U406 Breakaway

U406 Breakaway

The U406 is designed to be installed on fuel dispensing hoses,and will separate when subjected to a designed pull force. The dual valves seat automatically, stopping the flow of fuel and limiting any fuel spillage, while protecting the dispensing equipment. For proper operation, the U406-A/B should be installed with a "straightening" hose with a minimum length of 9". U406-C/D should be installed with a minimum length of 12" .

Materials:

Body: Aluminum

Main Seals: Viton

Main Spring: stainless steel

Guide and poppet: POM

Protective Sleeve: PVC

Features:

Pull force- the U406 will break away with a pull force of 250 lbs ±5%, the U406 will break away with a pull force of 300 lbs±5%.

Certainty of operation- designed to be replaced after separation, instead of reassembled, to protect against reassembly errors.

Unique double-poppet design-features low pressure drop.

Flow rate: 0-60L/Min(3/4")

0-120L/Min(1")

Working pressure: 0.18Mpa

Low pressure drop- the integral check valve design allows for minimal pressure drop for faster, high-volume fill-ups.

100% Factory Tested.

Package:

Product ID Net Weight Cross Weight Sizet

U406-A 23kg/case of 100 26kg/case of 100 26.8x48x26 cm /case of 100

U406-B 23kg/case of 100 26kg/case of 100 26.8x48x26 cm /case of 100

U406-C 19kg/case of 50 22kg/case of 50 29x29x30 cm /case of 50

U406-D 19kg/case of 50 22kg/case of 50 29x29x30 cm /case of 50

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 value fuel dispenser 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 dispenser according to the regulation of JJG443-98. The larger value of Repeatability of measurement En in two flow rate testing presents the re fuel dispenser peatability 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 fuel dispenser

Version Modifications　　 number　　 January 96 1.51　　FP31_2.21 IFSF - STANDARD FORECOURT PROTOCOL June 2005　　 fuel dispenser DISPENSER APPLICATION　　Page: 16　　 General Changes　　 - Changes made based on comments from CECOD and individual　　 suppliers.　　 - Many Data_Id s descriptions have been changed to explain their usage in　　 situations where the Dispenser for technical reasons (W M　　 requirements or a fixed relationship between the meters nozzles etc.)　　 can not allow a mandatory Data_Id value to be written to or changed.　　 fuel dispenser Please check all Data_Id s for details.　　 Chapter 1 Definitions and Abbreviations　　 - Extra text definition defining Off-line.　　 - Extra text definition defining On-line.　　June 2005 IFSF - STANDARD FORECOURT PROTOCOL FP31_2.21　　 DISPENSER APPLICATION　　 Page: 17　　 Chapter 3 Dispenser Data Base　　 - Calculator Data Base　　 - Extra text explaining the operation for Data_Id s　　 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 22 23 24 26 40 41 42 43 44 45 when that do not permit　　 the Data_Id to be changed remotely.　　 - Added optional Data_Id 46 Price_Set_Nb.　　 - 3.4 Meter Data Base　　 - Extra text explaining operation when Data_Id 1(Meter_Type) Data_Id 2　　 (Meter_Puls_Vol_Fact) Data_Id 4(PR_Id) are not configured.　　 fuel dispenser

g contested. In an odd coincidence, it is the seat Ms Harris decided to vacate to pursue a disastrous Senate run. Initial results showed a narrow lead for the Republican, Vern Buchanan. A recount gave him fuel dispenser a 369-vote victory. Good enough to settle the matter in some circumstances, but not these. Sarasota County, one of four (plus a fragment of a fifth) that make up the district, had an abnormally high The perils of technology rate of “undervotes�in the race. More than 18,000 of its ballots recorded no vote for Mr Buchanan or the Democrat, Christine Jennings. That meant that 13% of Sarasota voters failed to choose a House candidate, compared with roughly 2% in neighbouring counties. Sarasotans cast more votes for the hospital board than they did for their represent fuel dispenser ative in Washington. Because the machines provide no paper record, no one can say for sure whether the missing votes, if counted more carefully, could have changed the outcome. But pre-election polls showed Ms Jennings in the lead. If the missing votes split at the same rate as the rest of the county, she would easily have won. Ms Jennings has filed a lawsuit asking for a re-run. Officials at first downplayed the story. “I m not sure there s even a problem,�said a spokeswoman for the secretary of state, theorising that voters sat out the race to protest against negative campaigning. But everyone in the district saw the same nasty ads and the pronounced undervote was limited to Sarasota County. Working out what went wrong will be complicated. In court filings, Ms Jennings attributed the undervote to “pervasive malfunctioning of electronic voting machines� The state made election workers re-cast thousand of ballots to test the machines. Discrepancies abounded, but this only proved that there were problems during the test. “Florida election officials� sighed one local paper, “now have two mysteries to solve.�Many are blaming a poor ballot design in Sarasota that squeezed the House race onto the same fuel dispenser