Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
Gnomingstuff (talk | contribs) m Reverted edit by 178.86.34.7 (talk) to last version by Lovingboth |
||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk Header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Electrical engineering |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Engineering |importance=Mid}}
}}
==IP1X Link==
Are we sure that the link [http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/vilcus/ 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.173.199.115|195.173.199.115]] ([[User talk:195.173.199.115|talk]]) 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Oh dear, the humor police in action again ... [[User:Markus Kuhn|Markus Kuhn]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk: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 :-). [[User:Markus Kuhn|Markus Kuhn]] ([[User talk:Markus Kuhn|talk]]) 15:54, 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OIBtheOne|OIBtheOne]] ([[User talk:OIBtheOne#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OIBtheOne|contribs]]) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Third digit==
Line 6 ⟶ 21:
Moved the third-digit section over here, until someone can back it with a reference. [[User:Markus Kuhn|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.
:{| class="wikitable"
!Level !! Impact energy !! Equivalent drop mass and height
|-
|0 ||—||—
Line 181 ⟶ 199:
* The See Also reference to Water Resistant mark used to be "Water Resistant mark on wrist watches and eye bands". This term "eye bands" is not defined or used in the linked article, and seems not to be in common use for anything. I've removed it. [[Special:Contributions/192.75.165.180|192.75.165.180]] ([[User talk:192.75.165.180|talk]]) 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
== IP Code = Ingress protection code? ==
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. [[User:Sparky Jay21|Sparky Jay21]] ([[User talk:Sparky Jay21|talk]]) 21:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
: {{Agree}} Please remove the mention of '''International Protection''' entirely. We should not propagate obviously incorrect information? [[User:Ulfran|Ulfran]] ([[User talk:Ulfran|talk]]) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (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." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:E726:BD01:68AC:AF40:C401:F241|2A00:23C6:E726:BD01:68AC:AF40:C401:F241]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C6:E726:BD01:68AC:AF40:C401:F241#top|talk]]) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:BS EN 60529 (and therefore presumably IEC 60529) actually does state "International Protection" on the one page that actually mentions the name at all (the cover only says "IP Code").
:I don't have a copy of the standard but here is a YouTube video about it:
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfoxol20Mvk
:[[User:Uncriticalsimon|Uncriticalsimon]] ([[User talk:Uncriticalsimon|talk]]) 19:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
== History of the abbreviation (International Protection, Ingress Protection or Ingress, Pénétration) ==
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 [https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings website] it says (checked on 23.8.2021) Ingress Protection... [[Special:Contributions/93.106.155.113|93.106.155.113]] ([[User talk:93.106.155.113|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
== US English? ==
Given that it's an international standard, originating in Europe, is there a reason it talks about "meters" rather than "metres" when talking about, for example, depth? [[User:Lovingboth|Lovingboth]] ([[User talk:Lovingboth|talk]]) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
| |||