MICONEX 2002展品综述

介绍了由中国仪器仪表学会在中国北京自主举办的第13届多国仪器仪表展览会所展出的主要展品的基本情况。反映了当今国内外仪表仪表领域的技术水平和发展动态。     

MICONEX 2002展品综述(续完)

3　物位测量本届展览会展示微波物位计的厂家有Ｖｅｇａ及Ｅ+Ｈ公司。展出产品可分 3类 :高档型 ,精度可达±1ｍｍ ,量程可达 4 0ｍ ,主要用于高精度储罐液位计量 ,如Ｅ +Ｈ公司的ＭｉｃｒｏｐｉｌｏｔＳ系列 ;中档型 ,精度约为±(3～ 5 )ｍｍ ,如Ｓｉｅｍｅｎｓ的ＬＲ4 0 0 ,Ｅ +Ｈ的Ｍ系列及ＶｅｇａＰｕｌｓ4 0系列等 ;经济型 ,精度约± 10ｍｍ ,量程约 2 0～30ｍ ,有二线制产品。大多数经济型脉冲微波物位计的微波频率采用5 8ＧＨｚ或 6 3ＧＨｚ ,其辐射角较大 (约 30°) ,易在容器壁或内部构件上产生干扰回波。本届展览会上展出了采用…     

第十五届多国仪器仪表展览会（MICONEX2004）

由中国仪器仪表学会主办的“第十五届多国仪器仪表展览会(MICONEX2004)”已于2004年9月14—17日在北京中国国际展览中心举办。     

第十八届多国仪器仪表学术会议暨展览会MICONEX2007（新闻通稿）

由中国仪器仪表学会主办，北京鑫仪寰宇展览有限公司承办的“第十八届多国仪器仪表学术会议暨展览会”（MICONEX 2007）将于2007年9月18日至21日在上海光大会展中心举办。     

金秋北京，展海拾贝——第15届多国仪器仪表展览会（MICONEX2004）随笔

金秋的北京，硕果累累的季节。中国仪器仪表学会于9月14日至17日在北京国际会展中心再次成功地举办了第15届多国仪器仪表展览会(MICONEX 2004)，四天来穿行于600余家、2．5万m^2展台间，真是目不暇给，只得走马看花重点了解了有关展品，不免挂一漏万。深有雨后春笋，万紫千红之感。     

MICONEX 2003展示的流量仪表

参加本届展会的国际知名企业或检测仪表专业企业不多。就展示流量仪表的企业而言，ABB公司在不显位置陈列了流量仪表，有原Fischer Porter、Kent等子公司的科里奥利质量流量计、热式质量流量计、电磁流量计及涡街流量计等，而在显要位置着重宣传控制系统。德国Krohne公司展示了浮子流量计、电磁流     

第十五届多国仪器仪表展览会（MICONEX2004）在京举行

由中国仪器仪表学会主办的“第十五届多国仪器仪表展览会(简称MICONEX2004)”于2004年9月14至17日在北京中国国际展览中心隆重举行。     

加速发展我国仪器仪表工业的启示--MICONEX2000观后感

通过参观第１１届多国仪器仪表展览会（ＭＩＣＯＮＥＸ２０００）,对ＭＩＣＯＮＥＸ２０００的时代特征、我国仪器仪表行业的发展态势、现场总线技术及其产品仍处于发展阶段、发展高新控制系统的ＯＥＭ模式等命题进行了综述和评论,以求探讨加速我国仪器仪表工业发展的路线和方法。     

万紫千红，争奇斗艳——MICONEX2006流量仪表评述

一序言 送走了孕育成果的炎炎夏日，又迎来硕果累累的金秋。 第17届多国仪器仪表展览会（MICONEX）于2006年9月13日至16日在北京国际会展中心举办，参展的中外厂商600余家，其中涉及自动化与系统近400家，而展出流量仪表厂家有135家，占34％，说明流量仪表在工业自动化领域中仍是一个十分活跃、受人瞩目的领域。135家中外厂商展出十余种原理的流量仪表共297台次，按其展出的频率列于表1：     

第12届多国仪器仪表展览会评述

介绍了由中国仪器仪表学会在中国上海举办的第12届多国仪器仪表展览会的概况，对展品的技术水准进行了分析，指出了国内外产品之间的差距，并对我国仪器仪表行业的发展提出了建议。     

2009多国仪器仪表展览会流量仪表评估

简要介绍了2009年多国仪器仪表展览会(MICONEX2009)上流量仪表参展商概况、12大类参展流量仪表所占比例,并分析评述了展品及其亮点,如新流量测最原理的激光流量计,向小流量低流速方向延伸的超声流量计、超声热黾表和超声水表,能测量液体的MEMS(微机电系统)制的热式流量计,可代替机械式的MEMS家用/商用燃气表,高阶椭圆齿轮流量计等.     

A parsimony tree for the SAT2002 competition

Twenty of the programs (solvers) submitted to the SAT 2002 Contest had no disqualifying errors. These solvers were run on 2023 satisfiability problems of varying hardnesses. Each solver was judged by which problems it could solve within the allowed time limit. Twelve solvers were best on some problem — they could solve it and the others could not. Only two solvers could not beat each remaining solver on some problems (where the problems could vary depending on which solver it was trying to beat). Thus, there is evidence that 18 solvers were extremely good. It is interesting to analyze the contest results in a way that groups together solvers with similar strengths and weaknesses. This paper uses the parsimony algorithm to produce a classification of the twenty solvers. The paper also has a second classification, almost the same as the first, for the twenty solvers, updated versions of two solvers, and a fictitious state of the art solver. The contest problems came in three groups, Industrial, Hand Made, and Random. The Random group of problems was about three times as large as the other two together. The classification identifies four groups of solvers (plus a miscellaneous group): weak solvers, incomplete solvers which are very good at some satisfiable Random problems, complete solvers which are very good at most Random problems, and complete solvers which are very good at Industrial and Hand Made problems.     

A parsimony tree for the SAT2002 competition

Twenty of the programs (solvers) submitted to the SAT 2002 Contest had no disqualifying errors. These solvers were run on 2023 satisfiability problems of varying hardnesses. Each solver was judged by which problems it could solve within the allowed time limit. Twelve solvers were best on some problem – they could solve it and the others could not. Only two solvers could not beat each remaining solver on some problems (where the problems could vary depending on which solver it was trying to beat). Thus, there is evidence that 18 solvers were extremely good. It is interesting to analyze the contest results in a way that groups together solvers with similar strengths and weaknesses. This paper uses the parsimony algorithm to produce a classification of the twenty solvers. The paper also has a second classification, almost the same as the first, for the twenty solvers, updated versions of two solvers, and a fictitious state of the art solver. The contest problems came in three groups, Industrial, Hand Made, and Random. The Random group of problems was about three times as large as the other two together. The classification identifies four groups of solvers (plus a miscellaneous group): weak solvers, incomplete solvers which are very good at some satisfiable Random problems, complete solvers which are very good at most Random problems, and complete solvers which are very good at Industrial and Hand Made problems.