U101-C Flowmeter

U101-C Flowmeter

Materials:

Body: Cast lron (Spray-Painted)

seals: Buna-N

Technical Specifications:

Discharge rate of each revolution:0.5L

Flow rate range:5L~60L/min

Accuracy:±0.2%

Repeat error:≤�.1%

Environmental condition:-40~~+70degree

Package:

Product ID Net Weight Cross Weight Dimension

U101-C 23kg/case of 1 25kg/case of 1 28×26× 45cm/case of 1

haft. The spring between top cover and distributing valve is used for enforcing sealability. The two gears synchronous to crankshaft moving transmit rotation number into pulse sensor. Working principle This type measurement transducer is similar to a set of hydraulic motor, which is driven by pressured oil. Thus, the discharge is corresponded to the crankshaft rotation. As distributing valve’s position is certain when oil flowing into measurement transducer, the piston discharge or inflow also is constant. Pistons depend upon the different oil pressure of inflow and discharge to move, which form a shuttle movement. The above two pistons movements create a third cylinder, which fuel dispenser also has a 120 degree angle. The dynamic working circulation is showed in Diagram 2-25. As the diameter and moving distance of piston is certain, the relation between movement and crankshaft rotation also fixed. In every two times inflow or discharge of piston, crankshaft turn around a circle, oil volume in inlet or outlet progress is constant. 1-Piston 2-Crankshaft 3-4-Connecting rod 5-Screw 6-Bearing 7-Bushing 8-Frame 9-Distributing valve 10-Top cover 11-Bearing 12-Spring 13-14-Gear 15-Adjusting bolt 16-T-shaped key 17-Sider cover Diagram 2-24: Structural drawing of four-piston measurement transducer Diagram 2-25: Working principal drawing This type of measurement transducer includes 1L circulation discharge and 0.5 L circulation discharge，selecting according to wanted discharge of fuel dispenser. Discharge adjustment Over a long period of operation the accuracy of measurement transducer declined due to either parts abrasion or large change in oil temperature and viscosity. T fuel dispenser herefore, regulative device often used to adjust the accuracy within the stipulated scope of national metrology appraisal. The following procedure is conducted as measurement accuracy decline. (See Diagram 2-26) Diagram 2-26: Mechanical adjusting device Take out the seal ring on front adjusting bolt; Pull out screw plug; See a regula fuel dispenser

W(1-2)　　 This field defines the layout for all of the segments for this　　 price pole. The format is DF where D is the number of　　 digits to the left of the decimal point and F is the field　　 width.　　 Nb_Price_Pole_Points　　 5 bin8 R(1-2) M　　 (1-4) W(1-2)　　 Number of price pole points defined.　　 0 = not configured　　 n = number of price poles (1 to 4)　　 6 fuel dispenser bcd4 R(1-2) M　　 Country_Code　　 W(1-2)　　 Country where the price pole is installed. The　　 Country_Code uses the call dialling code from the country　　 where it is.　　 0030-Greece 0031-Netherlands 0032-Belgium 0033-　　 France 0034-Spain 0351-Portugal 0352-Luxembourg　　 0353-Ireland 0354-Iceland 0358-Finland 0359-Bulgaria　　 0036-Hungary 0039-Italy 0040-Rumania 0041-　　 Switzerland 0042-Czech 0043-Austria 0044-United　　 Kingdom 0045-Denmark 0046-Sweden 0047-Norway　　 0048-Poland 0049-Germany 0090-Turkey　　 IDENTIFICATION DATA　　 50 asc3 R(1-2) M　　 Manufactur fuel dispenser er_Id　　 To allow the CD to interrogate the manufacturer identity.　　June 2005 IFSF - STANDARD FORECOURT PROTOCOL FP32_114　　 PRICE POLE APPLICATION　　 fuel dispenser

of their firm s financial reports. Second, new measures to improve the monitoring of firms by relevant outside professionals, such as lawyers and auditors, who got their own regulatory body, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Third, more disclosure, including of a firm s internal-control structure. Fourth, new rules on the conduct of corporate insiders, such as a prohibition on loans to executives. Finally, new rules to ensure that securities analysts at banks operate independently from their firms investment-banking activities. SOX-bashers have found fault, to varying degrees, with all five reforms. Henry Butler, an economist, and Larry Ribstein, a fuel dispenser law professor, set out the most comprehensive critique yet in a recent paper, “The Sarbanes-Oxley debacle How to fix it and what we ve learned� which was presented at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Describing SOX as a “colossal failure, poorly conceived and hastily enacted during a regulatory panic� they argue (among other things) that the costs of implementing SOX are far higher than expected, both in cash terms, and even more so when they count the indirect costs—such as managers reluctance to take risks because of the new “climate of fear�in the boardroom, and the missed opportunities of foregone investment. Although they admit that SOX may have reduced the risk of fraud, they argue that this benefit is far outweighed by the costs. Messrs Butler and Ribstein would ideally like SOX to be repealed. But even if a court case challenging the constitutionality of the PCAOB (and by extension, SOX) is successful, it is more likely that Congress will simply amend the fuel dispenser law. All SOX critics agree that the top priority for reform is Section 404 of the law, which regulates the internal controls that firms use to reduce the risk of fraud or error in their financial statements. The burdens imposed by Section 404 are the main reason why formerly enthusiastic supporters of SOX, such as Mr Greenspa fuel dispenser