Cephalopod camou?age (or crypsis) is among the most sophisticated in the animal kingdom because the neurally controlled chromatophores permit a diverse repertoire of body patterning that can be changed instantly (e.g. Hanlon and Messenger, 1996). The extraordinary patterns in the skin are mainly under visual control (Hanlon and Messenger, 1988; Marshall and Messenger, 1996). While the body patterns of cuttle?sh such as Sepia officinalis have been well characterized (Hanlon and Messenger, 1988), it is not yet understood how the cuttle?sh brain controls this patterning (see Boycott, 1961; Packard, 1995). Since cephalopods change their body patterning almost entirely as a result of visual input, applying a de?ned visual stimulus and recording the corresponding body patterning (i.e. motor output) allows aspects of visual perception to be examined (Marshall and Messenger, 1996; see also Saidel, 1988; Ramachandran et al., 1996). Using a behavioral approach, we report here the kinds of potential visual information that young cuttle?sh, Sepia pharaonis, use to control body patterning for camou?age on diverse backgrounds. Cuttle?sh use tens of skin patterns for camou?age on benthic substrata, yet the repertoire can be grouped into three general categories of pattern: uniformly stippled, mottled and disruptive (Hanlon and Messenger, 1988). We measured only the extremes of this continuum, looking particularly for visual features of the substratum that would produce a change from uniformly stippled to the disruptive body patterns that can be so effective for camou?age (Fig.1). Cephalopod body patterns can be analyzed into their ‘components’, which may be postural, locomotor, textural or chromatic (Packard and Hochberg, 1977). The chromatic components, which result mostly from direct neural control of skin patterns, are discrete entities that can number 15–45 in different species. There are several chromatic components that are particularly well de?ned and are major contributors to the disruptive patterns; these are the components White square and White mantle bar on the mantle, and the transverse White head bar (outlined in Fig.2). These chromatic components can be thought of not only as morphological units in the skin but also as physiological units in the brain (Packard, 1982). That is, expression of these morphological units is determined by the physiological units in the brain of cuttle?sh that control the skin through the pathway: visual input → eyes →optical lobes →lateral basal lobes →chromatophore lobes →skin. Thus, the appearance of certain chromatic components against well-de?ned backgrounds may give us clues about the
2119
The Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 2119–2125 (2001) Printed in Great Britain ?The Company of Biologists Limited 2001 JEB3276
2120
visual perception and neural processing of body patterning. Since the major chromatic components of the disruptive body patterns of Sepia spp. are white rectangles, splotches and bars, we decided to test various features of dark and light substrata whose features we could control with some precision. A similar approach has been applied in ?at?sh (Ramachandran et al., 1996) to examine basic components of the skin patterns. In the present study, black/white checkerboard patterns with various sizes (experiment 1) and contrasts (experiment 2) were used to determine which visual features cuttle?sh use to select disruptive patterns in the skin. Then, in experiment 3, various numbers of regularly spaced white squares in the black background were used to examine more closely the effects of background features on the expression of disruptive body patterns.
Materials and methods
Six young cuttle?sh, Sepia pharaonis(8–12cm mantle length), were reared from eggs in the laboratory of the National Research Center for Cephalopods (University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA) and were maintained in the Marine Resources Center at the Marine Biological Laboratory. Cuttle?sh were 10 weeks old at the beginning of the experiments and 20 weeks old at the end. Each animal was placed in a running seawater tank (25cm×40cm×10cm) and was restricted by a four-wall divider to an area (20cm×26cm) where various computer-generated backgrounds (laminated to be waterproof) were presented as the substratum. A digital video camera was used to record the body patterning of S. pharaonis over a period of 30min (i.e. to record for 2s in every 1min period; to give a total of 60s recorded for each cuttle?sh on each substratum). In nature, it has been observed that cuttle?sh can match their body pattern to the background within a second or so (Hanlon and Messenger, 1988). However, cuttle?sh cannot perfectly match backgrounds that are completely arti?cial (e.g. checkerboard patterns). Furthermore, it was imperative to wait until the cuttle?sh were acclimated to the tank, and this could sometimes take several hours. Acclimation was gauged by the cessation of excessive swimming and hovering movements and by the chronic expression of a stable body pattern. Nevertheless, once acclimated, S. pharaonis showed various grades of disruptive patterns based on certain features of these well-de?ned backgrounds. Therefore, we sought to quantify the corresponding body patterns as functions of the known and controlled features of the checkerboard (i.e. the size and the contrast of each square and the number of white squares).
A simple grading scheme of patterning (Fig.2) was used to determine the responses of the animals to different substrata. The assigned grades were: 1, uniformly stippled pattern; 2, indistinct pattern; 3, disruptive pattern. We graded ‘1’ if the animal was uniformly stippled, ‘3’ if it clearly and distinctively showed the White square or White mantle bar on its mantle, and ‘2’ if it showed anything in between. For example, in grade 2, there were elements of both a uniform stipple and a partial disruptive pattern (see Fig.3, Fig.4, Fig.5). Fig.2
B illustrates some details of grading the White square. Often only a part of the White square on the animal’s mantle was expressed unilaterally (e.g. Fig.3B) or the White square itself was not uniformly white (e.g. Fig.2B, Fig.3D). We did not grade the White head bar, nor did we assess features such as the dark contrast of skin on other parts of the mantle. Grading was conducted by playing the video tape back and assigning a grade (whole integer, 1–3) every 10s. Thus, since all tapes lasted 60s, six grades were determined for each animal on each substratum. The mean values (and overall standard deviation) of all animals combined were plotted in the ?gures.
For testing different checker sizes (experiment 1), we chose a variety of square sizes that ranged from slightly larger than the White square on the mantle to much smaller than the White square on the mantle (note that the White square is not truly square, but rectangular; see Fig.1). To test contrast (experiment 2), we chose the checker size that gave the highest grade of disruptive pattern in experiment 1, and we varied only the percentage of contrast while keeping the mean intensity the
C.-C. C HIAO AND R. T. H ANLON
Fig.1. Disruptive body patterning by a young cuttle?sh on a rocky substratum. Notice the strongly expressed ‘White square’ chromatic component on the mantle of the animal that resembles other randomly scattered white rocks amidst the substratum. Scale bar, 9mm.
2121
Cuttle?sh camou?age same for all checkerboards. The contrast here is de?ned as (I white ?I black
)/(I white +I black ), where I
is the intensity value of black/white squares. For testing the number of white checker squares (experiment 3), we again chose the checker size that gave the highest grade of disruptive pattern in experiment 1,and varied only the number of white squares in the black background. Note that we distributed the white squares regularly (not randomly) across the space, so that there was a
greater likelihood of both eyes of the cuttle?sh seeing a similar number (or proportion) of them. To be consistent with the existing literature on cephalopod skin patterning (e.g. Hanlon and Messenger, 1988; Hanlon and Messenger, 1996; Packard,1995), we capitalize the ?rst word of the formal name of the chromatic components in the skin (e.g. White square).Results
Thirteen trials were conducted over the course of 10 weeks:four cuttle?sh were run through experiment 1, ?ve through experiment 2 and four through experiment 3. Video examples are available on the Journal of Experimental Biology website to support the data and ?gures presented herein (https://www.doczj.com/doc/9e12480922.html,/JEB/movies/jeb3276.html).
In experiment 1, we tested substratum checker sizes of 2.6,6.5, 13.0, 19.5 and 26.0mm. The White square component on the dorsal mantle of the cuttle?sh was approximately 18–22mm (long dimension). Cuttle?sh generally showed uniformly stippled body patterns when the checker size was 2.6 or 26.0mm (Fig.3A,E). Checker sizes of 6.5 and 19.5mm produced mixtures of patterning in which the White square was partially expressed (e.g. Fig.3B,D; see also Fig.2B, grade 2).With a checker size of 13.0mm, the cuttle?sh almost always showed a consistent and clear expression of White square (Fig.3C,F; see also Fig.2B, grade 3). The white checkers were approximately half the size of the White square component (Fig.3C). The same trend of expression was seen in the White head bar, which is not present in Fig.3A,E, but is slightly expressed in Fig.3B,D and most strongly expressed in Fig.3C with 13.0mm squares.In experiment 2, we altered the contrast between black and white squares by presenting checkerboards at different contrast values: 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100% (note that no unit value can be assigned since this is a relative measurement). The White square was expressed occasionally at 10% contrast (Fig.4A),but its incidence and clarity of expression increased at 20 and 30% contrast (Fig.4B,C). The clearest responses occurred at 50 and 100% contrast (Fig.4D,E). There was no clear threshold at which visual contrast suddenly induced all of the cuttle?sh to produce the White square (Fig.4F). It is evident from Fig.4B–D that White square could be shown in different gradations, particularly within the square. For example,Fig.4B,C were scored as ‘2’ because there are dark stipples within the square, whereas in Fig.4D,E, a score of ‘3’ was assigned because fewer or no stipples were present within the square, resulting in a whiter and thus stronger disruptive effect.Furthermore, note that the White head bar was not expressed at 10% contrast, slightly expressed at 20 and 30% contrast and expressed most strongly at 50 and 100% contrast.
In experiment 3, we tested various numbers of regularly spaced white squares on a black background, all with 100%contrast (note that our standard checkerboard pattern had 160white squares and 160 black squares, each with 13.0mm sides).First, on a completely black background (i.e. no white squares;Fig.5A), no cuttle?sh showed the White square component on its mantle. Second, when only four white squares were present (out of a total of 320 black and white squares, or 1.25%), some cuttle?sh showed partial White squares (Fig.5B). Third, when 20 white squares (or 6.25% of the 320) were present, the White square on the mantle was shown often, albeit in various forms with other chromatic components (Fig.5C). Fourth, with increased numbers (i.e. proportions) of white squares, the frequency and clarity of expression of the White square chromatic component did not increase substantially (Fig.5D,E),as indicated by the fairly large amount of variation (note the standard deviations in Fig.5F). Note also that the White head bar was absent when no white squares were present, that it was expressed vaguely with four white squares, yet it was expressed strongly with 20 or more white squares on the substratum.
Fig.2. Grading criteria for judging disruptive coloration in young cuttle?sh. (A) Cuttle?sh outline showing (i) the White square, (ii) the White mantle bar (which includes the White square) and (iii) the White head bar. (B) Actual close-up images of the White square on the cuttle?sh shown in Fig.3 to illustrate different expressions that were used to assign grades 1, 2 and 3. Compare Figs 3–5. Images are life-size and exactly the same region of skin.
(a)
Gr a de 1 Gr a de 2 Gr a de 3
(a)i
ii
iii A B
2122 C.-C. C HIAO AND R. T. H ANLON
A B C
D E
2123
Cuttle?sh camou?age
A B C
D E
2124 C.-C. C HIAO AND R. T. H ANLON
A B C
D E
2125 Cuttle?sh camou?age
stippled patterns depending on the checker size. Although cuttle?sh possess a large repertoire of patterns, including mottled patterns, they did not use mottling because this does not camou?age as well on checkerboards as do disruptive patterns. In this respect, the more re?ned skin of cuttle?sh (with its neural correlates) imparts a more ?exible and adaptive system for camou?age than that of ?at?shes. Nevertheless, both organisms provide behavioral assays (manifest through adaptive skin) that provide insights into visual perception. From knowledge of the natural habitat of Sepia spp. (e.g. Boletzky, 1983; Hanlon and Messenger, 1988; Hanlon and Messenger, 1996), one would predict that checkerboard substrata would be extremely unnatural and challenging for cuttle?sh to adapt to. Nevertheless, the cuttle?sh did attempt to match these arti?cial substrata and respond to changes in their features. Our use of checkerboards as the substratum was appropriate only insofar as we were testing for the presence/absence of the White square component in cuttle?sh. Our results revealed two ideas worthy of future investigation. First, it is probably not the shape per se(i.e. square) that is most important to the cuttle?sh for producing disruptive patterns, but the contrast and size of an object in the substratum background. Second, Fig.5B–E (which shows some mottled skin patterns) provides clues about how to test for mottled patterns using various combinations of different sizes, contrasts and numbers of light objects against dark backgrounds. Further analyses of the spatial frequency components of the experimental substrata may also shed light on the mechanism of skin patterning (e.g. principal component analysis in ?at?sh, Ramachandran et al., 1996; independent component analysis in both ?at?sh and cuttle?sh, J.
C. Anderson, R. J. Baddeley,
D. Osorio, N. Shashar, C. W. Tyler, V. S. Ramachadran, A. C. Crook and R. T. Hanlon, in preparation). Sepia spp. may provide a particularly good model of visual perception because the rigid mantle (due to the presence of the cuttlebone) presents an immovable and non-?exible body part that relies on ?ne-tuned skin patterning to achieve a wide range of optical illusions. As pointed out previously (Hanlon and Messenger, 1988), the wide range of disruptive patterns shown by Sepia spp. are carried out with ?ve light chromatic and six dark chromatic components of patterning; we concentrated on only two of these: the White square and White head bar. Perhaps most useful for future studies is the fact that several optical principles of disruption (?rst mentioned by Cott, 1940) are found in Sepia spp. and are illustrated in Fig.1. These include ?rst the principle of differential blending, achieved when some chromatic components blend with the substratum while others contrast sharply with it, thus allowing some body parts to stand out and others to fade away. In addition, the principle of maximum disruptive contrast operates when adjacent components of the pattern have great tonal contrast and, thus, provide a strong disruptive function. In another principle, that of adjacent contrast, a broken visual pattern made up of sudden transitions of color, sharply contrasted passages of tone and of irregular shapes of all kinds results in an image of multiple objects rather than parts of one form. Finally, gradations of tone within individual components such as the White square can also produce the visual illusion of relief to a human observer, giving the impression that the square is elevated or depressed, making it seem even more separate from the body. Thus, it is clear that aspects of grading the resultant skin patterning can be re?ned and correlated with increasingly sophisticated substrata, both of which could be quanti?ed in a manner not attempted in this initial experiment. This work was supported by a Grass Foundation Fellowship to C.-C.C. We thank Janice Hanley, Bill Mebane, Jim Carroll and Hazel Richmond for help with cuttle?sh rearing and maintenance and Gabrielle Santore for manuscript preparation. We are also grateful for discussions with Tom Cronin, Nadav Shashar, John Messenger, Daniel Osorio, Bill Saidel, Roland Baddeley and Richard Masland.
References
Boletzky, S. v.(1983). Sepia officinalis. In Cephalopod Life Cycles, vol. I, Species Accounts(ed. P. R. Boyle), pp. 31–52. London: Academic Press. Boycott, B. B.(1961). The functional organization of the brain of the cuttle?sh Sepia officinalis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B153, 503–534.
Burton, D.(1981). Physiological responses of melanophores and xanthophores of hypophysectomized and spinal winter ?ounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus Walbaum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 213, 217–231.
Cott, H. B.(1940). Adaptive Coloration in Animals. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.
Edmunds, M.(1974). Defence in Animals. A Survey of Anti-Predator Defences.New York: Longman Group, Ltd.
Endler, J. A.(1991). Interactions between predator and prey. In Behavioural Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach(ed. J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies), pp. 169–196. Oxford: Blackwell Scienti?c Publications.
Hanlon, R. T., Forsythe, J. W. and Joneschild, D. E.(1999). Crypsis, conspicuousness, mimicry and polyphenism as antipredator defences of foraging octopuses on Indo-Paci?c coral reefs, with a method of quantifying crypsis from video tapes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.66, 1–22.
Hanlon, R. T. and Messenger, J. B.(1988). Adaptive coloration in young cuttle?sh (Sepia officinalis L.): The morphology and development of body patterns and their relation to behaviour. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B320, 437–487.
Hanlon, R. T. and Messenger, J. B.(1996). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, W.(1940). The colour changes and colour patterns of Sepia officinalis L. Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond.110, 2–35.
Marshall, N. J. and Messenger, J. B.(1996). Colour-blind camou?age. Nature382, 408–409.
Mast, S. O.(1916). Changes in shape, color and pattern in ?shes and their bearing on the problems of adaptation and behavior, with special reference to the ?ounders, Paralichthys and Ancylopsetta. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish.34, 173–238. Messenger, J. B.(1991). Photoreception and vision in molluscs. In Evolution of the Eye and Visual System(ed. J. R. Cronly-Dillon and R. L. Gregory), pp. 364–367. London: Macmillan Press.
Packard, A.(1982). Morphogenesis of chromatophore patterns in cephalopods: Are morphological and physiological ‘units’ the same? Malacologia23, 193–201.
Packard, A.(1995). Organization of cephalopod chromatophore systems: A neuromuscular image-generator. In Cephalopod Neurobiology(ed. N. J. Abbott, R. Williamson and L. Maddock), pp. 331–367. New York: Oxford University Press.
Packard, A. and Hochberg, F. G.(1977). Skin patterning in Octopus and other genera. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond.38, 191–231.
Ramachandran, V. S., Tyler, C. W., Gregory, R. L., Rogers-Ramachandran, D., Duensing, S., Pillsbury, C. and Ramachandran, C.(1996). Rapid adaptive camou?age in tropical ?ounders. Nature379, 815–818.
Saidel, W. M.(1988). How to be unseen: An essay in obscurity. In Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals(ed. J. Atema, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper and W. N. Tavolga), pp. 487–513. New York: Springer-Verlag.
同步练习1 二、选择题 01——05 CADAB 06——10 ACDAB 11——15 CBDBB 同步练习2 二、选择题 01——05 ABDCA 06——10 CACBC 11——15 DADAD 16——20 BDBBB 三、填空题 1．可视 2．LEFT、TOP、WIDTH、HEIGHT 3．按字母顺序 4．查看代码 5．工具、编辑器 6．FORM窗体、FONT 7．MULTILINE 8．在运行时设计是无效的 9．工程、工程属性、通用、FORM1.SHOW 10．TABINDEX、0 同步练习3 二、选择题 01——05 BCADB 06——10 ADBBC 11——15 DBCBA 16——20 BAABB 三、填空题 1．整型、长整型、单精度型、双精度型 2．SIN(30*3.14/180)+SQR(X+EXP(3))/ABS(X-Y)-LOG(3*X) 3．164、今天是：3-19 4．FALSE 5．-4、3、-3、3、-4、4 6．CDEF 7．(X MOD 10)*10+X\10 8．(35\20)*20=20 ( 35 \ 20 )* 20 = 20 9．X MOD 3=0 OR X MOD 5=0 10．27.6、8.2、8、1、100、397、TRUE、FALSE 同步练习4 一、选择题 01——05 DBCAD 06——10 CBBAB
11——15 D25BAC 16——20 CBACB 21——25 DAABC 二、填空题 1．正确性、有穷性、可行性、有0个或多个输入、有1个或多个输出2．1 2 3 3．X>=7 4．X VB 课后练习题参考答案 第一章 一、 1、C 2、C 3、B 4、B 5、D 6、B 7、B 8、D 二、 1、学习版、专业版、企业版 2、alt+Q 或 alt+F4 3、.vbp 、 .frm 4、固定、浮动 5、"abcd"、"VB Programing" 6、属性窗口、运行 7、对象框、事件框 8、窗体模块、标准模块、类模块 第二章 一、 1、B 2、B 3、B 4、B 5、D 6、D 二、 1、((x+y)+z)*80-5*(C+D) 2、cos(x)*sin(sin(x)+1 3、2*a*(7+b) 4、8*EXP(3)*LOG(2) 5、good morning 、 good morning 6、2001/8/25 8 2001 7 第三章 一、 1、C 2、B 3、D 4、A 5、D 、 3 6、C 7、B 8、C 9、C 10、D 11、B 12、C 13、B 14、B 15、A 16、B 17、D 18、C 19、C 二、 1、AutoSize 2、text1.setfocus 3、0 、 0 4、 picture1.picture=loadpic ture("yy.gif") 5、stretch 6、interval 7、enable 8、下拉式组合框、简单组 合框、下拉式列表框、style 9、下拉式列表框 10、条目1 、条目3 11、欢迎您到中国来、 welcome to china!! 第四章 一、 1、B 2、C 3、C 4、B 5、C 6、B 7、C 8、B 9、D 10、A 11、B 12、A 13、B 14、D 15、A 16、B 17、A 18、C 19、B 二、 1、2542=57 2、beijing 3、002.45、2.449、 24.49e-01、-2.449 4、9 10 11 5、9 6、1 2 3 7、 iif(x<=0,y=0,iif(x<=10, y=5+2*x,iif(x<=15,y=x- 5,y=0))) 8、x=7 或 x>6 或 x>5 9、x>=0 、x 习题 一、单项选择题 1. 在设计阶段，当双击窗体上的某个控件时，所打开的窗体是_____。 A. 工程资源管路器窗口 B. 工具箱窗体 C. 代码窗体 D. 属性窗体 2. VB中对象的含义是_____。 A. 封装了数据和方法的实体 B. 封装的程序 C. 具有某些特性的具体事物的抽象 D. 创建对象实例的模板 3. 窗体Form1的Name属性是MyForm，它的单击事件过程名是_____。 A. MyForm_Click B. Form_Click C. Form1_Click D. Frm1_Click 4. 如果要改变窗体的标题，需要设置窗体对象的_____属性。 A. BackColor B. Name C. Caption D. Font 5. 若要取消窗体的最大化功能，可将其_____属性设置为False来实现。 A. Enabled B.ControlBox C. MinButton D. MaxButton 6. 若要以代码方式设置窗体中显示文本的字体大小，可通过设置窗体对象_____属性来实现。 A. Font B.FontName C.FontSize D. FontBold 7. 确定一个控件在窗体上位置的属性是_____。 A. Width或Height B. Width和Height C. Top或Left D. Top和Left 8. 以下属性中，不属于标签的属性是_____。 A. Enabled B. Default C. Font D. Caption 9. 若要设置标签控件中文本的对齐方式，可通过_____属性实现。 A.Align B. AutoSize C. Alignment D. BackStyle 10. 若要使标签控件的大小自动与所显示文本的大小相适宜，可将其_____属性设置为True来实现。 A.Align B. AutoSize C. Alignment D. Visible 11. 若要设置或返回文本框中的文本，可通过设置其_____属性来实现。 A.Caption B. Name C. Text D. （名称） 12. 若要设置文本框最大可接受的字符数，可通过设置其_____属性来实现。 A.MultiLine B. Max C. Length D. MaxLength 上海交通大学电气工程与自动化本科工程型—— 卓越工程师教育计划培养方案 一、学科专业及项目简介 电气工程与自动化专业是上海交通大学历史最悠久的专业，已逾百年，为国家培养了大批社会精英。 本专业目前为教育部“第一类特色专业”，也是教育部“卓越工程师”培养专业，体现强弱电、软硬件相结合的特色，将学生培养成为具有国际视野，具有综合运用所学的科学理论与技术方法从事与电气工程相关的系统运行和控制、电工技术应用、信息处理、试验分析、研制开发、工程管理以及计算机技术应用等领域的人才。本专业本科生在“全国大学生节能设计大赛”和“全国大学生电子设计大赛”等比赛中屡创佳绩。毕业生大量进入电力公司等国企、世界五百强企业，约1/3的学生进入国内外大学继续深造。 在《教育部关于实施卓越工程师教育培养计划的若干意见》文件引导下，我校电气工程与自动化专业被列入教育部第一批“卓越工程师教育培养计划”，为此，从2009级开始，电气工程与自动化专业每年有35名本科生按卓越工程师教育培养计划进行培养，其三个特点为：1）行业企业深度参与培养过程（共同制定培养计划，企业设立“工程实践教育中心”）；2）学校按通用标准和行业标准培养工程人才；3）强化培养学生的工程能力和创新能力。我校“电气工程与自动化”专业卓越工程师培养依托于上海交大电气工程一级学科及上海电气、上海电力、施耐德电气等企业和其他研究所。其特色为：1）学科基础好，电气工程一级学科拥有博士学位授予权，涵盖了电力系统及其自动化、高电压与绝缘技术、电机与电器、电力电子与电力传动、电工理论与新技术五个二级学科，其中电力系统及其自动化为国家重点培育学科。2）师资力量雄厚，电气工程系现有教职工98人，其中院士2人，以及一批在国内外有一定影响、承担国家及地方重大工程项目的中青年专家，并有一大批企业导师参与指导。该专业学位硕士点还依托教育部重点“电力传输与功率转换”实验室、高电压试验设备研究开发中心、风力发电研究中心、国家能源智能电网（上海）研发中心、上海市高压电器产品质量监督检验站，给学生们提供大量的实习、实践及参与各类科研项目的机会。 第5章数组与记录 5．1 填空题 1．若要定义一个包含10个字符串元素，且下界为1的一维数组s，则数组说明语句为（）。 答案：Dim s(1 To 10) As String 2．若要定义一个元素为整型数据的二维数组a，且第一维的下标从0到5，第二维下标从-3到6，则数组说明语句为（）。 答案：Dim a(0 To 5,-3 To 6) As Integer 3．如果数组元素的下标值为实数，则VB系统会按（）进行处理。 答案：四舍五入原则 4．数组元素个数可以改变的数组称为（）；数组元素可以存放不同类型数据的数组称为（）。 答案：可调数组、可变类型数组 5．数组刷新语句用于（）。若被刷新的数组是数值数组，则把所有元素置（）；若被刷新的数组为字符串数组，则把所有元素置（）。 答案：清除指定数组内容、０、空字符串 10．控件数组是由一组类型和（）相同的控件组成，共享（）。 答案：名字、同一个事件过程 11．控件数组中的每一个控件都有唯一的下标，下标值由（）属性指定。 答案：Index 12．建立控件数组有两种方法：（）和（）。 答案：在设计阶段通过相同Name属性值来建立、在程序代码中使用Load方法 5．2 选择题 1．下列一维数组说明语句错误的是（）。 a) Dim b(100) AS Double b) Dim b(-5 To 0) AS Byte c) Dim b(-10 To –20) AS Integer d) Dim b(5 To 5) AS String 答案：c 2．若有数组说明语句为：Dim a(-3 To 8)，则数组a包含元素的个数是（）。 a) 5 b) 8 c) 11 d) 12 答案：d 3．设有数组说明语句：Dim c(1 To 10)，则下面表示数组c的元素选项中（）是错误的。 a) c(i-1) b) c(5+0.5) c) c(0) d) c(10) 答案：c 4.下列数组说明语句中正确的是（）。 a) Dim a(-1 To 5,8)AS String b) Dim a(n,n)AS Integer c) Dim a(0 To 8,5 To –1)AS Single d) Dim a(10,-10)AS Double 电气工程基础课程设计(林 俊杰) -标准化文件发布号：（9456-EUATWK-MWUB-WUNN-INNUL-DDQTY-KII 电气工程基础课程设计题目：110kV降压变电站电气系统初步设计 学生姓名：林俊杰 专业：电气工程及其自动化 班级：电气0906班 学号：4 指导教师：罗毅 目录 变电站电气系统课程设计说明书 一、概述 1、设计目的———————————————————————————— 2、设计内容 3、设计要求 二、设计基础资料 1、待建变电站的建设规模 2、电力系统与待建变电站的连接情况 3、待建变电站负荷 三、主变压器与主接线设计 1、各电压等级的合计负载及类型 2、主变压器的选择 四、短路电流计算 1、基准值的选择 2、 一、概述 1、设计目的 （1）复习和巩固《电气工程基础》课程所学知识。 （2）培养和分析解决电力系统问题的能力。 （3）学习和掌握变电所电气部分设计的基本原理和设计方法。 2、设计内容 本课程设计只作电气系统的初步设计，不作施工设计和土建设计。 （1）主变压器选择：根据负荷主变压器的容量、型式、电压等级等。 （2）电气主接线设计：可靠性、经济性和灵活性。 （3）短路电流计算：电力系统侧按无限大容量系统供电处理； 用于设备选择时，按变电所最终规模考虑；用于保护整定计算时，按本期工程考虑；举例列出某点短路电流的详细计算过程，列表给出各点的短路电流计算结果S k、I”、I∞、I sh、T eq（其余点的详细计算过程在附录中列出）。 （4）选择主要电气设备：断路器、隔离开关、母线及支撑绝缘子、限流电抗器、电流互感器、电压互感器、高压熔断器、消弧线圈。每类设备举例列出一种设备的详细选择过程，列表对比给出选出的所有设备的参数及使用条件。（5）编写“××变电所电气部分设计”说明书，绘制电气主接线图（＃2图纸） 3、设计要求 （1）通过经济技术比较，确定电气主接线； （2）短路电流计算； （3）主变压器选择； （4）断路器和隔离开关选择； （5）导线（母线及出线）选择； （6）限流电抗器的选择（必要时）。 （7）完成上述设计的最低要求； （8）选择电压互感器； （9）选择电流互感器； （10）选择高压熔断器（必要时）； （11）选择支持绝缘子和穿墙套管； （12）选择消弧线圈（必要时）； （13）选择避雷器。 二、设计基础资料 1、待建变电站的建设规模 ⑴变电站类型： 110 kV降压变电站 ⑵三个电压等级： 110 kV、 35 kV、 10 kV ⑶ 110 kV：近期线路2回；远期线路 3回 35 kV：近期线路2回；远期线路4 回 VB语言练习题及答案 1、算法的计算量的大小称为算法的________。 （A）现实性（B）难度（C）复杂性（D）效率 2、设栈S和队列Q的初始状态为空。元素a、b、c、d、e、f依次通过栈S，并且一个元素出栈后即进入队列Q，若出队的顺序为b、d、c、f、e、a，则栈S的容量至少应该为________。 （A）3（B）4（C）5（D）6 3、在深度为5的满二叉树中，叶子结点的个数为________。 （A）32（B）31（C）16（D）15 4、链表适用于________查找。 （A）顺序（B）二分法（C）顺序，也能二分法（D）随机 5、希尔排序法属于________类型的排序法。 （A）交换类排序法（B）插入类排序法（C）选择类排序法（D）建堆排序法 6、序言性注释的主要内容不包括________。 （A）模块的接口（B）模块的功能（C）程序设计者（D）数据的状态 7．在数据流图中，○（椭圆）代表________。 （A）源点（B）终点（C）加工（D）模块 8、软件测试的过程是________。 Ⅰ.集成测试Ⅱ.验收测试Ⅲ.系统测试Ⅳ.单元测试 （A）Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ（B）Ⅳ、Ⅲ、Ⅱ、Ⅰ（C）Ⅳ、Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、（D）Ⅱ、Ⅰ、Ⅳ、Ⅲ 9、数据的逻辑独立性是指________。 （A）存储结构与物理结构的逻辑独立性（B）数据与存储结构的逻辑独立性（C）数据与程序的逻辑独立性（D）数据元素之间的逻辑独立性vb课后习题答案
VB第一章课后习题答案讲课教案
机械工程及自动化专业本科专业人才培养目标体系-上海交通大学
vb课后练习答案习题解答 (5)
电气工程基础课程设计(林俊杰)
VB语言练习题及答案1