华南理工大学生物医学电子综合2018考研真题
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题866_无机化学
．＼866华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（ 试卷上做答无效 ，请在答题纸上做答 ，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回） I./8.一·般同族元素的金属性随着原子序数的增加而增强 ，下列各族中例外的是 （(A) IVA(B) IA (C) IB (D) VIA9.与波函数视为同义语的是（科目名称 ：无机化学 适用专业 ：无机化学 ：物理化学共 5 页(A ） 概率密度(B ） 电子云(C ） 原子轨道(D ） 原子轨道的角度分布图10.首先对原子结构提出核模型的科学家是 （ ）。
一、选择题 （ 每题 2 分 ，共 60 分）1.在同一容器中充入下列气体各 1.0 克，其中分压最大的物质是 （ ）。
(A ） 汤姆生 （ Thomson )(C) 莫塞莱 （ Mosely )(B ） 卢瑟福 （ Rutherford )(D ） 查德威克 （ Chadwick )(A) C02. (B) 02 (C) Ne (D) N22.平衡系统 ：2Cl2(g ） 十 2H20(g ） 件 4HCl(g) + 02(g ）中 。
保持温度和体积不变 ，通入惰1 1.·F 列各元素的原子排列中 ，电负性减少顺序正确的是（(A) K>Na>Li(B) O>Cl>H(C) As>P>H(D) Cr>N>Hg性气体 ，则 HCI 的量（）。
(A ） 增加(B ）不变(C) 减少(D ）不能确定3.某基元反应 A + B →D 的 Ea C 正） = 600 KJ·mor1 , Ea （ 逆） =150 ，则反应的L'l,H8m12.一基态原子的第五电子层只有 2 个电子 ，贝IJ 亥i 为（）。
原子的第四电子层上的电子数可能(A) 8 (B) 18 (C) 8-18 (D) 18-32是（13.某元素 X 的逐级电离能 （ KJ·mor1 ） 分别为 740 、1500、7700 、10500、13000、18000、 (A) 450 KJ·mor '(B) -450 KJ·mor1(C) 750 KJ·mor'(D) 375 KJ·mor'4月HAc C K8α l.75x l0-5 ） 和 NaAc 溶液配制 pH=4.50 的缓冲溶液 ，c(HAc)/c(NaAc)=21700 。
华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年862电子技术基础(含数字与模拟电路)
0
1
100
1
101
0
101
1
1
110
0
110
1
1
111
0
0
111
1
0
9. （20 分）电路如图 8 所示，其中 RA=RB=5k，C=0.1f，试回答： （1）在为 Uk 高电平期间，由 555 定时器构成的是什么电路？求输出 Uo 的频率 f0。 （2）分析由 JK 触发器 FF1、FF2、FF3 构成的计数器电路，要求：写出驱动方程和 状态方程，画出完整的状态转换图； （3）设 Q3、Q2、Q1 的初始状态为 000，Uk 所加正脉冲的宽度为 TW=7/f0，脉冲过后 Q3、Q2、Q1 将保持在哪个状态？
第 1页
图3 4. （20 分）图 4 所示的电路，集成运放是理想的，请作如下分析： （1）. T1 和 T2，T3 和 T4 各构成什么电路？理想运放和 R6、R7、R8 构成什么电路？ （2）. 试计算 IO，UC2Q（A 点对地的直流电压）的数值，设 UBEQ=0.7V，UCC=12V，
R2=2k； （3）. 写出整个电路的增益 AU=UO/UI 的表达式； （4）. 为进一步提高输出电压的稳定性，增大输入电阻，试正确引入合理的负反馈
电流放大系数为，b-e 间动态电阻为 rbe ，Rw 的滑动端在中点。
(a)
(b)
(c ) 题5图 6. (12 分)有三个开关安装在一个房间的三个位置，用于控制同一盏电灯，设计一个逻 辑电路，要求改动任何一个开关的状态都能控制电灯由亮变灭或由灭变亮。要求使用 题 6 图所示的 4 选 1 数据选择器，此数据选择器输出的逻辑式为
图 8 题 9 电路图
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题831_社会保障学
...
831
华南理工大学
2021年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷〔试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回〕科目
名称：社会保障学
适用专业：社会保障
共1页一、名词解释〔每题10 分，共计50 分〕
1、?贝弗里奇报告?
2、强制储蓄型模式
3、农村五保制度
4、现收现付式
5、企业年金
二、简答题〔每题17 分，共计 51 分〕
1、社会保障制度在经济领域的调节功能有哪些？
2、社会保障与家庭政策有何关系？
3、在医疗保险中政府一般承担哪些责任？
三、论述题〔共计49 分〕
在我国一些老人与子女同住，帮其照看子女，分担家务，试结合十九大相关精神、
用社会保障相关理论分析这种养老模式的利弊。
第1页
...。
华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年624微生物学
624
华南理工大学
2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：微生物学
适用专业：生理学，微生物学，生物化学与分子生物学
华南理工大学
2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：微生物学
适用专业：生理学；微生物学；生物化学与分子生物学
华南理工大学
2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：微生物学
适用专业：生物学。
华南理工大学考研试题2017年-2018年349药学综合
31. 药理学是（ ） A. 研究药物代谢动力学的科学 B. 研究药物效应动力学的学科
第6页
C. 研究药物与机体相互作用及其作用规律学科 D. 与药物有关的生理学科 E. 研究药物的学科
32. 在酸性溶液中弱碱性药物（ ） A. 解离少，再吸收多，排泄慢 B. 解离多，再吸收少，排泄快 C. 解离少，再吸收少，排泄快 D. 解离多，再吸收多，排泄慢 E. 排泄速度不变
三、简单题（共 8 题，每题 10 分，共 80 分）
1. 简述药物的脂水分配系数对药物生物活性的影响。
2. 解释前药定义，并举例说明前药原理的意义。
3. 药物制剂按照给药途径如何分类及详细剂型。
第8页
4. 简述透皮给药系统及其优点。 5. 药品质量标准分析方法验证主要包括哪些效能指标。 6. 简述原料药稳定性实验的目的和内容。 7. 零级消除动力学与一级消除动力学各有何特点。 8. 治疗慢性新功能不全的药物分类？主要代表药物有哪些？ 四、综合题（共 3 题，每题 20 分，共 60 分） 1. 以青霉素和头孢菌素为例阐释β-内酰胺抗生素的结构特点，并简述如何合理使用 抗生素？ 2. 什么是药物给药系统？其特点是什么？ 3. 请阐述药理学在新药研发中的作用和地位。
D 止血敏的含量
E 以上都不对
12. 缓释、控释制剂的设计生物利用度，为普通制剂的（ ） A. 80%-120% B. 100%-120% C. 120%-140% D. 110%-130%
13. 胃内膨胀型滞留制剂：人的幽门功能是作为机械阀门来控制体积较大颗粒物体的 排除，通过剂型变大来延长胃内滞留时间，那么人幽门的直径为（ ） A. 13.2 ± 5 mm B. 11.9 ± 4 mm C. 12.8 ± 7 mm D. 10.6 ± 8 mm
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试
626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题828_电气工程综合
A‘，、6，’－r飞zu 。
8288华南理工大学 6.在纯电感负载作星形连接的三相对称电路中，电源线电压为380V，各相电感的J惑2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一向交回）科目名称：电气工程综合适用专业F电机与电器：、电力系统及其自动化：高电压与绝缘技术：电力电子与电力传动；电工理论与新技术共5页一、填空题〈每题5 分，共60分〉抗XL=22Q，则三相负载的无功功率大小为（）。
7. 图5 所示电路中，己知u( t )= (100 + 80v'2-cos(mt + 30°) + 18y2cos(3mt)] V , R=6kQ,(J)L=2kQ，土＝18kQ，则电压表的读数为（〉。
CtJC2 kQl.图l所示电路的输入电阻为（〉。
R L2 A Jc图l 图22.图2所示电路中，元件A吸收的功率为〈）。
3. 图3 所示电路原已稳定，在t = O 瞬间将开关S 闭合，则i( OJ = C＋2 {li(t) E 也I H2 0图3图44.图4所示电路中，己知U8 = 2L0°V ,R =X l = Xe=l Q，则电压表的读数为l5.有一交流信号源，电动势E=120V，内阻Ro=800Q，通过理想变压器给I 值为8 Q 的电阻供电，则此电阻可获得的最大功率为（第 1 页图5 图68.图6所示电路中，运算放大器为理想运放，则电流i=(）。
9.一般来说，同步电机的运行状态包括（①）、（②〉和（＠）；汽轮发电机常采用（④〉结构，而低速、大容量的水轮发电机常采用（@)j 结构。
10.谐波的定义为（①〉，电流谐波总畸变率THDi的定义为（＠）。
单相桥式全控整流电路、三相桥式全控整流电路和移相30°串联2重联结电路输入电涮的最低谐波次数分别为（＠）、（④〉和（⑤）。
11.在各种负荷曲线中，日负荷曲线常用于（①）和（②），年最大负同曲线常用于〈＠）和l(④），年持续负荷曲线中最大负荷利用小时数的定义为（＠〉。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试
626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。
华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年801材料力学
801华南理工大学2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料力学适用专业：力学；机械工程；船舶与海洋工程；生物医学工程；机械工程(专业学位)；生物医学工程（专业学位)；车辆工程(专业学位)题三图分）矩形截面悬臂梁受力及尺寸如图示。
假想将梁沿中性层截开，试画出梁下半部分分离体的受力图，并列出其平衡方程。
题四图D 题八图801华南理工大学2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料力学适用专业：生物医学工程（理学）；力学；机械工程；船舶与海洋工程；生物医学工程（工学）；机械工程（专硕）；船舶与海洋工程（专硕）；生物医学工程（专硕）；车辆工程（专硕）题一图用实验方法确定钢材料的切变模量G时，其装置的示意图如图所示。
、直径d=10 mm的圆截面钢试件，其A端固定，B端有长与截面联成整体。
当在B端施加扭转力偶M e=15N·m时，测得=1.5 mm。
试求：题二图题三图题四图分）图示简支梁，由No.18 工字钢制成。
截面对中性轴的惯性矩一侧截面对中性轴的静矩max z S 的比值max :15.4cm z z I S =，腹板宽度3185cm 。
在外载作用下，测得C 截面中性轴上K 点处题五图题六图分）图示结构，AB为刚性梁，AC、AD、BE均为细长杆，且各杆材料和横截面尺寸均相同。
已知杆的弹性模量、横截面面积、截面惯性半径分别为题七图分）平均半径为R的开口细圆环，横截面是直径为d的圆形，开口处两端点F，且F垂直于圆环中线所在的平面（如图）。
已知材料的弹性模量，试求两个力F作用点之间的线位移。
题八图801B华南理工大学2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料力学适用专业：力学；机械工程；船舶与海洋工程；机械工程(专硕)；船舶与海洋工程(专硕)；车辆工程(专硕)（第二题图）（第三题图）（20分）直径D=40mm的铝圆柱，放在厚度δ=2mm的钢套筒内，设两者之间光滑无间隙套合。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题880_分析化学
880华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：分析化学适用专业：分析化学共13 页一、单项选择题【1-20 题每题1 分，21-30 题每题2 分】1. 按照酸碱质子理论，Na2HPO4是（）A．中性物质B．酸性物质C．碱性物质D．两性物质2. 下列有关随机误差的论述中不正确的是（）A．随机误差是由一些不确定的偶然因素造成的B．随机误差出现正误差和负误差的机会均等C．随机误差在分析测定中是不可避免的D．随机误差具有单向性3. 用氧化锌标定EDTA 溶液时，下列操作会导致EDTA 浓度偏高的是（）A．氧化锌未进行干燥B．滴定管洗净后，未用EDTA 溶液润洗C．滴定完成后，最终读数时，发现滴定管挂水珠D．最终读数时，终点颜色偏深4. 间接碘量法测定可溶性铜盐时，若放置一段时间后出现“回蓝”现象，则可能是由于（）A．反应不完全B．空气中O2氧化I-C．氧化还原反应速度慢D．淀粉指示剂变质5. 摩尔法测定Cl-，控制溶液pH=4.0，其滴定终点将（）A．不受影响B．提前到达C．推迟到达D．刚好等于化学计量点6. 用高锰酸钾法测定铁，一般使用硫酸而不是盐酸调节酸度，其主要原因是（）A．盐酸有挥发性B．硫酸可以起催化作用C．盐酸强度不够D．Cl-可能与KMnO4 反应7. AgCl 在0.01mol/L HCl 中溶解度比在纯水中小，是（）的结果。
A．共同离子效应B．酸效应C．盐效应D．配位效应8. 氧化还原反应的条件平衡常数与下列哪个因素无关（）A．氧化剂与还原剂的初始浓度B．氧化剂与还原剂的副反应系数C．两个半反应电对的标准电位D．反应中两个电对的电子转移数9. pH 玻璃电极使用前必须在水中浸泡，其主要目的是（）A．清洗电极B．活化电极C．校正电极D．清除吸附杂质10. 用氟离子选择性电极测定水中（含有微量的Fe3+、Al3+、Ca2+、Cl-）的氟离子时，应选用的离子强度调节缓冲溶液为（）A．0.1 mol/L KNO3B．0.1 mol/L NaOHC．0.1 mol/L 柠檬酸钠（pH 调至5-6）D．0.1 mol/L NaAc（pH 调至5-6）11. 在正相色谱柱上分离含物质1,2,3 的混合物，其极性大小依次为：物质1>物质2>物质3，其保留时间t 的相对大小依次为（）A．t1>t2>t3B．t1<t2<t3C．t2>t1>t3D．t2<t1<t312. 常用于评价色谱分离条件选择是否适宜的参数是（）A．理论塔板数B．塔板高度C．分离度D．死时间13. 在符合朗伯-比尔定律的范围内，有色物质的浓度、最大吸收波长、吸光度三者的关系是（）A．增加、增加、增加B．减小、不变、减小C．减小、增加、增加D．增加、不变、减小14. 下列仪器分析方法中适宜采用内标法定量的是（）A. 紫外-可见分光光度法B. 原子吸收光谱法C. 色谱分析法D. 极谱分析法15. 用0.10 mol/L NaOH 滴定同浓度HAc（pKa=4.74）的pH 突跃范围为7.7~9.7。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题815_普通化学
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题815_普通化学815华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：普通化学适用专业：安全科学与工程；安全工程(专硕)共页(C) NH 3(D) Cl - 8. 与金属的导电性和导热性有关的是（）(A) 原子半径的大小(B) 最外层电子数的多少 (C) 金属的活泼性(D) 自由电子 9.下列分子中，不是以 SP 3 杂化轨道成键的是（）(A) CH 4(B)H 2O (C) BF 3(D) NH 3 10. 下列说法正确的是（）θ θ θ θ(A) 标准状态下，稳定单质的 ? f H m 、 ?c H m 、 ?c G m 和 S m 都为零(B) 温度对化学反应的 ?r G m 和 ?r S m 影响都很小，但对 ?r H m 的影响很大(C) 某一化学反应若为放热、熵增，则一定是自发过程(D) 因 Q p = ?H ，所以等压过程才有焓变11. 根据下列反应构成原电池，其电池符号为（）Fe 2+ + Ag + → Fe 3+ + Ag(A) （-）Fe 2+︱Fe 3+｜︳Ag +︱Ag （+）(B) （-）Pt ︱Fe 2+︱Fe 3+｜︳Ag +︱Ag （+）(C) （-）Pt ︱Fe 2+, Fe 3+｜︳Ag +, Ag ︱Pt （+）(D) （-）Pt ︱Fe 2+, Fe 3+｜︳Ag +︱Ag （+）12. 下列物质中，哪个是非极性分子（）(A) H 2O (B) CH 4 (C) HBr (D) NH 313. 在醋酸溶液中加入固体醋酸钠后，醋酸的离解度（）(A) 没变化 (B) 微有上升 (C) 剧烈上升 (D) 下降14. 在高分子材料中，T g 高于室温的高分子化合物称为（）(A) 橡胶 (B) 塑料 (C) 树脂 (D) 尼龙15. 下列化合物中，碱性最强的是（）(A) (CH3)3N (B) (CH3)2NH (C) (CF3)3N (D) NH316. 埋在土或沙土中铁的腐蚀属于以下哪种类型的腐蚀？（）(A) 化学腐蚀(B) 析氢腐蚀(C) 浓差腐蚀(D) 缝隙腐蚀17. 某一反应在一定条件下的平衡转化率为33.3%，当有一催化剂存在时，其转化率是（）(A )>33.3% (B) =33.3% (C) <33.3% (D) ~100%18. NH3 溶于水后，分子间产生的作用力有（）(A) 取向力和色散力(B) 取向力和诱导力(C) 诱导力和色散力(D) 取向力、色散力、诱导力和氢键19. 某元素原子基态的电子构型为1S22S22P63S23P5，它在周期表中的位置是（）(A) P 区ⅦA 族(B) S 区ⅡA 族(C)ds 区ⅡB 族(D) P 区ⅥA 族20. 2,2-二甲基-4-乙基己烷分子中的碳原子数是（）(A) 8 (B) 6 (C) 12 (D) 10二、填空题（每空2 分，共60 分）1. 温度升高可以增加反应速率，其主要原因是因为。
华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年845材料物理化学
845华南理工大学2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料物理化学适用专业：生物医学工程，材料学，材料工程(专业学位)，生物医学工程(专业学位))K105.39 MgO多晶材料中845华南理工大学2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料物理化学适用专业：生物医学工程（理学）；材料学；材料工程（专硕)；生物医学工程（专硕）烧结中，加入少量Cr2O3或TiO2可促进烧结，且后者效果更好，请说明原的CdO的氧离子扩散系数与温度的关系如图，请分析：扩散系数出现折线的原因；（2）各段折线的扩散系数表达式及扩散激活能的差异。
脆性是无机材料主要的性能特征，材料的结构决定性能，请说明无机材料呈现脆性的原因，并举例说明如何通过显微结构设计改善无机材料的脆性。
K2O-Al2O3-SiO2三元系统相图（重量%）Al2O3·6SiO2）1170˚C分解，白榴石KAS一致熔融，和KAS，请回答下列问题：中各相界线的温度下降的方向，并说明图中点（重量%）845华南理工大学2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料物理化学适用专业：生物医学工程；材料科学与工程；材料工程(专硕)；生物医学工程(专硕)R R和16R R图1ＡＢ图24、固相反应速率很大程度上受到反应物活性的影响，请问哪些因素会影响反应物活性？图3、氧化锆（ZrO2）是一类重要的耐火材料。
试用热力学方法分析ZrO2在含氢还原气氛中的稳定性。
已知在考虑的温度范围内,氢气压25 1.01310Hp=⨯Pa，有关热力学数物质∆H298Θ（kJ/mol）∆Φ’T(J/(mol⋅K))1000K 1400K 1800K2-1097.463 83.703 101.608 117.2590 145.403 152.906 159.1230 52.95 61.17 67.94 O -241.814 206.716 216.285 224.487图4。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题860_普通物理(含力、热、电、光学)
-m2 V 1 .线温等为CG线 虚 中图’hu la－'P Lw h －G R 俨l i l －－L rn Ef $4过Ch ！－OL W ’r E’1程 判是Md 川热吸 口玉 咄L 还’过 体－ 线热气 ，肉强 吸 阳山 l 姥 色 刷 拙J ：i线 柑川 机川川执…M热勾 虚 两 这 断 · 队 放 但 吸 F F 吸 程中 惆 热程 程 放 叩2阳－1 ．860华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（ 试卷上做答无效 ，请在答题纸上做答 ，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回〉 。
d科目名称 ：普通物理（含力 、热、电、光学） 适用专业 ：理论物理：凝聚态物理 ：声学：光学；材料科学与工程 ：物理电子学 ：共 f 页 。
;7' v材料工程（专硕）一、选择题 （共 48 分，每题 4 分〉l 、几个不同倾角的光滑斜面 ，有共同的底边 ，顶点也在同一坚直面上 ．若使一物倒（ 视为质点） 从斜面上端由静止滑到下端的时间最短 ，则斜面的倾角应选(A) 60。
. (B) 45° . (C) 30。
.(D) 15。
．［］2、某物体的运动规律为 d v / d t = -k v 勺 ，式中的 k 为大于零的常量 ．当t = O 时，初速为 Vo ，则速度 U 与时间 t 的函数关系是(D) abc 过程和 def 过程都放热． ［］6、一定量的理想气体经历 二cb 过程时吸热500 J. 则经历 cbda 过程时 ，吸热为(A ） 马200 J. (B ） 一700 J.p （×105 Pa)(A) v=kt 2 叫(C) -400 J .(D) 700 J.。
V （ 10-3 m3)1 kt2 1(C) 一＝－－：：－－ ＋一’ ， U 二L Vo3、一质量为 m 的质点，在半径为 R 的半球形容器中 ，由静止开始自边缘上的 A 点滑 下，到达最低点 B 时，它对容器的正压力为N. 则质点自 A℃!57［ ］47、一铜板厚度为 D= l .OO mm ，放罩在磁感强度为 B= 1.35 T 的匀强磁场中，磁场方｜向垂直于导体的侧表面 ，如图所示 ，现测得铜板上下两面电势差为 V=1.10×10 5 v ，己B 知铜板中自 由电子数密度 n =4.20 ×102s m 3, 滑到 B 的过程中，摩擦力对其作的功为A(A） 护（N 训 电子电荷 e=l.60 ×10-19 c，则此铜板中的电 歹争叶阳一mg ) .(D)i R( N 切）［］8、如图所示 ．一电荷为 q 的点电荷，以匀角速度ω作圆周 运动 ，圆周的半径为 R. 设 t = O 时 q 所在点的坐标为 xo = R , 4、如图，两木块质量为 m1 和 叫，由一轻弹簧连接，放在光滑水平桌面上 ，先使网木块靠近而将弹簧压紧 ，然后由静止释放 ．若在弹簧伸长到原长时，m1 的速率为 V1,则弹簧原来在压缩状态时所具有的势能是o = O ，以T , ］ 分别表示 x 轴和 y 轴上的单位矢景 ，则圆心处 点的位移电流密度为 ：1 m1 + m2 2总 二点点达-2.口._L 二sm w t Iqw『x(i )(A) 一m 1V12(B) (A)(B)一一一τcos mt J2 m1 4 π R 24πRqw -qw-1 m1 + m2 z(C)一一k(D)一 丁（sin wti - c os mtj) (C)三（m1 + m2 ) V 1 .(D ) -m1V 1 . 4πR 22 m24πR第页第 2 页\Y i u )－E Er 饨A ～「， D G的一市民川r E F图nu 品UF 历经。