http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이상익,김수영,남태운 대한금속재료학회(대한금속학회) 1973 대한금속·재료학회지 Vol.11 No.4
高珪素-Al合金에 있어서 몇 種의 元素에 의한 初晶 Si의 微細化가 硏究되고 있으나, Cu 接種 添加에 의한 微細化 硏究는 거의 없다. 本 硏究에 있어서는 Al-20%Si 合金의 初晶 Si의 微細化에 對하여 Cu 添加量, 주입溫度, holding time, S와의 複合處理 등의 영향을 檢討하였다. Cu 添加에 의한 初晶珪素의 變化는 현미경과 X-ray diffraction으로 관찰했다. 本 實驗을 통하여 얻은 結論은 다음과 같다. 1) Cu 添加에 의한 高珪素-Al合金의 初晶 Si微細化의 최적량은 750℃에서는 0.6%Cu이며 800℃, 850℃에서는 1% Cu 이다. 2) Holding time의 영향은 주입 直後에서 5分까지 微細化되며 그 以上의 holding time은 微細化에 영향을 미치지 못한다. 3) S와의 複合處理에 의한 效果는 Cu單獨處理에 比하여 良好하였다. It has been already known that the addition of several refining elements had the refining effect of primary silicon crystals in high silicon-aluminum alloy. However, the effect of Cu addition has not yet been studied. The purpose of this study is to clarify effects of an amount of Cu added, pouring temperatures, holding time and the double treatment with S on the refinement of primary silicon crystals in an Al-20% Si alloy. Influences on primary silicon crystals by Cu addition observed with metallographic examinations and X-ray diffraction methode. The results obtained are as follows: 1) With the addition of Cu, the finest primary silicon crystals is high silicon-Al alloys were obtained with 0.6% at 750℃ and, 1% at 800℃ and 850℃. 2) The refining effect increased significantly for first five minutes period after the treatment. However, the longer holding did not improve a refining effect. 3) The refining effect of the double treatment with S was better than the single treatment by Cu
이상익 한국철학사연구회 2022 한국 철학논집 Vol.- No.73
Professor Kang Jung In became renowned for his specialty in Western political philosophy at the beginning. Later, for the consilience of East and West, he devoted himself to the study of the Eastern political philosophy with an endeavor for the recovery of its due respect. Especially he focused on the Confucian political thoughts that earned him two academic achievements. First, Prof. Kang conceptualized ‘the great consensus democracy’ by unearthing related materials. While previous literature has paid attention narrowly to the great consensus that appears in the Book of Rites, he noticed that ‘the great consensus(大同)’ appears in the Book of Document’s Hongbeom Chapter as well, and finally theorized the concept as a democratic model. Second, Prof. Kang found that Yulgok had renovated the Book of Rites’ concept of ‘the great harmony(大同)’ in his treatise, Seonghakjibyo (Collection and Summary of Sage Learning). Prof. Kang revealed the difference in conceptions of the great harmony between the Book of Rites and Seonghakjibyo, of which previously unaware by scholars. Although he was arbitrary in his interpretation of the Confucian classics to some extent, it is his contribution that the clear difference between the two conceptions came into our view. 강정인은 본래 서양 정치사상을 공부하여 입신(立身)하였으면서도, ‘동양과 서양의 통섭(通涉)’을 기치로 내걸고 동양 정치사상에 대해서도 열심히 공부하면서, 동양 정치사상에 대해 정당한 위상을 부여하려고 많은 노력을 기울였다. 강정인은 특히 유가 정치사상을 공부하는 데 많은 노력을 기울여 마침내 주목할 만한 연구 성과를 선보였다. 논자는 강정인의 유가 정치사상에 대한 연구 성과 가운데 특히 다음 두 가지를 높이 평가한다. 첫째는 서경 <홍범>의 ‘대동(大同, great consensus)’이라는 용어를 주목하고, 그와 관련된 자료들을 적극 발굴하여 ‘대동 민주주의의’라는 개념을 정립한 것이다. 기존의 연구자들은 ‘ 예기 의 대동’에만 관심을 기울이고 있었는데, 강정인은 ‘ 서경 의 대동’을 주목하고 마침내 ‘위대한 합의(great consensus)로서의 대동 민주주의’라는 개념을 정립하게 된 것이다. 둘째는 율곡이 성학집요 <성현도통(聖賢道統)> 편에서 예기 의 ‘대동(大同, great harmony)’ 개념을 혁신했다는 사실을 간파해낸 것이다. 기존의 연구자들은 율곡의 대동에 대해서도 막연하게 기존의 대동 개념을 계승하는 것으로만 생각해왔을 뿐, 양자가 어떻게 다른지를 주목하지 않았었다. 그런데 강정인은 예기 의 대동 개념과 성학집요 <성현도통> 편의 대동 개념이 크게 다르다는 것을 간파하고, 그 차이를 정확하게 분석해낸 것이다. 다만 아쉬운 점은, 강정인이 이러한 논의를 전개하는 과정에서 원전의 자료를 지나치게 작위적(作爲的)으로 해석했다고 느껴지는 경우도 없지 않다는 점이다.
이상익 연세대학교 국학연구원 2007 동방학지 Vol.138 No.-
Reexamination on the Dispute of Kingly and Tyrannical Ways between Chu Hsi(朱熹) and Chin Liang(陳亮) Lee, Sang-Ik* The debate on kingly and tyrannical ways between Chu Hsi(1130~1200) and Chin Liang(1143~1194) has something to do with the issue how to evaluate Han and Tang dynasties. Chin thought that three kingdoms (Ha, Eun and Chou) and two dynasties (Han and Tang) do not have great difference in a sense of their nature, even if so, its difference is just degree. However, Chu had a different idea from chin. In his thought, three kingdoms followed heavenly rules, but two dynasties did desires of human. It will be difficult to judge who is right. However, it will be possible to elucidate their views on ideal man and ideal politics through the debate. Chu's ideal man is a pure confucian(醇儒), but Chin's one is a mature person(成人). While a pure confucian means a man of virtue, a mature person means a man of ability. This difference reflects their different views on ideal politics. Chu regards self-cultivating(修己) and ruling-others(治人) as one thing and their relation as a root-branch relation. Ruling-others is only an external effect of self-cultivating. For Chin, however, the two has no causal connection. They are completely separate beings. Thus, it can be said that ruling-others is only through punishment and reward, not through moral influences. In view of these points, it must be incorrect to regard the debate as a conflict between motivationalism and consequentialism. The issue of the dispute on the surface is about how to evaluate Han and Tang dynasties, and the issue under the surface is how to conceptualize ideal man as a cornerstone for successful politics.