Kalıcı Bağlantı Yorum (yok) Yorum yaz!

Ideal for the measurement of flow, density and temperature of liquids and slurries, such as aggressive or contaminated, sanitary or particle-filled fluids.

Features:

• Flow ranges from 60 to 
  60K Kg/Hr (2.2 to 1650 lb/min) 
• Accuracy up to 0.25% of reading
• Materials: flow tubes -
  316 L, splitter flanges -
  316 Ti, housing - cast iron
• Process temperature
  -40°F to 356°F 
• Ambient temperature
  -40°F to 140°F
• Wide flow ranges

Kalıcı Bağlantı Yorum (yok) Yorum yaz!

But is an RTOS always necessary? The answer is application-specific, so understanding what one will deliver is key to determining whether it becomes a requirement or an extravagance.

In general, an RTOS can be used anywhere a non-RTOS is employed. However, it’s rare to find an operating system with a matching RTOS that has exactly the same application programming interface (API). Many of them, though, embed an RTOS within a conventional operating system. For example, Lynux- Works LynxOS and Bluecat Linux share a Linux API. LynxOS is a hard RTOS, while Bluecat inherits its base from Linux.

Linux continues to improve its real-time performance, but its worst-case interrupt latency still doesn’t meet what would be considered hard real time for an RTOS. It all comes down to quality of service (QoS). Platforms like RTLinux Free augment Linux, providing hard real-time class QoS.

It’s important to note that this type of addition often incorporates an RTOS programming environment that’s distinct from the original operating system. An RTOS is typically small compared to a conventional desktop or server OS. They often target more smaller, resource-constrained microcontrollers. For instance, CMX’s CMX-RTX and CMX-Tiny+ can run on 8-bit MCUs up through 64-bit processors.

The increased power and memory capacity of 8-bit processors is making an RTOS more desirable for these platforms. But, an OS or RTOS is usually a requirement in 16-bit platforms and up with RTOS products like Express Logic’s ThreadX, Wind River’s VxWorks, Micrium’s uCOS-II, and Green Hills Software’s velOSity being common selections. Depending on requirements, MontaVista’s Linux meets 16- and 32-bit platform requirements in the low microsecond range.

THE RTOS CORE: SCHEDULING AND PARTITIONING
Most programmers aren’t familiar with RTOS constraints and requirements. Most usually opt for an RTOS due to its performance. Most RTOS products are small and fast, yet an RTOS also adds consistency. Beyond the fact that an RTOS gets the job done quickly, it can guarantee a job will get done.

In many applications, a late result can be catastrophic. Thus, a poor result within the proper timeframe is preferable. These applications are generally called hard real-time systems. Hard real time doesn’t indicate how fast the system may be or how quickly a system may respond. Rather, it refers to how reliably a system can meet the specified requirements.

A hard real-time system may have a fixed cycle time of one minute with a response time of one second. In theory, it’s something almost any operating system could handle. This isn’t always the case, though, as anyone can attest to when waiting for a desktop application to respond within a minute.

Hard real-time systems typically have shorter cycle times and tighter response requirements. Faster processors always help, and multicore platforms can improve response time, too. The trick for developers is to match system requirements to the hardware and software, hence the importance of an RTOS in embedded applications.

An RTOS can implement a range of scheduling policies, and the application will often restrict a programmer’s choices (see the table). Non-preemptive scheduling is trivial to implement but useful in some applications. On the other hand, non-preemptive scheduling within a task can be implemented on top of a preemptive system.

Non-preemptive should not be overlooked, especially in light of new multicore processors. Here, hardware may be tuned to handle an event-based operation in which a thread will wait for an external event to occur. This approach is usually unsuitable for a single-core processor handling multiple threads. On multicore systems with many cores, though, it’s often typical to dedicate one core to handle one peripheral. It then makes sense to have that core idle while waiting for an event to occur.

As a result, preemptive, interrupt-driven RTOS architectures make up the majority of platforms deployed. These platforms have a range of requirements, issues, and solutions (see the figure). Interrupt latency is always an issue, although hardware— multiple register sets, hardware scheduling and task switching, and hierarchical priority interrupt systems—can significantly reduce this overhead.

Several issues coincide with preemption. Most are timing-related, like race conditions, deadlock, starvation, and priority inversion, which occurs when a low-priority task A owns a synchronization resource of a higher-priority task B, and a task C with priority higher than A is running.

Without a feature like priority ceilings, task C can prevent task A and C from running. A priority-ceiling feature changes the priority of task A to that of task C, allowing it to run and eventually release the resource needed by C. At this point, task A’s priority returns to normal and task C can run.

The other timing-related issues, which the programmer must address, are often the sources of bugs that are difficult to locate and correct. Trace tools become valuable assets in locating these kinds of bugs, since symptoms such as blocked tasks are the only indication of the problem

Kalıcı Bağlantı Yorum (yok) Yorum yaz!

Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance regulation has proved to be one of the biggest operational challenges banks, accountants, lawyers and similar financial service providers worldwide have had to overcome.

World-Check, the industry standard KYC compliance solution, provides an overview of KYC compliance and its origins, and outlines the compliance mandate as applicable to banks, accounting firms, lawyers and other regulated financial service providers – not just in the UK, Europe and the USA, but all around the world. Relied upon by more than 3,000 institutions worldwide, this KYC database solution provides effective legal and reputational risk reduction.

Why “Know Your Customer?”


The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre revealed that there were sinister forces at work around the world, and that terrorists activities were being funded with laundered money, the proceeds of illicit activities such as narcotics and human trafficking, fraud and organised crime. Overnight, the combating of terrorist financing became a priority on the international agenda.

For the financial services provider of the 21st century, “knowing your customers” was no longer a suggested course of action. Based on the requirements of legislative landmarks such as the USA PATRIOT Act 2002, modern Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance mandates were created to simultaneously combat money laundering and the funding of terrorist activities.

What is Know Your Customer (KYC)?


Know Your Customer, or KYC, refers to the regulatory compliance mandate imposed on financial service providers to implement a Customer Identification Programme and perform due diligence checks before doing business with a person or entity.

KYC fulfils a risk mitigation function, and one its key requirements is checking that a prospective customer is not listed on any government lists for wanted money launders, known fraudsters or terrorists.

If preliminary KYC checks reveal that the person is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP), for example, Advanced Due Diligence must be done in order to ensure that the person’s source of wealth is transparent, and that he or she does not pose a reputational or financial risk in terms of their finances, public positions or associations. Beyond customer identification checks, the ongoing monitoring of transfers and financial transactions against a range of risk variables forms an integral part of the KYC compliance mandate.

But to understand the importance of KYC compliance for financial service providers better, its origins need to be examined.

Origins of Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance


The arrival of the new millennium was marred by a spate of terrorist attacks and corporate scandals that unmasked the darker features of globalisation. These events highlighted the role of money laundering in cross-border crime and terrorism, and underlined the need to clamp down on the exploitation of financial systems worldwide.

Know Your Customer (KYC) legislation was principally not absent prior to 9/11. Regulated financial service providers for a long time have been required to conduct due diligence and customer identification checks in order to mitigate their own operation risks, and to ensure a consistent and acceptable level of service.

In essence, the USA PATRIOT Act was not so much a radical departure from prior legislation as it was a firmer and more extensive articulation of existing laws. The Act would lead to the more rigorous regulation of a greater range of financial services providers, and expanded the authority of American law enforcement agencies in the fighting of terrorism, both in the USA and abroad.

In October 2001, President George W. Bush signed off the USA PATRIOT Act, effectively providing federal regulators with a new range of tools and powers for fighting terror financing and money laundering. During July 2002, the US Treasury proceeded to introduce Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act, a clause that removed some key burdens for regulators and added significant enforcement muscle to the Act.

What 9/11 changed, in essence, was the extent to which existing legislation was being implemented. Using the provisions of the earlier anti-terrorism USA Act as a foundation, it included the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which allowed for federal jurisdiction over foreign money launders and money laundered through foreign banks. Significantly, it is this anti-terror law that would make the creation of an Anti Money Laundering (AML) programme compulsory for all financial institutions and service providers.

Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act dealt specifically with the identification of new customers (“CIP regulation”), and made extensive provisions in terms of KYC and the methods employed to verify client identities.

In accordance with this piece of updated KYC legislation, federal regulators would hold financial institutions accountable for the effectiveness of their initial customer identification and ongoing KYC screening. Institutions are required to keep detailed records of the steps that were taken to verify prospective clients’ identities.

Although current KYC legislation does not yet demand the exclusion of specific types of foreign-issued identification, it recommends the usage of machine-verifiable identity documents. The ability to notify financial institutions if concerns regarding specific types of identification were to arise, combined with a risk-based approach to KYC, proved to provide a robust mechanism for addressing security concerns.

Effectively, the risk-based approach to customer due diligence grants regulated institutions a certain degree of flexibility to determine the forms of identification they will accept, and under which conditions.

KYC compliance: Implications for banks, lawyers and accounting firms


The KYC compliance mandate, for all its positive outcomes, has burdened companies and organisations with a substantial administrative obligation. Additionally, KYC compliance increasingly entails the creation of auditable proof of due diligence activities, in addition to the need for customer

Kalıcı Bağlantı Yorum (yok) Yorum yaz!