Developing Fomapan in Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid

I'm fairly new to developing and I'm trying to find the best starting point for developing Fomapan 100 and 200 in Tetenal Ultrafin (Liquid, not the plus). I'll initially be scanning the negs but hope to start printing with an enlarger in the future.
I had mentioned this in another thread about Fay Godwin and was advised to download the datasheets for the fomapan and the Tetenal Ultrafin.
I'm used to datasheets in general (engineer) but I could only find Fomapan details in Tetenals German datasheet:

I believe the "Kipprhythmus alle" heading is somthing to do with the inversions and the "Beta" heading is somthing to do with contrast differences between two different types of enlarger.
Could anyone explain it to me. It would be really appreciated.

You're assumptions are correct. The 3s refers to continuous agitation (e.g.. Jobo processor), whilst the 60s refers to the generalised process of manual agitation.

The beta is for condenser/diffuser heads, where different densities are needed.

FWIW, I use Ultrafin at 1:20 with good results.

Chees L
So I guess because the 60s boxes are empty they dont have a suggested time for this combination.
I'm tempted for landscapes to try 1+30, invert every 60s for 12min and see where that gets me. and then go from there. sound like a plan?

I should have mentioned that I use a Jobo Processor. As such, I am not sure about the 60sec agitation times.

In addition, I am shooting/processing 7x17" sheet film, so need a decent amount of developer to avoid premature exhaustion due to this film size. Thus, I go with 1:20.

Given the anecdotal time correction from continuous agitation to non-continuous is an additional 15%, 1:20 at 60sec would be around 8 minutes (based on the information you listed above). It might be worth having a look at The Massive Development Chart to see what differences there are for other (listed) films where both Ultrafin 1:20 and 1:30 times are given, and extrapolate the difference time ratios to this 8 minute starting point.

A bit of testing will be required, though, given the vague nature of the current information!

Appriciated thanks LJH.
I had a look as you sugested at the rest of the development times and I could find 4 examples where we have a dev time for 1 +20 1+30. In evry case 1+30 it was very close to 1.5x 1+20 so based on your educated estimate at 8 min and other references to using ultrafin 1+30 for 12 min (This is the Fay Godwin method apparently) that seems like a good place to start.
Ta