英文の和訳と結果の比較 -Fig.13で、Nishiida（1983）とW-

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

　　　　　　Finally, we will add a comment on comparison of our result with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). Wetherill and Cox examined three-dimensional calculation for a swarm of planetesimals with a special distribution, i.e., e_2 has one value and i_2 is distributed randomly between 0.3e_2 and 0.7e_2 (<i_2>=e_2/2) while e_1=i_1=0, which corresponds, in our notation of Eq. (9), to <n_2>={n_sδ(e_2-e)δ(i_2-i)/0.4π^2e(2/2) 　　　　 for 0.3e_2<i_2<0.7e_2, 　　{0 　　　　 otherwise. 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 (38) Integrating <P(e,i)> with above <n_2> according to Eq. (9), we compare our results with theirs. Figure 18 shows that their results almost agree with ours (the slight quantitative difference may come from the difference in definition of the enhancement factor); but their results contain a large statistical uncertainty because they calculated only 10~35 collision orbits for each set of e and i while 100~6000 collision orbits were found in our calculation (see Table 4). Furthermore, our results are more general than theirs in the sense that their calculations are restricted to the special distribution of planetesimals as mentioned above, while the collisional rate for an arbitrary planetesimal distribution can be deduced from our results. 8. Concluding remarks Based on the efficient numerical procedures to find collision orbits developed in Sect. 2 to 4, we have evaluated numerically the collisional rate defined by Eq. (10). The results are summarized as follows: (i) the collisional rate <P(e,i)> is like that in the two-dimensional case for i≦0.1 (when e≦0.2) and i≦0.02/e (when e≧0.2), (ii) except for such two-dimensional region, <P(e,i)> is always enhanced by the solar gravity, (iii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, where <P(e,i)>_2B is the collisional rate in the two-body approximation, and (iv) there are two notable peaks in <P(e,i)>/<P(e,i)>_2B at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1); but the peak value is at most 4 to 5. 　　　　　　　　　From the present numerical evaluation of <P(e,i)>, we have also found an approximate formula for <P(e,i)>, which can reproduce <P(e,i)> within a factor 5 but cannot express the peaks found at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1). These peaks are characteristic to the three-body problem. They are very important for the study of planetary growth, since they are closely related to the runaway growth of the protoplanet, as discussed by Wetherill and Cox (1985). This will be considered in the next paper (Ohtsuki and Ida, 1989), based on the results obtained in the present paper. Acknowledgements. Numerical calculations were made by HITAC M-680 of the Computer Center of the University of Tokyo. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area (Nos. 62611006 and 63611006) of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan. Fig. 18. Comparison of the enhancement factors with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). The error bars in their results arise from a small number (10~35) of collision orbits which they found for each e. Our results are averaged by the distribution function which they used (see text). Fig. 18.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0990654048.jpg かなりの長文になりますが、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。

　　　　We evaluated <P(e, 0)> for 12 cases of e between 0 and 6: e=0.0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 4.0, and 6.0. As for r_p, we considered three cases: r_p=0.005, 0.001, and 0.0002. These are representative values of radii of protoplanets at the Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune orbits regions, respectively. The numbers of collision orbits found by our orbital calculation are shown in Table 3 for representative values of e. From Table 3 we can expect the statistical errors in the evaluated collisional rate to be within 5% for the cases of e≦1.5 and within 8% for e=4 and 6; they are smaller than that of the previous studies by Nishida (1983) and by Wetherill and Cox (1985). 　　　The calculated collisional rate is summarized in terms of the enhancement factor defined by Eq. (27) and shown in Fig.11, as a function of e and r_p. From Fig.11 one can see that the collisional rate is always enhanced by the effect of solar gravity, compared with that of the two-body approximation <P(e,0)>_2B. In particular, in regions where e≦1, R(e,0) is almost independent of e, having a value as large as 3. At e≦1, R(e,0) has a notable peak beyond which the enhancement factor decreases gradually with increasing e. For large values of e, i.e., e≧4, <P(e,0)> tends rapidly to <P(e,0)>_2B. As seen in the next section, we will find a similar dependence on e even in the three-dimensional case (i≠0) as long as we are concerned with cases where i≦2. お手数ですが、よろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

5. Normalization of collisional rate First, we introduce an enhancement factor defined as the ratio of the collisional rate <P(e, i)> to that in the two-body approximation <P(e, i)>_2B: R(e, i)= <P(e, i)>/ <P(e, i)>_2B (27) The factor R(e, i) gives a measure of the collisional rate enhancement due to the effect of solar gravity. In the two-dimensional case, <P(e,0)> is given by Eq. (11) while <P(e, 0)>_2B is defined by <P(e,0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))ρ_(2D)v, (28) where E(k) is the second kind complete elliptic integral and ρ_(2D)v is given by Eq. (3) with <e(2/2)> replaced by e^2 (note that the units are changed, i.e., v=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2) and Gm_p=3). The numerical coefficient 2E(k)/π(=0.77) is introduced so that the collisional rate <P(e,0)>_2B coincides with <P(e,0)> in the high energy limit, v→∞ (see Paper I and Greenzweig and Lissauer, 1989). In the three-dimensional case, <P(e,i)> is given by Eq. (10) while <P(e, i)>_2B by Eq. (1) with <e(2/2) > and <i(2/2)> replaced, respectively, by e^2 and i^2. It should be noticed that <P(e,i)> has the dimension per unit surface number density n_s. Then, we define <P(e,i)>_2B by nσv/n_s; (n_s/n) corresponds to twice the scale height (in the z-direction) of a swarm of planetesimals. Usually, the scale height is taken to be i*a_0* (i.e., i, in the units here). As in the two-dimensional case, we require that <P(e,i)>_2B must coincide with <P(e,i)> in the high energy limit. Then, by introducing the numerical coefficient (2/π)^2E(k) (=0.49~0.64) (see Paper I), we have <P(e,i)>_2B=(2/π)^2E(k)πr_p^2{1+(6/(r_p(e^2+i^2)) }(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i), (29) with k^2=3e^2/4(e^2+i^2). (30) 6. The collisional rate for the two-dimensional case In this section, we concentrate on the collisional rate for the two-dimensional case where i=0. In this case, the small degrees of freedom of relative motion allow us to investigate in detail behaviors of orbital motion: it is sufficient to find collision orbits only in the b-τ two-dimensional phase space for each e, as seen in Eq. (11). 長文ですが、よろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

　　　　The numbers of collision orbits found in the present calculations are shown in Table 4 for the representative sets of (e,i). From these numbers we can expect the magnitude of statistical error in the evaluation of <P(e,i)> to be a few percent for small e, i and within 10% for large e, i for r_p=0.005 are shown in Table 5, together with those of the two-dimensional case. Interpolating these values, we have obtained the contour of <P(e,i)> and R(e,i) on the e-I plane. They are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. From Fig. 15 we can read out the general properties of the collisional rate in the three-dimensional case: (i) <P(e,i)> is enhanced over <P(e,i)>_2B except for small e and i, (ii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, and (iii) there are two peaks in R(e,i) near regions where e≒1 (i<1) and where i≒3 (e<0.1): the peak value is at most as large as 5. 　　　　 In the vicinity of small v(=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)) and i, R(e,i) rapidly reduces to zero. This is due to a singularity of <P(e,i)>_2B at v=0 and i=0 in the ordinary expression given by Eq. (29) and hence unphysical; the behavior of collisional rate in the vicinity of small v and i will be discussed in detail later. Thus, we are able to assert, more strongly, the property (i) mentioned in the last paragraph: that is, solar gravity always enhances the collisional rate over that of the two-body approximation. 　　　　 One of the remarkable features of R(e,i) found in Fig. 15 is the property (ii). That is, the collisional rate between Keplerian particles is well described by the two-body approximation, for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4. This is corresponding to the two-dimensional result that R(e,0)≒1 for e≧4. よろしくお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3. Results of the orbital calculations 　 In this paper, we describe our numerical results only for the special cases e_i~=0 and e_i~=4 in order to find the characteristic features of the two-body encounters of Keplerian particles. 3.1. For the case e_i~=0 　 In this case the orbital element, δ_i, loses its meaning because the particle orbits have no periheria and , hence, we can actually assign the initial condition by one parameter, b_i~. The orbital calculations are performed for about 3800 cases with various values of b_i~ from －10 to 10. よろしくお願いします。

和訳してください。よろしくお願いします。

In the present paper, we first describe initial conditions for orbital calculations in the framework of Hill’s equations (Sect.2). In Sect.3, orbital calculations are made for particular sets of e and i, i.e., (e,i)=(0,0) and (1,0.5). Based on these calculations and previous works: Papers I and II, Nishida (1983), Hénon and Petit (1986), and Petit and Hénon (1986), we develop an efficient numerical procedure obtaining <P(e, i)> (Sect. 4).According to this procedure, we systemically integrate the orbits of relative motion, to find collision orbits. Furthermore, compiling results of these orbital calculations, we find <P(e, i)> for various sets of e and i and compare them with those in the two-body approximation <P(e, i)>_2B (Sects. 5 to 7). The results will be compared with those of Nishida (1983) and Wetherill and Cox (1985) who also studied the collisional rate taking account of the effect of solar gravity (but their studies were restricted, as mentioned later).

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。

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。

To avoid this difficulty, we consider the scale height to be (i+αr_G) rather than i, where α is a numerical factor; α must have a value of the order of 10 to be consistent with Eq. (35). For the requirements that in the limit of i=0, <P(e,i)>_2B has to naturally tend to <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28), we put the modified collisional rate in the two-body approximation to be <P(e,i)>_2B=Cπr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2(i+ατ_G)) 　　　　　　　　　　 (36) with C=((2/π)^2){E(k)(1-x)+2αE(√(3/4))x}, 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(37) where x is a variable which reduces to zero for i>>αr_G and to unity for i<<αr_G. The above equation reduces to Eq. (29) when i>>αr_G while it tends to the expression of the two-dimensional case (28) for i<<αr_G. Taking α to be 10 and x to be exp(-i/(αr_G)), <P(e,i)> scaled by Eq. (36) is shown in Fig. 17. Indeed, the modified <P(e,i)>_2B approximates <P(e,i)> within a factor of 5 in whole regions of the e-I plane, especially it is exact in the high energy limit (v→∞). However, two peaks remain at e≒1 and i≒3, which are closely related to the peculiar features of the three-body problem and hence cannot be reproduced by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b. Behaviors of r_min(i,b): a i=0, b i=2, 2.5, and 3.0. The level of the planetary radius (r_p=0.005) is denoted by a dashed line. Fig. 17. Contours of <P(e,i)> normalized by the modified <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=4940423993.jpg Fig. 17.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=5825412982.jpg よろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

The second feature seen from Fig.11 is that the profile of R(e,0) does not depend significantly on r_p (for r_p=0.005 to 0.0002). Only an exception is found near e≒1, but this is, in some sense, a singular point in R(e,0), which appears in a narrow region around e≒1 ( in fact, for e=0.9 and 1.2, there is no appreciable difference between r_p=0.005 and 0.0002). Thus, neglecting such fine structures in R(e,0), we can conclude that R(e,0) does depend very weakly on r_p. In other words, the dependence on r_p of <P(e,0)> is well approximated by that of <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28). Now, we will phenomenalogically show what physical quantity is related to the peak at e≒1. We introduce the collisional flux F(e,E) for orbits with e and E, where E is the Jacobi energy given by (see Eq. (15)) E=e^2/2-(3b^2)/8+9/2. (31) The collisional flux F(e,E) is defined by F(e,E)=(2/π)∫【‐π→π】p_col(e,i=0, b(E), τ)dτ. (32) From Eqs. (11) and (31), we obtain <P(e,0)>=∫F(e,E)dE. (33) In Fig.12, F(e,E) is plotted as a function of E for the cases of e=0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. We can see from this figure that in the case of e=1 a large fraction of low energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate compared to other cases (even to the cases with e<1). In general, in the case of high energy a solution for the three-body problem can be well described by the two-body approximation: in other words, in the case of low energy a large difference would exist between a solution for the three-body problem and that in the two-body approximation. As shown before, this difference appears as an enhancement of the collisional rate. Thereby an enhancement factor peak is formed at e≒1 where a large fraction of low-energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate. よろしくお願いいたします。

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。

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。

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。

英文の和訳お願いします

We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in.And we ought not, and we cannot, and we must not wait another eight months before we get a bill. We have already waited 100 years and more and the time for waiting is gone. So I ask you to join me in working long hours and nights and weekends, if necessary, to pass this bill. And I don't make that request lightly, for, from the window where I sit, with the problems of our country, I recognize that from outside this chamber is the outraged conscience of a nation, the grave concern of many nations and the harsh judgment of history on our acts.

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。

以前和訳していただいた英文の誤記について

以前、ddeana様に和訳して頂いた英文の補足です。文中のいくつかの式において、記号の誤植が見つかりましたので、お詫びして訂正させていただきます。該当質問URL↓ http://okwave.jp/qa/q8267587.html (1) (誤)<P(e,0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))ρ_(2D)v, 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(28) (正)<P(e,0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))σ_(2D)v, 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(28) ρ→σの誤りでした。同様に (誤)ρ_(2D)v (正)σ_(2D)v 以下は既に補足済みのものです。 (2) (誤) <P(e,i)>_2B=(2/π)^2E(k)πr_p^2{1+(6/(r_p(e^2+i^2)) }(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i),　　　　　 (29) (正) <P(e,i)>_2B=((2/π)^2)E(k)πr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i), 　　　　　　(29) 以下は誤りを訂正した正しい英文です。 5. Normalization of collisional rate First, we introduce an enhancement factor defined as the ratio of the collisional rate <P(e, i)> to that in the two-body approximation <P(e, i)>_2B: R(e, i)= <P(e, i)>/ <P(e, i)>_2B. 　　(27) The factor R(e, i) gives a measure of the collisional rate enhancement due to the effect of solar gravity. In the two-dimensional case, <P(e,0)> is given by Eq. (11) while <P(e, 0)>_2B is defined by <P(e,0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))σ_(2D)v, 　　　(28) where E(k) is the second kind complete elliptic integral and σ_(2D)v is given by Eq. (3) with <e(2/2)> replaced by e^2 (note that the units are changed, i.e., v=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2) and Gm_p=3). The numerical coefficient 2E(k)/π(=0.77) is introduced so that the collisional rate <P(e,0)>_2B coincides with <P(e,0)> in the high energy limit, v→∞ (see Paper I and Greenzweig and Lissauer, 1989). In the three-dimensional case, <P(e,i)> is given by Eq. (10) while <P(e, i)>_2B by Eq. (1) with <e(2/2) > and <i(2/2)> replaced, respectively, by e^2 and i^2. It should be noticed that <P(e,i)> has the dimension per unit surface number density n_s. Then, we define <P(e,i)>_2B by nσv/n_s; (n_s/n) corresponds to twice the scale height (in the z-direction) of a swarm of planetesimals. Usually, the scale height is taken to be i*a_0* (i.e., i, in the units here). As in the two-dimensional case, we require that <P(e,i)>_2B must coincide with <P(e,i)> in the high energy limit. Then, by introducing the numerical coefficient (2/π)^2E(k) (=0.49~0.64) (see Paper I), we have <P(e,i)>_2B=((2/π)^2)E(k)πr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i), (29) with k^2=3e^2/4(e^2+i^2). (30) 6. The collisional rate for the two-dimensional case In this section, we concentrate on the collisional rate for the two-dimensional case where i=0. In this case, the small degrees of freedom of relative motion allow us to investigate in detail behaviors of orbital motion: it is sufficient to find collision orbits only in the b-τ two-dimensional phase space for each e, as seen in Eq. (11). お寄せ頂いた和訳↓ 5．衝突速度の規格化まず、衝突速度<P(e, i)>と二体近似での衝突速度<P(e, i)>_2Bとの比として、促進係数を導入する。 R(e, i)=<P(e, i)>/<P(e, i)>_2B. (27) 係数R(e, i)は、太陽重力の影響による衝突速度増大の尺度を与えてくれる。二次元において<P(e, 0)>は方程式（11）の通りだが、<P(e, 0)>_2Bは次のように定義される。 <P(e, 0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))σ_(2D)v, 　 (28) ここでのE(k)（※1）は第2種完全楕円積分（※2）であり、σ_(2D)vは方程式(3)を用い、<e(2/2)>をe^2に置き換えることで与えられる（単元が変更されることに留意されたし。例えばvは(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)となりGm_pは3となる)。数値係数2E(k)/π(=0.77)が導入され、衝突速度<P(e, 0)>_2Bは高エネルギー限界（vが限りなく無限大に近づくところ）において<P(e, 0)>と一致する（第一論文と1989年グリーンバーグとリシャールによる論文を参照のこと）。　3次元の場合、<P(e, i)>は方程式(10)によって求められるが、<P(e, i)>_2Bは方程式(1)の<e(2/2)>をe^2に、<i(2/2)>をi^2にそれぞれ置き換えることで求められる。なお、<P(e, i)>が表面数密度n_s単位あたりの次元を有することに留意されたい。その後nσv/n_sによって<P(e, i)>_2Bを定義する。尚、(n_s/n)は微惑星集団のスケールハイト（※3）（z方向での）の2倍に相当する。通常スケールハイトはi*a_0*とみなされている（すなわち、ここでの単位）。二次元の場合と同様に、<P(e, i)>_2Bは高エネルギー限界で必ず<P(e, i)>と一致することが要求される。その後数値係数(2/π)^2E(k) (=0.49～0.64)(第1論文参照）を導入することにより次のような式が求められる。 <P(e, i)>_2B=((2/π)^2)E(k)πr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i), 　 (29) それと　 k^2=3e^2/4(e^2+i^2).　 (30) 6.二次元の場合の衝突速度この章では iが0である二次元の場合の衝突速度に焦点をあわせることとする。このケースでは相対運動の自由度における柔軟性により軌道運動の詳細な動きを研究することが可能となる。つまり方程式(11)に見られるように各eについて　b-τ二次元位相空間の中での衝突軌道のみを見つけることで十分なのである。 ※1：カッコ内のkは母数、modulusのことです。 ※2：楕円積分については下記をご参照ください。 http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A5%95%E5%86%86%E7%A9%8D%E5%88%86 ※3：地表面の大気圧に対して気圧がe－1 になる高度のこと。また惑星の大気は高度とともに指数関数に従って減少しますが、どの高度でも同じ気圧を持つ仮想的な大気で惑星を脱出する大気の割合を考える場合は、この仮想大気の高度の上限のことをスケールハイトと呼びます。

和訳をお願いします。

In order to obtain the total collisional rate <Γ(e_1, i_1)>, we have to find <P(e,i)> numerically by computing orbits of relative motion between the protoplanet and the planetesimal. Since <P(e,i)> should be provided for wide ranges of e and i with a sufficient accuracy, we are obliged to compute a very large number of orbits. In practice, it is an important problem to find an efficient method for numerical computation. In the second paper (Nakazawa et al., 1989b, referred to as Paper II), we have studied the validity of the two-body approximation and found that within the sphere of the two-body approximation (hereafter referred to as the two-body sphere), the relative motion can be well described by a solution to the two-body problem: the sphere radius has been found to be r_cr=0.03(a_0*/1AU)^(-1/4)(ε/0.01)^(1/2). ・・・・・(13) Within the sphere, the nearest distance can be predicted with an accuracy εby the well-known formula of the two-body encounter. We can expect the above result to be useful to reduce computation time for obtaining <P(e,i)> numerically. よろしくお願いします。

英文の和訳と結果の比較

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

お礼 2013/10/02 23:10

関連するQ&A

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

和訳してください。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。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この文章の和訳をよろしくお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

この英文の和訳をお願いします。

この文章の和訳を教えてください。

英文の和訳お願いします

この文章の和訳をお願いします。

以前和訳していただいた英文の誤記について

和訳をお願いします。

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう