U214-A TV

U214-A TV

Qv── flowage passed over in fuel dispenser (L/min.) t── measuring time (s) Pu── unit price of oil (�L) Pj── money showed in display screen (� Pc── due sum (� EVmax── the maximum fuel dispenser value of relative error measured under regulating flow rate;(%) Evmin──the minimum value of relative error measured under regulating flow rate;(%) En──repeatability of measurement (%) EP──error of paid sum 3.2 Determination of testing results Error Ev, Repeatability of measurement En and Due sum error Ep comes out after calculating testing data. The largest value of Error Ev in testing is regarded as the basic error of fuel fuel dispenser dispenser according to the regulation of JJG443-98. The larger value of Repeatability of measurement En in two flow rate testing p fuel dispenser resents the repeatability of fuel dispenser. Error Ev should be 0.3%, repeatability of measurement no more than 0.15%, if beyond these scopes testing would be determined as unqualified. The contents of money indication and money error are not regulated in the approval procedure of JJG443-98. There would exist a little error after long refueling because usually the calculation of paid money adapts the round –mode. Example of indicating valve appraisal Take an appraisal of fuel dispenser 6~60L/min for example, it is usually adapted non-presetting mode in filing station. Setting unit price as 2.75�L and preparing metal standard measurer of 100L, conduct 3 tests as maximum flow rate 60L/min and minimum flow rate 12L/min, respectively. Testing result is listed in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Appraisal Results Article IV Important notices in appraisal Indicating value appraisal is crucial part of fuel dispenser’s testing items, which is direct foundation to determine the accuracy and qualification of fuel dispenser. The appraisal method and data processing introduced in Article III is based upon JJG443-98. Filling station should consult the above procedure and conduct self appraisal in accordance with relative requirements o

58 58 58 58　　 58 58 58 58 58　　 58 58 58 34 34　　 fuel dispenser 34 38　　 TextLine 7F 11　　 TextLineValue 80 0F 41 75 74 68 20 Auth : 102030　　 23 20 3A 20 31　　IFSF POSEPS ImplementationGuidelines - Revision - 20060510　　 10052006 Page 93 of 105　　 fuel dispenser Confidential　　 Name Tag Length Data Comment　　 fuel dispenser 30 32 30 33 30　　 TextLine 7F 0F　　 TextLineValue 80 0D 4F 44 4F 4D 45 ODOMETER 1234　　 54 45 52 20 31　　 32 33 34　　 TextLine 7F 17　　 TextLineValue 80 15 52 45 53 50 20 RESP CODE 000 REF 559　　 43 4F 44 45 20　　 30 30 30 20 52　　 45 46 20 35 35　　 39　　 TextLine 7F 02　　 TextLineValue 80 00　　 TextLine 7F 0F　　 TextLineValue 80 0D 43 55 53 54 4F CUSTOMER COPY　　 4D 45 52 20 43　　 4F 50 59　　 TextLine 7F 02　　 TextLineValue

g s plan, he says, is that operators would compensate for the loss of roaming fees� thought to account for around 3% of their revenues and 5% of profits—by raising prices elsewhere. This would have the p fuel dispenser erverse effect of lowering prices for international business travellers, a big chunk of roaming traffic, while raising prices for most consumers. The commission s proposals are “economically incoherent� says Richard Feasey of Vodafone, which operates mobile networks in many European countries. Imposing price caps on roaming is legally questionable, he says, and Vodafone has, in any case, been steadily reducing its roaming charges fuel dispenser . (European regulators prevented it from doing so for three years on antitrust grounds after its takeover of Mannesmann in 2000.) fuel dispenser Orange, another multinational operator, says it is planning to make price cuts, too. “Of course, now everybody s got price cuts,� says Stefano Nicoletti of Ovum, a consultancy. But perhaps Ms Reding s unspoken plan is to use the threat of regulation as a way to prompt action. Operators are right that her proposals make no sense, but they are charging too much all the same. So expect them to lobby hard against the proposals over the next couple of years, while quietly cutting their prices—an outcome that would, of course, allow both sides to claim victory. © 2006 .  About sponsorship European aerospace Not in formation Apr 12th 2006 From The Economist print edition A flurry of deals, but Europe is gridlocked THE recent consolidation in Europe s aerospace industry has come after years of speculation about which combinations will emerge. But any hopes of stronger transnational groups look destined to be disappointed. Instead, the deals are likely to freeze the industry in its present fragmented state, with cross-border links restricted to joint ventures. Last week DaimlerChrysler and France s Lagardère simultaneously raised ¬2 billion ($2.4 bi