U211-A Power Regulator

U211-A Power Regulator

Features:

Power in : AC 100V?00V; Power out : AC 200V , 2kW

Voltage protection device under unstable voltage

Easily installed into fuel dispenser

100% Factory Tested.

Packing:

Weight: Dimension:

10.3kg/case of 1 150×200×340mm/case of 1

lled to fasten card in case of preventing pull out. Keyboard is commonly used by reader and fuel dispenser. Filling operation command firstly is received by reader, and transmitted into fuel dispenser through port I. Printer is optional. So, most IC card fuel dispenser isn’t mounted it. RF antenna is preset for adopting radio frequency card. By structure, there are no much differences between fuel dispenser’s IC card and the POS of commercial IC card. IC card fuel dispenser has many functions such as card read-write operation, data processing, safety attestation, data memory and management, keyboard operation, graphic display, exchange data with main board and with fuel management system, power supply fuel dispenser management, etc. in order to integrate all above operations, some manufacturers adopt several single-chip. 5.2 Card-linkage technology Control type of fuel dispenser Fuel dispenser is divided into filling controlled type and filing uncontrolled type in terms of filling process. True mechanical fuel dispenser and electronic fuel dispenser with electronic count function don’t have function of controlling filling. Computerized fuel dispenser basically is designed to be controllable type with two kinds of modes ---- coll fuel dispenser ective control and disperse control. Collective control type is adopted manageable device to control fuel dispenser though command. Disperse control type, according to identifying user’s information, realizes operation of fuel dispenser by the device installed on fuel dispenser that identify IC card or other label carrier. According to different control type and employ mode, there are several fuel dispenser operation methods: Indoor / outdoor filling Indoor filling: need authorized command sent by manageable device to open pump after holding up nozzle. Outdoor filling: needn’t authorized command sent by manageable device to open pump after holding up nozzle. Auto / non-auto authorized filling Auto authorized filling: manageable device automatically, after holding nozzle, transmit

 10052006 Page 49 of 105　　 Confidential　　6. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES　　6.1 Printing card receipts　　The card receipts are provided by the EPS. The application logic of the POS and of the EPS must know which is the　　conventional flow for the recipt. Both the application can handle the receipt in a coherent manner as in the example　　below:　　Receipt is composed of the fundamental parts:　　 Eft Payment receipt copy for cashier EPS　　 Sale (fiscal in most of cases) receipt POS　　 Eft Payment fuel dispenser receipt EPS　　 Loyalty receipt (awarding or redemption) EPS　　 CourtesyOther message POS　　The POS application then will receive:　　 One receipt DeviceRequests for all the failed transaction (printout of failure reason to document the customer).　　 Two receipt DeviceRequest for all the payment only transactions (in case of signature verification a furrther　　 DeviceRequest to the cashier devices might fuel dispenser enable the signature confirmation prompt; this wuold be sent　　 between the two receipt DeviceRequest ).　　 Three receipt DeviceRequest in case of payment and loyalty (plus the optional signature verification). This　　 example assumes that loyalty is calculated through the EPS application.　　 One receipt DeviceRequest in case of loyalty only. This example assumes that loyalty is ca fuel dispenser lculated through the　　 EPS application.　　6.2 Track data coding　　The latest release of the guidelines has introduced the coding of track data as string to solve few problems. The　　coding is used as for the ISO8583 protocol and the table below clarifies further the coding.　　 The Track1 contains the alphanumeric

that he cannot take responsibility for the results if his party continues to be ignored. Yet the implied threat is probably an empty one. Whatever else may happen in Macedonia, there is no appetite for a return to armed conflict. © 2006 .  About sponsorship Charlemagne Free speech under threat Oct 19th 2006 From The Economist print edition What Britain s debate about the Islamic veil has in common with France s bill on Armenian genocide IN 1999 Jack Straw, then Britain s home secretary, was attacked for being rude about an ethnic minority. There were demands for criminal investigations, appeals to various commissi fuel dispenser ons and public agencies, a fevered debate over whether Mr Straw was racist. On that occasion, he was accused of demeaning gypsies by saying that people who masqueraded as travellers seemed to think they had a right to commit crimes. In the past few weeks Mr Straw, now leader of the House of Commons, has triggered a similar response by arguing that the Muslim veil (ie, the full, face-covering niqab) is an unhelpful symbol of separateness. This week he won the backing of his boss, Tony Blair. These episodes are reminde fuel dispenser rs not that Mr Straw is hostile to minorities (he isn t) but that any debate in Europe about minority rights soon degenerates into a fight between self-proclaimed community leaders, public agencies, the police, courts and the law. It may be hard to reconcile militant Islam with secular Europe. But Europeans have fostered a culture, legal system and set of institutions that have a chilling effe fuel dispenser ct on public debate, making it hard to discuss the subject honestly. The starting-point of this failure, argues Gerard Alexander, at the American Enterprise Institute, is a surprising one Holocaust-denial laws. At the height of this year s row over cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, devout Muslims argued that, if it was right to limit free speech in one area, it was right to do