prototype fulfillment

[Vmax]

a company x (Italian) commissions to a company y (Italian) the project and the realization of a prototype machine that will then be tested, correct, and to which will likely follow other prototype evolutions of the previous ones. the company x does not intend to sell the prototype to third parties.
I ask you: the company y to what fulfillments and what documentation is required to present for the prototype?
I understand better, in reference to machine regulations, the marking, and other fulfillments, does it make any difference that the machine is a prototype not intended for commercialization or should it be treated as an ordinary machine?
Hi.
♪

 

[gerod]

Article 2 of 2006/42/ce defines the machine.
If this object falls within the definition, then you must follow the iter ce.
Who will?
This depends on contracting.
If y does everything, i.e. builds the machine, realizes the wiring/electric panel, in short, it makes it work then is y that must realize the technical file of the construction with declaration of conformity, manuals, etc.
I remember that the machine directive applies when the machine is placed in the market, or is marketed or put into service.
If I self-build a car I'm obliged to follow the iter ce. It doesn't rain on that.

returning to the Axes (x and y), I would say that the Iter could do it also x. repeat, depends on the contract stipulated and what y provides to x.
I hope I made it clear.
Hi.

 

[Vmax]

Thank you so much gerod,
only a clarification, the machine in question, being prototype, will be put in service for purposes of monitoring and verification of proper operation, but will not be commercialized, in order to understand.

I assume from your post that this fact of itself does not make any difference to the purposes of normative fulfillment.

Hi.
♪

 

[MBT]

Thank you so much gerod,
only a clarification, the machine in question, being prototype, will be put in service for purposes of monitoring and verification of proper operation, but will not be commercialized, in order to understand.

I assume from your post that this fact of itself does not make any difference to the purposes of normative fulfillment.

Hi.
♪

I'm not an expert on this matter, but as far as I know the "law" is simple.
Is that a car? Does it work in the field?
You have to mark it!
otherwise they would all do unmarked "prototypes" and result all for monitoring, control, experiment... .

 

[gerod]

I assume from your post that this fact of itself does not make any difference to the purposes of normative fulfillment.

Yes!
The machine has a life, so it refers to the whole life cycle, from assembly to "corruption".
if one gets hurt during the dismissal because the designer or manufacturer had not foreseen a specific risk (failing compliance with one of the essential safety requirements) the fault is of the manufacturer.
So protect yourself because as long as accidents don't happen, everything goes well, when they happen, the world moves and if you get a letter from the Ministry of Economic Development with "holy".
Hi.

 

[Vmax]

gerod, it may be that we will soon feel for advice.
Thank you.

 

[gerod]

Don't say it out loud otherwise someone might ask me the percentage! !
:biggrin:
Hi.

 

[Messerschmitt]

we assume that there is this prototype, and that daily changes are made on this prototype: its purpose is to make tests, to adjust its operation, to make experience.
I don't think that between one change and the other the machine should be marked there.
Moreover, the Directive also provides for a derogation from the machinery set out in trade fairs and the like.

 

[gerod]

Yes, only for machines exposed at the fair and similar.
a prototype is a machine and if you make daily changes it is not that you have to mark it there whenever you change. a prototype is also a test machine (and always the machine is packed already there, sometimes need continuous adjustments to fix it).
Hi.