この文章の和訳をよろしくお願いします。 -Fig. 3a and b. -

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

3.2. Case of e=1.0 and i=0.5 In the three-dimensional case, the orbit is characterized by three parameters b, τ_s, and ω_s (in this section, we will omit the subscript “s” describing a starting point of orbital calculations). Recalling that b_max<3.7 from Eq. (16) and b_min>1.3 from Eq. (18) in the present case, we first examine orbits with b in the range between 1.3 and 3.7: Phase space (b, τ, ω) is divided into about 22000 meshes, i.e., 24 in b (1.3~3.7), 60 in τ (-π~π), and 15 ω (0~π). These orbital calculations show that there is no collision orbit where b<1.5 and b>3.2: b_max and b_min are set at 3.2 and 1.5, respectively, rather than 3.7 and 1.3. In parallel with the argument in the previous subsection, we consider the minimum separation r_min between the protoplanet and the planetesimal. In Fig.7, contours of r_min in the first encounter are illustrated in the τ-ω diagram for the three cases of b=2.3 (Fig. 7a), 2.8 (b), and 3.1 (c). Each figure is compiled from the orbital calculations of 5000 orbits, i.e., the τ-ω plane is divided into 100 (in τ)×50 (in ω). We concentrate first on Fig. 7a. In the coarsely dotted region where r_min>1, particles cannot enter the Hill sphere of the protoplanet. Such regions are beyond our interest. In the other regions where particles can enter the Hill sphere, r_min varies with τ and ω in a complicated manner. In particular, near the points (τ, ω)=(-0.24π,0.42π) and (-0.26π, 0.06π), r_min varies drastically in a small area in the τ-ω diagram. These may be chaotic zones. But in almost all regions, r_min varies continuously with τ and ω, and in this sense the orbits are regular. The finely dotted regions show those in which r_min becomes smaller than 0.03 (the radius of the two-body).Such orbits will be called close-encounter orbits in the chaotic zones is very small compared with that in the regular zones. This is the same conclusion as reached earlier. 長文ですが、どうかよろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をよろしくお願いします。

Figure 8 shows r_min in the second encounter for b=2.8. In this case, there are four zones of close-encounter orbit in the τ-ω diagram. Comparing Fig.8 with Fig. 7b, the total area occupied by the recurrent close-encounter orbits (the dotted regions in Fig. 8) is smaller than that in the first encounter but not small enough to be neglected. Collision orbits belong necessarily to close-encounter orbits. Consequently, to find collision orbits, we subdivided the τ-ω phase space of close-encounter orbits (i.e., the finely dotted regions in Fig.7) more densely (mesh width being as small as 0.002π in τ) and pursued orbits for each set of τ and ω. Furthermore, as the phase volume of τ and ω occupied by collision orbits, we evaluated a “differential” collisional rate <p(e, i, b)> given by <p(e, i, b)>=(1/(2π)^2)∫p_col (e, i, b, τ, ω)dτdω. 　　　　 (24) Here, we calculated <p(e, i, b)> separately for 1-, 2-, and more recurrent orbits. The results are shown in Fig. 9, from which we can see that 2-recurrent collision orbits exist for relatively large b, and n-current (n≧3) ones exist only for b≒b_max. That is, the recurrent collision orbits appear only in cases of relatively low energy. From Eq. (10), we have <P(e, i)>=∫【-∞→∞】(3/2)|b|<p(e, i, b)>db. 　　　　　　　(25) Using evaluated values of <p(e, i, b)> for various b, we finally obtain <P(e, i)>=0.114 for (e, i)=(1.0, 0.5); the contribution of 2-recurrent orbits is 5%, and that of 3- and more-recurrent orbits is less than 1%. For this case (e=1.0 and i=0.5), we observed 874 collision orbits. The statistical error in evaluating <P(e, i)> is therefore presumed to be of the order of 4%. Since the contribution of 3- and more-recurrent orbits is within the statistical fluctuation, it can be neglected. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

3.1. Case of e=0 and i=0 We have first calculated 6000 orbits in the parameter range of b from b_min=1.9 to b_max=2.5 at intervals of 0.0001. It is already known from previous studies (Nishida, and Petit and Hénon) that no collision orbits exist outside this region. 　　　The orbits vary in a complicated way with the value of parameter b (see Petit and Hénon, 1986). In spite of the complex behavior of the orbits, we can classify them in terms of the number of encounters with the two-body sphere, from the standpoint of finding collision orbits. The classes are: (a) non-encounter orbit, (b) n-recurrent non-collision orbit, and (c) n-recurrent collision orbit, where the term “n-recurrent orbit” means the particle encounters n-times with the two-body sphere. That is, n-recurrent non-collision (or collision) orbits are those which fly off to infinity (or collide with the protoplanet ) after n-times encounters with the two-body sphere, while non-recurrent orbits are those which fly off without penetrating the two-body sphere. Examples of orbits in the classes (a), (b), and (c) are illustrated in Figs. 2,3, and 4, respectively. The above classification of orbits will be utilized for developing numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)>, as described in the next section. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

　　　Now, we shall concentrate on the collision orbits. Figure 5 illustrates the minimum separation distance r_min in the first encounter (solid curves), identical to that obtained by Petit and Hénon (1986). One sees immediately, that there are two different zones: the “regular” zones, in which r_min varies smoothly with a change of parameter b and the irregular (or “chaotic”) zones, where r_min changes greatly with tiny differences in the choice of b. The chaotic zones lie near b=1.93, 2.30 and 2.48, with very narrow ranges of b. In the regular zone, we find two broad bands of collision orbits around b=2.09 and 2.39. These collision bands were first found by Giuli (1968). The sum of width of the collision bands ⊿b is found to be about 0.098, if the planetary radius is 0.005. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

　　　In the chaotic zone, there are, of course, a great number of discrete collision orbits. Minimum separation distance in the chaotic zone near b=1.93 is enlarged in Fig.6, which is obtained from the calculation of 3000 orbits with b between 1.926 and 1.932. Even in this enlarged figure, r_min varies violently with b. Although the chaotic zones are not sufficiently resolved in our present study, the phase space occupied by collision orbits in the chaotic zones is much smaller than that in the regular collision bands. Even if all orbits in the chaotic zone are collisional, their contribution to the collision rate is less than 4% of the total: the width in b=2.30 and 2.48, we also found that the total width is much smaller than 0.001. This implies that in the evaluation of <P(e, i)>, we can neglect the contribution of collision orbits in the chaotic zones. 　　　These are n-recurrent collision orbits in the regular zones. Of these, 2-recurrent collision orbits are most important. The collisional band composed of them is found near b=2.34. Its width ⊿b is about 0.011, and the contribution to the collision is as large as 15%. No.3- and more –recurrent collision orbits were observed in regular zones. They were found only in the chaotic zones and, hence, can be neglected. 長いですが、よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Fig.2. The orbit of relative motion with b=1.920, e=0 and i=0. The particle enters the Hill sphere (denoted by a circle in a fine line) of the protoplanet at origin. But it escapes away from the Hill sphere without close encounter.

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

In Figs. 7b and 7c (b=2.8 and 3.1) we find that the τ values of close-encounter orbits are confined in a region near τ=0 and, further, its width decreases with an increase in b. In particular, when b=3.1 (i.e., b very close to b_max), the τ values of the close-encounter orbits localize in a narrow region around τ=0. This comes from the choice of φ=0 in the initial conditions: When b is relatively large and the mutual gravity is weak, then a particle continues approximately its original Keplerian motion. When the guiding center of the particle comes across the x-axis (i.e., when t=0), its position is given by (see Eq. (7) with φ=0) x=b-cosτ, y=-2esinτ, (23) z=-isinω. The distance from the origin becomes minimum when τ<<π. Thus only particles with τ<<π can be disturbed drastically by the gravity of the protoplanet and have the possibility of encountering the two-body sphere. The fact that the width of τ in the finely dotted region (i.e., the τ of close-encounter orbits) decreases with an increase in b is also observed in other e and i, as long as b>e. This behavior is very useful to systematically find collision orbits. If we can once find an appropriate restricted region of close-encounter orbit, e.g., τ_1≦τ≦τ_2, for some b_1 (b_1>e), then for b>b_1 it is sufficient to search close-encounter orbits in the limited region between τ_1 and τ_2. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

4. Numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)> Based on the results in Sect. 3, we develop numerical procedures for efficiently obtaining <P(e, i)>. By using the framework of Hill’s equations, one can reduce the degrees of freedom of particle motion, as described in Paper I. Nevertheless, they are still too numerous to compute orbits densely and uniformly over the five-dimensional phase space (e, i, b, τ_s, ω_s) of initial conditions. Furthermore, we frequently find orbits which comes very close to the protoplanet or which revolve complicatedly many times around the protoplanet. In these cases, an enormously long computation time is needed to calculate them. To avoid these difficulties, we introduce the following three simplifications: (i) We neglect n-recurrent orbits in evaluating <P(e, i)> when n≧3; that is, we stop an orbital calculation if the particle does not collide with the protoplanet even after two close encounters. (ii) When the planetesimal crosses the sphere surface of the two-body approximation, the two-body formula determines whether or not a collision occurs. (iii)We omit orbital computations in some regions of τ_s, which depend on a given set of e, i, and b; it is found empirically that there are no collision orbits in these regions. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Fig.4. Magnified figures of one of the discontinuous bands in 1.915<b_i~<1.925 in Figs. 3(a) and (b). There are many fine discontinuous bands in itself. Fig.5. Examples of particle orbits which belong to the discontinuous bands in Fig.4. 　(a) and (b) are of particles which escape from the Hill sphere through the gate of L_1 and through that of L_2, respectively. The values of b_i~ are 1.91894 (a) and 1.91898 (b). Fig.6. Examples of purely Keplerian orbits with e_i~=4 for b_i~=2 and b_i~=10. The former curls (|b_i~|<4(e_i~/3) and the latter waves (|b_i~|>4(e_i~/3)). The values of δ* of both orbits are zero. ↓Fig.4. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0045805708.jpg ↓Fig.5. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=9845810934.jpg ↓Fig.6. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0162323295.jpg どうかよろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Equation (17) shows that the guiding center intersects the y-axis at y_1=8/b^2 (where b(r)=0) and turns back to infinity (see Fig.1). On the other hand, the radius of an elliptic oscillation around the guiding center is equal to 2e in the y-direction. Thus, it follows that if (y_1-2e) is greater than a certain distance (say, 2.5 times as large as the Hill radius) no particle enters the Hill sphere and collide with the protoplanet. Inversely, for the occurrence of collision, (y_1-2e)<2.5 must be statisfied; explicitly we have b_min^2>b_min*^2≒8/(2.5+2e). ・・・・・・・・・・(18) Equation (18) is confirmed by Table 1, where b_min* and numerically found b_min are shown for representative e. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Fig. 8. Contours of minimum separation distance r_min in the second encounter for the case of (e, i, b)=(1.0, 0.5, 2.8). Dots have the same meanings as those in Fig. 7. Fig. 9. The “Differential” collisional rate <p(e, i, b)> (defined by Eq. (24)) is plotted as a function of b in the case of (e, i)=(1.0, 0.5). Fig. 8.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=4403322728.jpg Fig. 9.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=9905093670.jpg よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Accordingly, in our study, it is sufficient to try to find collision orbits with a limited range of b, i.e., b_min<b<b_max. Thus, the collisional rate <P(e, i)> is written practically as (see Eq. (10)) <P(e, i)>=∫[b_max→b_max](3/2)db(4b/(2π)^2)∫[0→2π]dτ∫[0→π]dωp_col(e, i, b, τ,ω). 　　　　　　　・・・・・・(14) Unfortunately, we cannot predict b_min and b_max definitely. As to b_max, we only know its upper limit from the Jacobi integral E of Hill’s equations, given by (see Hayashi et al., 1977 and Paper I), E=(1/2){e(r)^2+i(r)^2}-(3/8)b(r)^2-(3/r)+(9/2). ・・・・・・(15) Particles with E<0 cannot enter the Hill sphere and never collide with the protoplanet. The condition E>0 yields an upper limit of b_max, in terms of orbital elements at infinity (r→∞), b_max<{(4(e^2+i^2)/3)+12}^(1/2). 　　　・・・・・・(16) By the following consideration, a lower limit of b_min can also be estimated. First, we will find a turn-off point of the horseshoe orbit of the guiding center (see Fig.1). In the two-dimensional case, Hénon and Petit (1986) have found that the variation of e is much smaller than that of b at a large distance. This suggests that, as a first order approximation, we can neglect the variations of e and I compared to the b variation also in the three-dimensional case. Thus, assuming that both e and I are invariant, we have from Eq. (15) b(r)^2+(8/r)=b^2, 　　　　　　・・・・・・(17) where b is the semimajor axis at infinity. Fig.1. Example of an orbit with small b. Dashed curve denotes the trajectory of the guiding center. Turn-off point of the guiding center y_t and Hill sphere (x^2+y^2=1) are also shown. 長文ですがよろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

　　In the cases 1.5≦|b_i~|≦3, a particle comes near the planet and, in many cases, is　scattered greatly by the complicated manner. Especially, as seen from Fig. 2, all particles with the impact parameter ｜b_i~| in the range between 1.8 and 2.5, of which interval is comparable, as an order　of magnitude, to the Hill radius, enter the Hill sphere of the planet. Such a particle, entering the Hill sphere, revolves around the planet along the complicated orbit. After one or several　revolutions around the planet it escapes out of the Hill sphere in most cases, but it sometimes happens to collide with the planet as described later. Fig.2. Examples of particle orbits with various values of b_i~ and with e_i~＝0. The dotted circle represents the Hill sphere. All the particles with 1.75＜b_i~＜2.50 enter the sphere. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

Table 3. Numbers of two-dimensional collision orbits (i=0) found by our orbital calculations. Only four cases of e are tabulated as examples. The numbers of collision orbits decrease with the decrease in the planetary radius r_p. Fig.11. The two-dimensional enhancement factor R(e,0) as a function of e for r_p=0.005, 0.001, and 0.0002. The enhancement factor depends rather weakly on r_p. Fig.12. The collisional flux F(e,E) defined by Eq. (32) as a function of the Jacobi energy E for e=0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. ↓Table 3. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0416143752.jpg ↓Fig.11. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=9556242912.jpg ↓Fig.12. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=1594984078.jpg よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をよろしくお願いします。

3. Examples of orbital calculations To find efficient numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e ,i)>, we have made detailed orbital calculations for two typical cases, (e, i)=(0, 0) and (1, 0.5). The former is the simplest case with a single parameter b, and corresponds to that studied by Giuli (1968), Nishida (1983) and Petit and Hénon (1986). In the latter, the orbit changes with three parameters b, τ, and ω in a complicated manner. From this example, we can see the characteristic features of orbits in the three-dimensional case. In the present examples, it is supposed that a protoplanet with a mean mass density 3gcm^-3, orbits in the Earth’s region. Furthermore, we adopt 1% as the limiting accuracy criterion for use of the two-body approximation. These give 0.005 and 0.03 for the radius of the protoplanet and that of the two-body sphere, respectively (see Eqs. (12) and (13)). よろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

　 Before a detailed description of our numerical procedures, we comment on above simplifications. As seen in an example of e=1.0 and i=0.5, n-recurrent (n≧3) collision orbits contribute by only 1% or less to the collision rate. On the one hand, from calculations with other e and i, the degree of contribution by n-recurrent (n≧3) collision orbits is found to be largest in the case e≒1. Hence, the error in <P(e, i)> introduced by simplification (i) is of the order of 1% or less. As for the applicability of the two-body approximation, we have confirmed in PaperII that the orbit are well described by the two-body formula inside the two-body sphere, whose radius is given by Eq. (13). No appreciable error in <P(e, i)> comes from simplification (ii). Simplification (iii) follows the discussion in the last section. Using above simplifications, we have developed numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)> efficiently; their flow chart is illustrated in Fig. 10. Choosing initial values of orbital elements (e, i, b, τ_s, ω_s), we start to compute numerically Hill’s equations (6) by an ordinary fourth-order Runge-Kutta method from a starting point given by Eqs. (21) and (22). The distance r is checked at every time step of the numerical integration. If the particle flies off to a sufficient distance from the protoplanet after approaching it, i.e., if |y|>y_0+2e, 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 (26) then, the orbital computation is stopped. If a particle approaches the protoplanet and crosses the two-body sphere surface, i.e., if r≦r_cr, the two-body formula is employed to predict whether or not a collision occurs. When no collision occurs at the first encounter, the numerical integration of Hill’s equations is continued. Since a particle which enters the two-body sphere inevitably escapes from the sphere (see Paper II), the particle follows alternatives: one is that it departs to such a distance that Eq. (26) is satisfied, and the other is that it crosses the two-body sphere surface again. In the former case, we stop the computation,　considering that the orbit is non-collisional. In the latter case, the occurrence of collision is checked in the same way as earlier by means of the two-body formula, and the orbital calculation is terminated. Using the numerical procedures developed in this way, we obtain <P(e, i)> in many sets of (e, i); the results are presented in the preceeding sections. Fig. 10. Flow chart of orbital calculation for finding collision orbits. Fig. 10. 拡大画像↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=2113240192.jpg 長文になりますが、よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

Collisional probability of planetesimals revolving in the solar gravitational field.III Summary. We have calculated the collisional rate of planetesimals upon the protoplanet, taking fully into account the effect of solar gravity. Our numerical scheme is based on Hill’s equations describing approximately the three –body problem. By the adoption of Hill’s equations , we can reduce the degrees of freedom of orbital motion. Furthermore, we made some simplifications: First, an orbital motion is determined by the formula of the two-body approximation when the distance between the protoplanet and a planetesimal is smaller than a certain critical length. Second, collision orbits in the chaotic zones are neglected in evaluating the collisional rate because of their very small measure. These simplifications enable us to save considerable computation time of orbital integration and, hence, to find numerically the phase volume occupied by collision orbits over wide ranges of orbital initial conditions. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

Collisional probability of planetesimals revolving in the solar gravitational field.III Summary. We have calculated the collisional rate of planetesimals upon the protoplanet, taking fully into account the effect of solar gravity. Our numerical scheme is based on Hill’s equations describing approximately the three –body problem. By the adoption of Hill’s equations , we can reduce the degrees of freedom of orbital motion. Furthermore, we made some simplifications: First, an orbital motion is determined by the formula of the two-body approximation when the distance between the protoplanet and a planetesimal is smaller than a certain critical length. Second, collision orbits in the chaotic zones are neglected in evaluating the collisional rate because of their very small measure. These simplifications enable us to save considerable computation time of orbital integration and, hence, to find numerically the phase volume occupied by collision orbits over wide ranges of orbital initial conditions. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

For the cases where |b_i~| is smaller than about 5.7, a particle with δ*=0 can enter the Hill sphere. The same as for the case e_i~=0, a particle which enters the Hill sphere revolves around the planet and after the complicated motion it escapes from the Hill sphere. As a result of this, the particle has quite different osculating orbital elements at the final stage from the initial. At the same time, a particle sometimes happens to be able to collide with the planet during the revolution. As |b_i~| decreases, the region of δ*, with which a particle experiences a large angle scattering or a direct collision, propagate on both sides around δ*=0 as seen from Fig.7. We can also see from this that the region of |b_i~| where a particle is largely scattered or collides with the planet, is shifted outward (i.e., to the side of large values of |b_i~| in comparison with that for the case e_i~=0). This is due to the fact that a particle has a finite eccentricity in this case and it can come close to the Hill sphere near the perigee point even if the impact parameter |b_i~| is relatively large. Fig.7. The change of the eccentricity ⊿e~ versus the parameter δ*, for particle orbits with various values of b_i~ and with e_i~=4. As b_i~ decreases from 6.0 to 2.0, the regions where a large scattering occurs spread to both sides of δ*=0. For b_i~=1, particles return half way to an opposite side of b_i~=0, conserving the initial eccentricity. 長文になりますが、どうかよろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

As mentioned above, there are two peaks in R(e,i) in the e-i diagram: one is at e≒1 (i<1) and the other at i≒3 (e<0.1). The former corresponds directly to the peak in R(e,0) at e≒1 found in the two-dimensional case. The latter is due to the peculiar nature to the three-dimensional case, as understood in the following way. Let us introduce r_min (i, b,ω) in the case of e=0, which is the minimum distance during encounter between the protoplanet and a planetesimal with orbital elements i, b, and ω. In Fig. 16, r_min(i,b)=min_ω{r_min(i,b,ω)} is plotted as a function of b for various i, where r_min<r_p (=0.005) means “collision”; there are two main collision bands at b≒2.1 and 2.4 for i=0. For i≦2, these bands still exist, shifting slightly to small b. This shift is because a planetesimal feels less gravitational attracting force of the protoplanet as i increases. As i increases further, the bands approach each other, and finally coalesce into one large collision band at i≒3.0; this large band vanish when i≧4. In this way, the peculiar orbital behavior of three-body problem makes the peak at i≒3 (e<0.1). Though there are the peaks in R(e,i), the peak values are not so large: at most it is as large as 5. This shows that the collisional rate is well described by that of the two-body approximation <P(e,i)>_2B except for in the vicinity of v, i→0 if we neglect a difference of a factor of 5. Now we propose a modified form of <P(e,i)>_2B which well approximates the calculated collisional rate even in the limit of v, i→0. We find in Fig.14 that <P(e,i)> is almost independent of i, i.e., it behaves two-dimensionally for i≦{0.1 (when e≦0.2), {0.02/e (when e≧0.2). (35) This transition from three-dimensional behavior to two-dimensional behavior comes from the fact that the isotropy of direction of incident particles breaks down for the case of very small i (the expression <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (29) assumes the isotropy). In other words, as an order of magnitude, the scale height of planetesimals becomes smaller than the gravitational radius r_G=σ_2D/2 (σ_2D given by Eq. (3)) and the number density of planetesimals cannot be uniform within a slab with a thickness σ_2D for small i. Table 4. Numbers of three-dimensional collision events found by orbital calculations for the representative sets of e and i. In the table r_p is the radius of the protoplanet. Table 5. The three-dimensional collision rate <P(e,i)> for the case of r_p=0.005 (r_p being the protoplanetary radius), together with two-dimensional <P(e,i=0)> Fig. 14. Contours of the evaluated <P(e,i)>, drawn in terms of log_10<P(e,i)> Fig. 15. Contours of the enhancement factor R(e,i) Table 4.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=1484661557.jpg Table 5.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=6760884829.jpg Fig. 14. ＆Fig. 15.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=8798441290.jpg 長文になりますが、よろしくお願いします。