|
| DSH 599 | Mechanical hazards
3 L6 N% w: C& z$ z5 k {& [' D( ? | 20.106 }, O1 B4 A8 F5 U; v0 f/ b7 p
| 60335-2-14(ed.4)
9 h/ ]3 J% F8 N2 F, W | ' O- `, d! m3 u* u7 Z" i, W
6 z" W9 k$ i/ d& L- A( ZQuestion:
/ W; j8 D% ~% x$ P. G- hIn case of a kitchen machine with pasta making attachment provided with a hopper and a feed pusher as showed in the photo sub- clause 20.106 is applicable.# b0 k: L( S7 z
In the last paragraph of the mentioned sub-clause it is stated: " A feed pusher that fills the throat of the hopper shall be provided"+ h+ `( W4 K4 q+ _8 p) `
For e.g mincing meat a pusher that fills the throat of the hopper is useable. But, by using such pusher for the pasta equipment the pasta will become consolidated within the tube because pasta has a different consistency than other food stuff. The pasta will block the feed tube and thus the attachment is not usable. This may result that customers will find alternative pushers, which will be unsuitable and possible, unsafe.$ t/ D, w4 Y: R8 E
The pusher shown on the photos has been on the market for some years and also several other pushers for pasta equipment, which not exactly fulfils the letter of clause 20.106, are now in the market.
0 \" X7 L6 m2 f& _6 K! }Are these constructions acceptable?, A4 Q8 g7 _1 |2 J ^$ r
Rationale: see question% T- r4 Q1 \( v2 ]* `) a
Proposal (if any):( g1 a: ]0 h& S2 }% I- H. s# x3 @
The condition for the pusher to fill the throat is not necessary if the screw is not accessible by the test finger with the pusher in position.% ?% h: ~2 E4 u+ q- x U
9 X; `; } _8 j; X
A2 U# u& n0 u! ]" Y4 Y9 u |
本帖子中包含更多资源
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册安规
x
|