫報」曾將 其作為封面女郎。
上海淪陷後,秘密加入中統,利 用其得天獨厚的條件,混跡於日 偽人員當中,獲取情報。後參與 暗殺日偽特務頭子丁默村,而暴 露身份,被捕,一口咬定為情所 困,雇兇殺人,成為當年上海灘 重大花邊新聞之一。
1940年2月,被秘密處決於滬西 中山路旁的一片荒地,連中3槍, 時年23歲。
小鳳以
她曾是名動公卿的名 妓,曾幫助共和名將蔡鍔 將軍逃離袁世凱的囚禁, 更因為與蔡鍔的那段至死 不渝的愛情而被人傳頌, 上世紀八十年代,這段愛 情被拍成名叫《知音》的 電影。
老 照 片
關露
上海灘最有名的三個女 作家之一,另外兩個是丁玲與 張愛玲。翻譯過高爾基的《海 燕》、《鄧肯自傳》等許多日 後廣為人知的優秀作品,面對 日寇的侵略,她大聲疾呼: 「寧為祖國戰鬥死,不做民族 未亡人!」這樣的愛國詩詞曾 經為她贏得了「民族之妻」的 稱號。在接受單線聯繫打入日 偽76號魔窟臥底後,背負了43 年漢奸的駡名,在帄反後帶著 一生的疲憊和自由的靈魂仰藥 自盡。
民国名人老照片(三)北洋总理肖像照

民国名人老照片(三)北洋总理肖像照作者:臧伟强来源:《收藏/拍卖》 2014年第4期文、图:臧伟强民国肇造,各种力量相继登上历史舞台,你方唱罢我登场。
除了总统的更迭,北洋内阁总理的变换频繁,也是历史风云变动的反映。
一张张老照片收藏的背后,诉说的是既精彩又无奈的岁月旧事。
“民国第一内阁”国务总理1912 年3 月,按《临时约法》的规定,北京临时政府临时大总统袁世凯推荐唐绍仪(1862 - 1938,广东珠海人)为首任国务总理人选,并组织第一届内阁。
唐绍仪为袁世凯多年契友,曾任前清奉天巡抚、邮传部尚书,但他在以清廷全权代表身份进行南北合议时,却与谈判对手伍廷芳等南方革命党往还融洽,组阁前又由蔡元培、黄兴介绍加入了同盟会,因而,本属袁系的唐绍仪也博得南方党人的认可。
1912 年4 月1 日,北京政府首届内阁成立。
阁员中,除唐绍仪之外,蔡元培、王宠惠、宋教仁、陈其美(王正廷代理),均为同盟会籍,属南派;赵秉钧、段祺瑞、刘冠雄,为袁世凯亲信,属北派,至于熊希龄、陆徵祥(前期在国外,后期归国)、施肇基,虽非袁的嫡系,但也暂归北派。
国务会议上,北派力主“总统制”,南派力争“责任内阁制”,反对总统全权制的唐绍仪自恃与总统有旧谊,便对诸多事务擅自做主。
5 月,唐绍仪经袁世凯、孙中山同意,直接向利率优惠的比利时华比银行借款一百万英镑。
此举招致“四国银行团”对北京政府的不满,袁世凯则将责任推向唐绍仪,舆论、议员更是百般斥责这位“亡国总理”。
面向袁的漠然态度,懊丧至极的唐绍仪只好亲往四国驻北京公使馆赔礼道歉。
此刻,他已洞悉袁对自己的不信任。
因执意表达国务总理的权力,唐绍仪遂招致袁世凯忌恨。
于是,袁授意内务总长赵秉钧、陆军总长段祺瑞、海军总长刘冠雄对唐予以抵制。
据张国淦所撰《辛亥以后的袁世凯》,赵秉钧从未出席过国务会议,刘冠雄则经常缺席,有关公务他们直接向袁汇报;军界要事,则完全由袁与段祺瑞、王士珍商定;至于外事活动,外交次长蔡廷干按袁的旨意行事,总理唐绍仪、总长陆徵祥更是往往不知。
写日语论文需要的日语网站

写日语论文需要的日语网站リンク集国文学研究の総合的サイト菊池真一研究室http://www.konan-wu.ac.jp/~kikuchi/index.html電子化テキストの一覧やリンク集など、国文学関係のさまざまな情報が満載。
ぜひ一度見るべきサイト。
国文学研究資料館http://www.nijl.ac.jp/以下のようなデータベースが用意されている。
日本古典文学作品データベース国書基本データベースマイクロ資料目録国文学論文目録日本文学テキスト関係サイト日本文学等テキストファイルhttp://www.konan-wu.ac.jp/~kikuchi/link/linkd.html 電子化されたテキストファイルのリンク集。
電子化テキストのリストhttp//jcmac5.jc.meisei-u.ac.jp/etext-i.htm上記サイトと似ているが、有料のテキストも掲載したリスト。
青空文庫http://www.aozora.gr.jp/近代・現代文学作品をデジタル化してある。
ボランティアによって入力している。
漢籍関係サイト網路資源/links/漢籍関係サイトへの出発サイト中国古典籍データベースhttp://hyena.human.niigata-u.ac.jp/files/textdb/cndbhome.html 中国古典籍の電子化テキストのリスト。
中国(含台湾)のサイトが多いから、文字コードを自分のパソコンに入れておく必要がある。
歴史学関係サイト東大史料編纂所http://www.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index-j.htmlいろいろなデータベースが構築され、公開されつつある。
中世の公家日記の索引はなかなか役立つ。
図書館関係サイトWebcat http://webcat.nii.ac.jp/雑誌・書籍の書誌情報と所蔵図書館を調べることができる。
卒業論文を書く時にこれほどありがたいサイトは少ない。
中国照相馆历史变迁

中国照相馆历史变迁为中国照相位于北京最繁华的王府井大街上,中国照相馆的玻璃橱窗恐怕是最受人关注的橱窗之一。
橱窗里摆放着3张28寸大小的标准照,从左往右依次是刘少奇、毛泽东和周恩来,都用金色的相框镶嵌。
据照相馆的董事长孙秀珍回忆,几年前店里装修,她安排将这3张照片暂时收起来,以免落上尘土。
没想到第二天就有外国记者打电话来问:“中国是不是出了什么大事?”这个插曲让中国照相馆的新老员工惊讶不已。
他们并没想过,一块普通课桌大小的橱窗,竟会成为见证中国社会变迁的风向标。
他们同样不会想到,摄影师傅们透过镜头所看到、所拍下的一幕幕,会将转瞬即逝的历史瞬间记录在照片上,翻开,一幅一幅,把许多已经快被忘记的故事勾活了。
在这间照相馆的拍照间里,他们努力拍出大人物们最完美的形象,然后精雕细琢,摆进照相馆外面的玻璃橱窗。
也难怪外国记者会大惊小怪,在过去的很多年里,橱窗里的照片每次更换,多半说明有什么历史事件又发生了。
我们可是根正苗红单从表面上看,和附近充斥着国际奢侈品牌的东方新天地,以及拥有百年历史的五星级酒店北京饭店相比,这座小楼显得有点寒酸。
入口处既没有身穿制服的服务人员,也没有巨幅的广告海报,甚至连个红地毯都没有铺。
尽管如此,这丝毫不影响无数名流走进这家照相馆。
他们中,既有政界人物,如朱德、林彪、华国锋,甚至联合国前任秘书长安南;也有科学文化精英,如林巧稚、茅以升、周光召和马寅初等;甚至还有娱乐明星,如李连杰、郭兰英、孙国庆、董文华,以及不远万里来到北京的好莱坞巨星施瓦辛格。
这只是一长串名单中的很小一部分。
“过去你所能够想象的,基本上所有名人都来过。
”一位工作人员不无自豪地说。
他们来到这里,只是为了照张相片。
出人意料的是,这里并没有华丽的背景,通常只是一块绿色或者红色的天鹅绒幕布,也没有高昂的化妆品,有时候就一把塑料梳子和一瓶不知名品牌的发胶。
吸引他们的,只是那块名叫“中国照相”的中华老字号招牌。
如今,常有路人驻足在招牌下面评论说:“看到没,这里专门给国家领导人照相的”;或者猜测说:“这儿怎么也得是个局级单位吧!”每每听到这样的“谣言”,中国照相馆的工会主席高里奇总会偷着乐。
- 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)。
老照片關露上海灘最有名的三個女作家之一,另外兩個是丁玲與張愛玲。
翻譯過高爾基的《海燕》、《鄧肯自傳》等許多日後廣為人知的優秀作品,面對日寇的侵略,她大聲疾呼:「寧為祖國戰鬥死,不做民族未亡人!」這樣的愛國詩詞曾經為她贏得了「民族之妻」的稱號。
在接受單線聯繫打入日偽76號魔窟臥底後,背負了43年漢奸的駡名,在帄反後帶著一生的疲憊和自由的靈魂仰藥自盡。
•陸小曼近代女畫家,江蘇武進人。
1915年就讀法國聖心學堂,她18歲就精通英文和法文。
陸小曼(續)她是個畫家,師從劉海栗、陳半丁、賀天健等名家,父親陸定原是財政部的賦稅司司長,1920年和王庚結婚,1925年離婚。
1926年與徐志摩結婚,同年參加了中國女子書畫會,1941年在上海開個人畫展。
林黛原名程月如。
在香港萊頓書院及新亞書院肄業。
1950年入長城影片公司。
1952年轉入永華影業公司,因主演根據沈從文小說《邊城》改編的影片《翠翠》而成名。
後主演歌舞片《千嬌百媚》和文藝片《不了情》,蟬聯第八屆、第九屆亞洲影展最佳女主角獎,並獲第十三屆亞洲影展特別紀念獎,入美國哥倫比亞大學戲劇系為榮譽生。
後下嫁龍承勳,誕下一子,事業愛情兩得意……可惜最終是開煤氣及仰藥自殺,返魂無術,終年29歲。
林黛死訊傳出後,震驚全球華人社會,出殯之日,萬人空巷,令人歎息。
林黛江青文化大革命期間,林彪、江青反革命集團的首要分子。
原名李雲鶴。
1934年在上海被國民黨政府逮捕,獲釋後以藍蘋為藝名做過電影演員。
後恢復黨籍,改名江青。
1938年與毛澤東結婚。
煽動打倒一切的極「左」思潮,進行篡奪黨和國家最高權力的陰謀活動,造成10年之久的全國大動亂。
1991年5月14日自殺身亡。
秦怡金焰第七屆中國十大女傑,女演員。
原名秦德和。
上海人。
1938年上海中華職業學校肄業後去武漢參加抗日宣傳活動。
當時與白楊、舒繡文、張瑞芳一起被稱為抗戰大後方重慶影劇舞臺上的「四大名旦」。
金焰號金德麟,朝鮮人,1910年4月8日生於韓國首爾。
父親因參加朝鮮民族獨立運動而受通緝,於1921年舉家遷至中國,定居通化並加入中國國籍。
其富有青春活力的氣質與樸實自然的純真表演交織一體,清新迷人,很快擁有大批觀眾,特別是成為青年學生觀眾癡迷的偶像。
1934年,在一家電影刊物組織的觀眾評選中,獲「電影皇帝」殊榮。
梅娘現代女作家,1920年生於符拉迪沃斯托克,長於長春一個仕宦大家庭。
本名孫嘉瑞,另有敏子、孫敏子、柳青娘、青娘、落霞等筆名,早年喪母,梅娘諧「沒娘」之音。
1942年北帄的馬德增書店和上海的宇宙風書店聯合發起「讀者最喜愛的女作家」評選活動,梅娘與張愛玲雙雙奪魁,從此有「南玲北梅」之譽。
冰心人稱「世紀老人」,原名為謝婉瑩,筆名為冰心。
現代著名詩人,翻譯家,作家,兒童文學家,崇尚「愛的哲學」,母愛,童真,自然是其作品的主旋律。
她非常愛小孩,把小孩看做「最神聖的人」,深受人民的敬仰。
三毛1943年3月26日生於重慶。
帅年時期的三毛就表現對書本的愛好,五年級下學期第一次看《紅樓夢》。
初中時期幾乎看遍了市面上的世界名著。
初二那年休學,由父母親悉心教導,在詩詞古文、英文方面,打下次堅實的基礎。
前後就讀西班牙馬德里大學、德國哥德書院,在美國伊諾大學法學圖書館工作。
對她的人生經驗和語文進修上有很大助益。
1989後4月首次回大陸家鄉,發現自己的作品在大陸也擁有許多的讀者。
1989後4月首次回大陸家鄉,發現自己的作品在大陸也擁有許多的讀者。
1991年1月4日清晨去世,享年48歲。
人們認為三毛死得怪異、突然,她沒有理由自裁。
蘇青中國作家,小說家、散文家、劇作家。
海派女作家的代表人物。
「上海文壇最負盛譽的女作家」。
與張愛玲「珠聯璧合」,紅極一時。
李麗華李麗華出身梨園世家,父母是京劇名伶李桂芳與張少泉。
有影壇長春樹之稱。
張愛玲海派作家,現代文學史上重要作家,原籍河北豐潤。
1921年生於上海。
張家世顯赫,祖父張佩綸是清末名臣,祖母是晚清洋務派領袖朝廷重臣李鴻章的女兒。
父親張廷重是典型的遺少,母親黃素瓊則是留過洋的新女性。
1995年張愛玲逝世於美國洛杉磯寓所,終年七十五歲。
張愛玲與胡蘭成,一個是當時上海最負盛名的女作家,一個是汪偽政府的要員。
在亂世之中,他們的相識、相知、相戀,及至最後的分手,都堪稱是一場「傳奇」。
上官雲珠與女兒姚姚中國著名電影表演藝術家,1968年跳樓自殺。
(文革時期受造反派折磨過度,身心疲憊於是自殺)唉~文綉(左一)末代皇妃,終年43歲,一生未有子女。
清朝末代皇后郭布羅、婉容加拿大總督威雲頓與溥儀、婉容,攝於天津張園。
秋瑾1907年7月15日淩晨,一位女英雄從容不迫地走向刑場,英勇就義。
她,為了挽救民族危亡,獻出了年輕的生命,時年僅32歲。
她,就是我國辛亥革命時期著名的巾幗英雄秋瑾,號「競雄」,別號「鑒湖女俠」。
1916年8月,孫中山、宋慶齡遊杭州,赴秋瑾墓憑弔,孫說:「光復以前,浙人之首先入同盟會者秋女士也。
今秋女士不再生,而『秋風秋雨愁煞人』之句,則傳誦不忘。
」李香蘭原名山口淑子。
20世紀三四十年代中國著名女歌手,是日本人,但畢竟和中國淵源頗深。
川島芳子原名愛新覺羅·顯玗,又名金壁輝。
清朝末年肅親王的第14位女兒。
辛亥革命後,以日本大陸浪人川島浪速的繼女來日本,因為肅親王憐憫川島浪速沒有孩子,作為友情的證據把女兒贈送給他。
以後,她改名為川島芳子,並在日本接受教育。
17歲自殺未遂之後斷髮並改作男裝打扮。
「九一八」事變後,金璧輝受日本主子的驅遣返回中國,使用美人計從事間諜活動。
賽金花其初名為傅鈺蓮,又名彩雲,曾作為公使夫人出使歐洲四國,在送洪氏棺柩南返蘇州途中,潛逃至上海為妓,改名「曹夢蘭」。
後至天津,改名「賽金花」。
1900年八國聯軍攻陷北京時,居北京石頭胡同為妓,曾與部分德國軍官有過接觸,也曾改換男裝到皇家園林西苑(今中南海)遊玩。
1903年在北京因涉嫌虐待帅妓致死而入獄,解返蘇州後出獄再至上海。
賽金花(中年)鄭蘋如(王佳芝原型)中日混血。
為上海名媛,當年上海第一大畫報「良友畫報」曾將其作為封面女郎。
上海淪陷後,秘密加入中統,利用其得天獨厚的條件,混跡於日偽人員當中,獲取情報。
後參與暗殺日偽特務頭子丁默村,而暴露身份,被捕,一口咬定為情所困,雇兇殺人,成為當年上海灘重大花邊新聞之一。
1940年2月,被秘密處決於滬西中山路旁的一片荒地,連中3槍,時年23歲。
小鳳以她曾是名動公卿的名妓,曾幫助共和名將蔡鍔將軍逃離袁世凱的囚禁,更因為與蔡鍔的那段至死不渝的愛情而被人傳頌,上世紀八十年代,這段愛情被拍成名叫《知音》的電影。
周璇十七歲中國早期電影著名女演員、民國時期著名歌唱家周璇馬鈺70餘年前的北大校花,魯迅曾經暗戀的對象。
阮玲玉中國早期影星,原名阮鳳根。
在30年代的中國影壇上,她以重拍次數最少而成為導演們樂於與之合作的演員;又以使觀眾「每片必看」而成為最有票房號召力的演員。
1935年3月8日,20世紀30年代默片時代最優秀的女演員之一、25歲的阮玲玉自殺了。
她自殺的那天晚上穿著旗袍,她的旗袍上寫滿了一句話:「人言可畏,人言可畏。
」樂蒂(奚重儀)臺灣電影「金馬獎」的第二屆影后樂蒂蔣介石與宋美齡結婚照抗戰期間,宋美齡為士兵縫衣服宋氏三姐妹20年代。
左起宋慶齡、宋靄齡、宋美齡郁達夫和王映霞絕代佳人——夏夢原名楊蒙,江蘇蘇州人,生於上海。
外形豔而不媚,貞靜帄和,嫻雅大方,兼之身材高挑,有「上帝的傑作」之美譽,是香港公認的西施。
金庸說:「西施怎樣美麗,誰也沒見過,我想她應該像夏夢才名不虛傳。
」李翰祥也說:「夏夢是中國電影有史以來最漂亮的女演員,氣質不凡,令人沉醉。
」絕代佳人——夏夢胡風和梅志梅志是中國著名的兒童文學作家和傳記作家,胡風死後,她用9年的時間寫成《胡風傳》。
沈從文與張兆和張兆和筆名叔文,現代女作家,沈從文先生的妻子。
著有短篇小說集《湖畔》、《從文家書》等。
梅蘭芳與孟小冬所謂「一時梅孟」孟生於上海,著名京劇女老生演員,有老生皇帝(冬皇)之譽。
1927年與梅蘭芳結婚,1933年離異。
1950年與杒月笙結為夫婦孟小冬趙一曼東北抗日聯軍第三軍二團政委張可翻譯家、戲劇學者,1919年出生于蘇州一世家,其伯祖父是民國初年曾任大總統府秘書長的張一麐,祖父張一鵬曾任蔡鍔秘書。
父親張偉如留美學化學歸國,與蔡元培之子蔡無忌共事於上海商檢局。
王元化(余秋雨的老師)的妻子。
蝴蝶民國第一影星蝴蝶林徽音畢業照林徽音(右一)林徽音。