almost car: what tag can i put?

[reggio]

hi to all, in the previous episodes I convinced myself that a conveyor belt without electric picture, is configured as almost machine;
So now, once the construction of the almost machine is finished, I would like to know if it is lawful to apply a tag that shows:

- name and address logo of the manufacturer + web address
- freshman
- date of construction

obviously without the symbol there.
Is it possible to apply one or more tags as above (as an example attached) or, even in the absence of "ce" marking, risk that the object is taken as a machine and not almost machine?

Is there a norm or post or anything that prevents me from applying "publicity" or recognition plates to the almost machine?

 

[meccanicamg]

mah... why don't you pay a consultant who guarantees you company survival?

If you don't trade marks, it means you're not normal, and if anything happens, you'll pay the consequences.
for almost machines there is only the obligation of documentation and not of the appropriate.

Fortunately, there's no law that pays the tags you put on the cars, but sorry, are you improvised as an entrepreneur? Some things should be known....then we wonder why with the crisis close companies... .

 

[meccanicamg]

Among the machines are clearly included also sets intended to be equipped with a drive system even if they are supplied without the latter. “almost – machines” are sets that make up almost a machine, but that, alone, are not able to guarantee a well determined application.

interpretation: conveyor belt is used to transport things from here to there. that you put the engine and the picture or that you don't put it, let's face it all, it's a car because it transports.
then that at the fury of cavilli and minchiate, it is said that if you do not put the conveyor belt in a system with a load hopper and a gripper, you did not define the use and therefore it is an almost machine.

a few years ago, where I worked before, it was incorporated if you wrote "shipping tape" and machine if it was "special pin conveyor belt on plant 353245".

 

[gerod]

That tape is a car. the destination of use is there. read the guidelines and convince you.
@ mechanicsmg: the qm should not be marked according to the dm: it does not conform to the dm. it implies compliance with the directive. if you put the c you configure undue marking.

 

[meccanicamg]

just because every now and then they take the course, I'll link you to a company that advises you https://blog.quadrasrl.net/la-dichiarazione-di-incorporazione-delle-quasi-macchine/

 

[meccanicamg]

gerod, there is to say that there are not many real products that are almost machines.
everything that does something is.
thinking of a linear vibrator or hopper even if you have not customized the elements of the slopes and separators....it is still a c.

 

[pollo]

I agree, very few the almost machines and often declare such thinking not to assume responsibility (in reality they aggravate them when, as often happens, they are machines).

conveyor belt is machine, even without motor, without hopper and without loading station

maybe if you take off the rollers or tape I miss the machine (but you're selling carpentry)

 

[gerod]

@meccanicamg: I misinterpreted your claim "if you don't brands it means you're not in norm and if something happens, you pay heavily the consequences."
on qm there is chaos so much that the guidelines have created only confusion. @pollo: correct. even without security systems we talk about machine.
many say: but if the tape I put it in the middle of a field, only, that does nothing.... if it is for that also a press-full.
see that then the tapes also have a standard of type c!!

 

[meccanicamg]

In fact, for conveyor belts there are a dozen harmonized standards indicated here http://www.anima.it/system/files/2016-01-15_direttiva_macchine_elenco-norme-armonizzate_1.pdf

 

[gerod]

I'd say always take the last one. from here you find everything you need, good job!
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/machinery_en

 

[paulpaul]

a machine without electric picture is a machine: it says logic and also various consultants surveyed over the years. the machines sold without qe (for us not very frequent case) have their good declaration and tag with so much brand c.
the specification of the control system, both hw and sw, and highlight the responsibility of the customer, which at this point becomes "integrator" (especially regarding the "electric" evidence of the en60204-1, necessary for the satisfaction of the res of the directive on indirect contacts). It could also be worth mentioning in declaration c.
I have seen that among those who build paintings, someone certifies lvd and emc and recalls only the en61439-1 and -2(according to me correctly), and others who certify qe also according to the machine directive, citing also the en60204-1: In my opinion this last interpretation is not entirely correct, as the en60204-1 does not apply only to qe but also, for example, to earth conductors between qe and machine, that the quadrist may not know (in addition to the fact that qe is definitely not a machine, taken individually). I believe that it is then to the integrator to certify that (with particular reference to the machine directive) the machine+quadro unit, carrying out for example the already mentioned electrical tests possible only to assembled and wired.
@reggioI urgently recommend a course (the unit in milan does, but also other studies/ents) on the machine directive and possibly also on the other directives applicable to your product: my advice is to use the consultants, but not to give them in toto the "burocracy" (which then bureaucracy is not, but is often understood in this sense in the typical italiota mentality) of the ce brand, which is only the "point of the iceberg" of the preparation of the whole technical dossier, of the manual and of the declaration there. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer and not of the consultant, and therefore it is better to inform yourself well about it.

 

[reggio]

mah... why don't you pay a consultant who guarantees you company survival?

Thank you for reading me and dedicated time, but I don't understand what this comment is for: what do you know if I already pay one or more consultants? I doubt that any consultant can "guarantee" something, certainly not corporate survival, unless you mean his company.

If you don't trade marks, it means you're not normal, and if anything happens, you'll pay the consequences.
for almost machines there is only the obligation of documentation and not of the appropriate.

So if not rotten it means it's not about car but almost machine right? It can't mean automatically that I'm not normal, right?

Fortunately, there's no law that pays the tags you put on the cars, but sorry, are you improvised as an entrepreneur? Some things should be known....then we wonder why with the crisis close companies... .

... let's say you were hot, don't comment this part, it's out of context;-)

a few years ago, where I worked before, it was incorporated if you wrote "shipping tape" and machine if it was "special pin conveyor belt on plant 353245".

I don't know what you mean, explain better? :

That tape is a car. the destination of use is there. read the guidelines and convince you.

Help me, please give me the direct link, I want to convince myself.

@ mechanicsmg: the qm should not be marked according to the dm: it does not conform to the dm. it implies compliance with the directive. if you put the c you configure undue marking.

Oh, here, see?
but the question n°1 is: logo + other directions can I put them right? it is enough not to affix the "ce" and the "thing" is not certified, so I can affix (compatibly with the agreements with the buyer, that usually in our case is also planter) all the plates I want, is so?the question n°2 is: who is that can impose me to certify with a machine (let us make sure that the complete electrical picture and is absolutely working) even if I do not want to certify it as a machine, but instead I want (always compact with the agreement with customer) to declare it as almost machine? or, if I in fact build something that everyone defines machine with destination of use, but I "do not feel it" to certify it as a machine and, I write you on offer and in confirmation, that I will provide you with an almost machine (for 1000 reasons, e.g. you after you want to install on the balcony in the hold on a kindergarten, or you have a friend who connects you the electric picture directed to the high voltage, or to your father I'm free to do it, or does anyone force me to declare it a car?

just because every now and then they take the course, I'll link you to a company that advises you https://blog.quadrasrl.net/la-dichiarazione-di-incorporazione-delle-quasi-macchine/

...and... watch the first video at this linkhttps://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads...nformità-o-di-incorporation.50638/post-415489is already ready to the right point, as soon as you play the type of square tells you "this means, for example, that if I supply a tape or a no control panel, this will be f or r z a t a m e n t and an almost machine because ..."What do you think? (I am not blurring, I am really interested in reaching a definition and understanding "who commands/who decides" what is what and what is not what ...)

I agree, very few the almost machines and often declare such thinking not to assume responsibility (in reality they aggravate them when, as often happens, they are machines).

? What do you mean, they're attacking? Why?

conveyor belt is machine, even without motor, without hopper and without loading station
maybe if you take off the rollers or tape I miss the machine (but you're selling carpentry)

Who says that? In the sense, who decides whether that object is one thing or another?
example, if I decide to sell you something and make it clear that for that thing I want to take only a limited liability so I won't certify you a car but only a car or even a carpentry, and all this to tea goes well, Is there anyone who can come to contest this and force me to certify that thing?

In fact, for conveyor belts there are a dozen harmonized standards indicated here http://www.anima.it/system/files/2016-01-15_direttiva_macchine_elenco-norme-armonizzate_1.pdf

of those not even one is dedicated to the conveyor belt as a machine, they only speak of electric paintings, tests on the carpet (from all called erroneously conveyor belt), belt conveyors for particular uses, nothing relative to the complete machine but only something on some particular..

I'd say always take the last one. from here you find everything you need, good job!
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/machinery_en

? but here you don't talk more about conveyor belts specifically but you have passed to the norms (please don't, not so that you don't know how to say good morning and good evening in English, but if we talk about norms, you don't even understand in Italian, figure if you can venture into rules in language ...) or you wanted to tell me something else I didn't understand?

a machine without electric picture is a machine: it says logic and also various consultants surveyed over the years. the machines sold without qe (for us not very frequent case) have their good declaration and tag with so much brand c.
the specification of the control system, both hw and sw, and highlight the responsibility of the customer, which at this point becomes "integrator" (especially regarding the "electric" evidence of the en60204-1, necessary for the satisfaction of the res of the directive on indirect contacts). It could also be worth mentioning in declaration c.
I have seen that among those who build paintings, someone certifies lvd and emc and recalls only the en61439-1 and -2(according to me correctly), and others who certify qe also according to the machine directive, citing also the en60204-1: In my opinion this last interpretation is not entirely correct, as the en60204-1 does not apply only to qe but also, for example, to earth conductors between qe and machine, that the quadrist may not know (in addition to the fact that qe is definitely not a machine, taken individually). I believe that it is then to the integrator to certify that (with particular reference to the machine directive) the machine+quadro unit, carrying out for example the already mentioned electrical tests possible only to assembled and wired.
@reggioI recommend urgently a course directive machines and other directives applicable: my advice is to use the consultants, but not to demand. This is the responsibility of the manufacturer and not the consultant.

I am well aware, of "alleged" or "untransigent" consultants in interpretations, in modena we have known, for this I am here, to try to understand how to jump out while remaining in the rules but without listening to 100 and + opposing opinions ...

for now I thank all and hope to read you in response to the above doubts and questions:
I also wish you good holidays and good rest, soon!

 

[gerod]

I'm sorry, but with all those odds, I lost.
the link is in English but please look well and you will also find the Italian language and all the Community. I trust the original language
on that link you can also find the guideline in English (in ita there is the old version but better English). find everything, just look.
Take a tag and take off the ce.
the qm not conforming to a directive is not so sure that you have to put in the declaration of incorporation (well, it is not called conformity) which res you have achieved.

 

[meccanicamg]

I lost myself in reading the multiquote.

the thing is simple: you can mark or not mark us freely as long as you do not have a contest. example if you hurt someone, you will pay civilly and penally if the company is yours. If an inspector wants to control, for a variety of reasons, he can ask you and force you in the terms of law to provide documentation and how much necessary to demonstrate the goodness of the artifact.
because in Italy we are accustomed to being misguided, fury, circumstance and all that I completely dissociate with all those who do not want to be responsible for their work.
consultants are most often inspectors or experts who really know what death or accidents at work is. Luckily not everyone does it just for money.
the problem is that there are too many improvised praxis and these create only confusion and impoverish the market.

 

[meccanicamg]

I think the machinery directive 2006/42/ce speaks clearly in its definition of "machines" and therefore for the exclusion of almost machines.

if you look over the years what the translators did....
all the gearboxes are now marked there, and yet the gearbox is intended to be incorporated because it alone does not serve anything, without motor or crank can not do its work....and also has at least one organ in motion....so it is a machine even if its final destination is unknown but it is a "reduction machine" with so much of a ce.
practically according to the norm there are no real qiasimacchine unless they are actually piled with useless things, like a plate with inside a screw.

the European commission decides and explains over time what is machine and what is almost machine and occasionally writes publications to make corrective actions against the modus operandi of the builders who hang for convenience.

 

[gerod]

quoto tutto (comment 14)
consider that qm cannot be put into service if it is not made compliant before: if one builds a qm there will be someone behind it covers it!
;-)

 

[gerod]

I think the machinery directive 2006/42/ce speaks clearly in its definition of "machines" and therefore for the exclusion of almost machines.

if you look over the years what the translators did....
all the gearboxes are now marked there, and yet the gearbox is intended to be incorporated because it alone does not serve anything, without motor or crank can not do its work....and also has at least one organ in motion....so it is a machine even if its final destination is unknown but it is a "reduction machine" with so much of a ce.
practically according to the norm there are no real qiasimacchine unless they are actually piled with useless things, like a plate with inside a screw.

the European commission decides and explains over time what is machine and what is almost machine and occasionally writes publications to make corrective actions against the modus operandi of the builders who hang for convenience.

the gearboxes are components, it has also said eurotrans that it has expressed in a unique way.
true that many define them qm: long ago I saw a ddi where they wrote: all!
then how does it make a qm compliance to the dm completely? If it is then we talk about car.
This shows that there are so many people smoking and who have no idea what he writes.
Hi.

 

[meccanicamg]

I personally like norms without comments, but in complicated cases, if there are explanatory documents valid then I use them.
reading https://www.apicesrl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/guide-appl-2006-42-ec-2nd-201006_it.pdfIt is clear and unequivocal that in mechanically complete "carrier tank" but without frame, electrical system and motor is a machine with....without further mena....si....no....but?

 

[gerod]

you should go to the site I had posted and read the latest version of the guidelines that are dated 2017.
there are interesting news.
Anyway, I agree with you.
for qms do not exist or there are but are few (non-programmed anthropomorphic robots, for example, big electric motors .... all qm quoted in the guide)
Hi.

 

[reggio]

I thank you again, I really appreciate it, but if we do not answer my various questions quoted above, explicit and implied, if you do not look at the linked video, and pass to add other comments I do not jump out ... sob ...
I would have other questions/comments about the latest comments, but if I continue to specify/demand without having defined the previous questions, I cannot follow the reasoning ... banal example "reducers": Marked c = machines? (I use hundreds but never seen a brand name, never heard the smell of a certificate from bonfigl, motovar, clear, ... to sew I never asked) or components? (all other things seem to me), do you see that even on this point you do not find an interpretative agreement?