This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
IP code article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MrCyber 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I agree that this page should be merged with the proposed page.
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).
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.
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)
The IEC's website here: https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings clearly states: "The IEC has developed the ingress protection (IP) ratings, which grade the resistance of an enclosure against the intrusion of dust or liquids."
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)
It seems "Code" is rather less well known too...
"IP rating"+protection: 83,600
|
"IP Code"+protection: 24,400
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.17.204 ( talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
> > 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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
IP Code stands for International Protection Code. It is a standardisation, so how can it be referred to differently?
For example, the British Standards is referred to directly, yet IP Code is not, it somehow has an indirect meaning "Ingress Protection Code". It then refers to the direct meaning as "sometimes interpreted as International Protection Code".
If we stick to the facts, the opening sentence should be restructured. It currently stands as and I quote...
"The IP Code, or Ingress Protection Code, IEC standard 60529, sometimes interpreted as International Protection Code" should be changed to... "The IP Code, or International Protection Code, IEC standard 60529, sometimes interpreted as Ingress Protection Code".
My sources are true and correct and pertain to the BS7671:2018, otherwise referred to as the IET Wiring Regulations Eighteenth Edition. Sparky Jay21 ( talk) 21:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings: "The IEC has developed the ingress protection (IP) ratings, which grade the resistance of an enclosure against the intrusion of dust or liquids." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:E726:BD01:68AC:AF40:C401:F241 ( talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Does IP stand for International Protection, Ingress Protection or something else? There is a quite good small article on this question on the FAQ page of Finnish national committee of IEC (SESKO):
https://sesko.fi/yhteystiedot/usein-kysytyt-kysymykset/
I'll translate it here for you:
According to the corresponding standard (IEC 60529), the correct answer is International Protection. The final truth would require a historical study of the 1970s.
Everyone working in the electrical industry knows the enclosure class, or IP class, of electrical equipment, but where does the abbreviation come from? According to some sources, it means Ingress Protection (loosely translated in Finnish, protection from intrusion) and according to some, it means International Protection. Both are reasonable suggestions: after all, the IP class tells how well the product is protected against the ingress of water and foreign objects. On the other hand, the classification is international and it originated from the international IEC standard. But which is the "correct" answer?
According to the appropriate standard, the correct answer is International Protection. This can be found in the current standard (IEC 60529, last updated 2013) on page 12. Looking back at the versions of the standard, the same definition can be found in both the 1999 and 1989 versions. Then things go complex: in the very first edition of the standard – from 1976 – the meaning of the letters is not explained in any way, but the letters are used as they are. The English text does mention the word "ingress" and the French one mentions "pénétration" (translator's note: the IEC standards are bilingual: English and French) - is the code perhaps a combination of these words? The people who participated in the preparation of the original standard are already retired or deceased, so it is difficult to clarify the issue clearly.
The most confusing thing is that, although according to the official IEC standard the correct answer is International Protection, on the IEC website it says (checked on 23.8.2021) Ingress Protection... 93.106.155.113 ( talk) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)