Talk:IP code

Brands C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering C‑class

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my view, I have never seen an encyclopedia where humorists or jokesters are welcomed to display their savvy in pointing out the satirical side of knowledge. Wikipedia users seek informed knowledge — not informed humor, nor informed jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OIBtheOne (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This link says that the third digit is defined in 'UTE 20010', but I can't find any decent references to UTE 20010. Paypwip (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The originally proposed third digit was never added to the IP code and has become the separate IK code defined in EN 50102 instead. Markus Kuhn (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple sources that describe an optional third digit, but given a different list, from 0 to 6, e.g.

These list the same energies, but use consecutive digits from 0 to 6 rather than skipping 4, 6 and 8. We really need to chase this down to a source. The problem is figuring out how many of these sources are independent, as opposed to just copies of an incorrect source. For now, since there's an actual factual conflict, I'm going to add a {{dubious}} tag to the page pointing to this section. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge

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

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)[reply]

My thoughts exactly Zarboki 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These articles are nearly the same! SirLamer 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP69K

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).[reply]

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

The newest revision of IEC 60529 includes an IP69. They didn't use the "K" from the German version, but otherwise I understand it is the same thing.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

I agree with "IP Code". Armando82 09:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Markus Kuhn 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "International Protection" (seems to me quite ridiculous; does it protect nations, one against another?) is rather more a backronym than the term Ingress Protection which really stands for IP in my opinion. I am fully against the interpretation of IP as "International Protection". The fact that it is mentioned in the IEC 60529 does not make any evidence that it is right, even in standards can be mistakes. Try Google for "Ingress Protection" instead of searching inside the IEC pdf. The authors probably couldn't remember the real meaning of IP ;-) so they "invented" themselves one... and so this backronym emerged. Does "US" really stand for "Uncle Sam" or "NTSC" for "Never The Same Color" :-?

I myself had an opportunity to assist at translation (only:) of a standard and one won't believe what stupidities I met. Eric.Best (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "IP Rating"?

This may be a silly question (apologies if so), but why is this article called "IP Code" when the IEC standards define ratings, and have the word "ratings" in their titles? Perhaps this article was originally about one particular code, e.g. "IP56", but then evolved to be about all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.17.204 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems "Code" is rather less well known too...

"IP rating"+protection: 83,600
"IP rating"+enclosure: 44,300
"IP rating"+ingress: 28,400
"IP rating" -"IP Code": 773,000

"IP Code"+protection: 24,400
"IP Code"+enclosure: 6,990
"IP Code"+ingress: 12,400
"IP Code" -"IP rating": 354,000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.17.204 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend renaming ("move") this article from "IP Code" to "IP rating", unless someone can come up with a reason that overrides the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Where I work, people say "IP rating" and hardly ever say "IP Code". Google searches also seem to support that "IP rating" is more commonly used than "IP code". --DavidCary (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree That's the most common term, so per WP:COMMONNAME, as long as it doesn't do violence to the official name, that's preferred. Also, in the absence of context, "Code" is a completely generic, uninformative term. "Rating" at least implies that some sort of evaluation of capabilities is performed. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure Vs Depth

There won't be a pressure rating for IPX7 as the depth is specified.

Apart from some small variation due to impurities in the water specifying the depth specifies the pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.25.210 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPX7 - 1m or 15cm depth?

The article says that IPX7 means tested by "immersion at depth of 1 m" for "30 minutes." (Whether the depth is measured at the top, middle, or bottom of the device is not specified.) However, the table on p.5 of this TAIT Radio document shows IPX7 meaning "temporary immersion" to a depth of 15cm, with the depth measured at the top of the device.

Can someone who has access to the IEC Ingress Protection standards verify which is correct? Perhaps the TAIT document is based on an earlier version of the IEC standard. If so, the article should note that the standard has changed. NCdave (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a source with more details. This article in Compliance Engineering Magazine says:

Ratings IPX7 and IPX8. Tests for the ratings IPX7 and IPX8 address the possibility of moisture ingress from submersion in water. For IPX7 testing, the sample is submerged for 30 minutes. The lowest point of the enclosure should be 1000 mm below the surface of the water, and the highest point at least 150 mm below the surface. For IPX8, the test time and submersion depth are according to the manufacturer’s specifications and must be marked on the product (for example, “submersible for up to 1 hour at a depth up to 2 meters”).

Compliance with either of these tests does not imply compliance with IPX5 or IPX6 unless the product is marked with both ratings (for example, “IPX5/IPX7”).

So, my interpretation of that paragraph is that for devices less than 85cm in height the test should be done with the depth measured as at least 1m at the bottom of the device, but for devices greater than 85cm in height the test should be done with the depth measured as at least 15cm at the top of the device. That seems to reconcile the conflict between the current article and the TAIT document. Does anyone disagree? NCdave (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited the article accordingly. NCdave (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is super old, but I don't agree with that interpretation. I assume that the perceived lack of clarity in the original text comes from the fact that no qualifying statement is made with regard to the 1m mark; The text doesn't say, "The lowest point of the enclosure should be no less than 1000 mm below...". However, clarification is given for the second number - the highest point should be at least 150 mm below the surface. This is explicit: A device with a dimension greater than 850 mm will need to have the lowest point of its enclosure more than 1000 mm below the surface. If it doesn't, it can't comply with the second value, and given the greater specificity given for the second value, I think the logical interpretation is that the more specific rule prevails; You start with the bottom of your enclosure at 1000 mm below the surface, and if the top of the enclosure is less than 150 mm below the surface, you continue to submerge the enclosure further until the top of the enclosure is at least 150 mm below the surface. 73.234.2.61 (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on "IP rated phones" section

"Another example is the Sony Xperia Z Ultra, one of the first cellular phones to be IP-rated."

This line is very incorrect in my opinion, i'm no expert but I know that Siemens had a waterproof phone that was IP rated all the way back in 2004, the M65, and even before they had splashproof phones like the S10 Active and the M35/M35i

--85.191.27.236 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that disagreement :) This is not the first phone by many and might be a bit too much of a commercial ? Rugged phones have existed before (Winmate E430). But this may be the first rugged phone that does not look like one and is usable by people that don't really need it? --Cyril.holweck (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of the first waterproof smartphones, there are some more civilian waterproof phones like Nokia's 3720c but I digress. --84.105.83.223 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP code make correction

> > Dear wiki: > > Wikipedia's IP code description is different from the IP > > > standard IEC/EN 60529 , follows. > > > PLS Review the IP Code and make corrections.

    You have not understand the IP Code of IEC 60529. Your"effective

> > against" out of the IP Code standard scope. > > For instance, IPX4 your " effective against " include Ants. It's > > a mistake that IP code exclude any vermin protection . > > You could read the IP Code charter 1" scope and object". IP scope > > only for person ,solid objects ,water , which exclude co > > rrosion,fungus,vermin and so on. > > IP code "effective against" Ant which will make disputes in > > word wide who use IPXX cabinet. And make business damage. > > So we need you to make corrections of the IP code page. > > Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.17.150 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional letters" messed up

I think it used to be correct here but now IPXXA/IPXXB/IPXXC/IPXXD are missing https://books.google.se/books?id=14KMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ipxxb+ipxxd+ipxxc&source=bl&ots=e42gKnXFUZ&sig=oCU3wi5KGGZcsurdgcssy4wXNzQ&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajtD509TOAhUCBSwKHa-MCk4Q6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=ipxxb%20ipxxd%20ipxxc&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.101.51 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IP Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DGYoRMwp?url=http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/bisenius.htm to http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/bisenius.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]