Talk:IP code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:40, 27 December 2018

Latest revision as of 20:51, 7 August 2025

(46 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk Header}}

{{WikiProject Brands |class=C |importance=}}{{WikiProject Electrical engineering |class=C}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Brands |class=C |importance=}}{{WikiProject Electrical engineering |classimportance=CMid}}

{{WikiProject Engineering |importance=Mid}}

}}

==IP1X Link==

Line 93 ⟶ 97:

: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. [[User:Eric.Best|Eric.Best]] ([[User talk:Eric.Best|talk]]) 09:21, 14 October 2010 (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."

== Rename to "IP Rating"? ==

Line 118 ⟶ 124:

: {{Agree}} That's the most common term, so per [[Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names|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. [[Special:Contributions/71.41.210.146|71.41.210.146]] ([[User talk:71.41.210.146|talk]]) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

: {{Agree}} I prefer IP rating too, IP code gives associations to a regulation like Building code. This is a standard only, not a regulation. A regulation could use the definitions in the standard for making requirements for a specific enclosure. [[User:Ulfran|Ulfran]] ([[User talk:Ulfran|talk]]) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Pressure Vs Depth ==

Line 191 ⟶ 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">—&nbsp;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)