Talk:IP Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] IP1X Link

Are we sure that the link Vilcus dactyloadapter – elegant example of an IP1X design is appropriate? It may be rather funny but it may be confusing to people who don’t understand that it is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.199.115 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, the humor police in action again ... Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really IP1X? Looks like IP11 to me. I can't see how dripping water could have any effect on this piece of equipment. --Slashme (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not having had physical access to of these when I added this link, I didn't want to make a tele-evaluation of what water ingress could do to this device, hence the X meaning "not rated". Given the device's description and purpose, I was very confident that it could be rated IP1X (and in fact serve as an elegant example of this class of devices :-). Markus Kuhn (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third digit

Can someone please provide a reference for the section on the third digit? This is clearly not in the IEC or DIN standard. Markus Kuhn 21:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved the third-digit section over here, until someone can back it with a reference. Markus Kuhn 10:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not defined in IEC 60529, but (presumably?) covered in some national variants of the standard, is an optional third digit that can be added to indicate how well the enclosure is protected against mechanical impact damage. The table below lists both the impact energy in joules, as well as the mass of a test opject that will provide this impact energy if dropped from the given height above the impact surface.
Level Impact energy Equivalent drop mass and height
0 — —
1 0.225 J

150 g dropped from 15 cm
2 0.375 J

250 g dropped from 15 cm
3 0.5 J

250 g dropped from 20 cm
5 2 J

500 g dropped from 40 cm
7 6 J

1.5 kg dropped from 40 cm
9 20.0 J

5.0 kg dropped from 40 cm

There is a website [1] that claims that "Australian Standards AS1939 and EN60529" define a three-digit IP code. I understand that the European Standard EN 60529 and the international standard IEC 60529 both have only two characteristic digits. According to [2] the Australian standard is practically identical to the IEC and European versions. So I'm still waiting for a convincing source for where the third digit was introduced and is used. Markus Kuhn 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure

i'm 99% sure that the requirement for normal wiring accessories here in the uk is IP 4X and sockets have shutters to achive this. what about other places? Plugwash 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The minimum is IP2X (finger proof) in the UK. I'm pretty sure this is in the IEE regs but I don't have a copy here to quote the clause number. While it is true the standard domestic socket has better protectoion than this other sockets are not forbidden and can still be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
There is no generic requirement across all fields and product types for a minimum IP rating anywhere in UK legislation or British Standards (or in EU-wide equivalents), nor has there ever been. Such a requirement would be a severe restriction and hardly practical. For example, most domestic luminaires are only IP10 if the lamp is removed. There are lots of SELV halogen-lamp luminaires on the market which are IP 00 (!) even if the lamps are in place! The relevant standard (BS EN 60598-1:2004) merely says that luminaires must be IP tested and labeled, such that customers can easily chose products based on their preferred IP rating. Markus Kuhn 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

MrCyber 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I agree that this page should be merged with the proposed page.

I second that. In fact, I don't think "international protection" means anything. I've only ever heard it called "ingress protection." --W0lfie 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly Zarboki 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. These articles are nearly the same! SirLamer 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP96K

Can someone expand this page to include the correct definition of IP69k as just one example. Thanks JR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.55.135 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. Markus Kuhn 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ingress protection vs International protection

I have the latest version of IEC 60529 in my hands. At paragraph 4.1 it says "IP" stands for "International Protection" not for "Ingress protection". Ingress protection returns 0 (zero!) results if searched in the PDF file. We sholud fix the article to reflect this. Please let me know if you agree or not. Armando82 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"International Protection" is a remarkably non-descriptive name for an article. :-(
If you don't like "ingress protection rating", how about simply "IP Code", as used in the title of the IEC standard? Note the capitalization, which treats "IP Code" as a proper noun. (IEC uses the same capitalization rules in titles as Wikipedia.) I believe, "IP Code" may be the most recognizable name. I have no idea, where the "ingress protection" interpretation came from. It may well be another backronym. Markus Kuhn 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "IP Code". Armando82 09:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved. Markus Kuhn 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)