Dear Colleagues,
The reality is that 60529 allows water in an IPX6 ENCLOSURE of an EQUIPMENT... [at least based on the edition that I have...1999 edition] See 14.3 acceptance criteria. The Standard ALLOWS as well drain holes; When an ENCLOSURE is tested as an ENCLOSURE (in Amund's case they DO NOT place on the Market an IPX6 ENCLOSURE, they are placing an EQUIPMENT that claims IPX6 protection for it, (big difference!) (that was the reason of using the available example form the 60950 part 22 example of INTERPRETATION); IF there is a specification of the amount of water that is allowed to enter the enclosure (e.g.: provided by the relevant technical committee), then that amount shall be measured and to be taken into account. I am sure that the testing lab did not have handy that value when they FAILED (incorrect decision in my opinion!) that ...EQUIPMENT... The clue is that the second characteristic numeral gives an idea about the SEVERITY of the test (expected field conditions)...and does NOT introduce any interdiction for the water to enter the enclosure...the water sent against the enclosure in different conditions, “shall have NO HARMFUL EFFECTS…”… Again, my judgement, my opinions...not of my employer...etc, etc... Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. TYCO SAFETY PRODUCTS CANADA 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 Fax: 905 760 3020 Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return the message and its attachments to the sender, and then please delete from your system without copying or forwarding it or call TSPC at 905 760 3000 extension 2568 so that the sender's address records can be corrected. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:27 AM To: [email protected]; Amund Westin; [email protected] Subject: RE: IP test - pass or fail? Hi All, I might have too much sawdust between the ears but Armud said, in the original e-mail, that the test is IPx6 and then mentioned drain holes. Would drain holes be expected in an IPx6 (waterproof) enclosure? I would have thought that the “waterproof” requirement was incompatible with the fitting of drain holes !? Is this the problem? Regards Tim ************************ Tim Haynes A1N10 Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 300 Capability Green Luton LU1 3PG ( Tel : +44 (0)1582 886239 7 Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863 ) Mob : +44 (0)7703 559 310 * E-mail : [email protected] P Please consider the environment before printing this email. There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and those who don't. J. Paxman ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Gies Sent: 18 November 2009 21:45 To: 'Amund Westin'; [email protected] Subject: RE: IP test - pass or fail? Hello Amund, Generally, if you have chosen to make an enclosure IPX6 for whatever reason, you probably have a robust system of gaskets and enclosure, and truly expect no water inside the enclosure. The fact that you had a little bit of water penetrating an IPX6 enclosure is normally an indication that that robust system of gaskets and enclosure suffered a near-miss failure. At this point, you would either have the mechanical designers make re-adjustments (adjust the torque values of fasteners, bring in the paw latches on doors, use a thicker gasket, etc.), or you would re-test at a less-severe enclosure value such as IPX5, if that is an option. Another concern is whether the water came in to a “wet area”, one equipped with drains that you expect to get wet, or did it penetrate the enclosure in a random manner and get on top of electronic parts that expect to be in a dry location. If it came in randomly, say in the middle of a gasketed-door interface, then you probably want to reject these results, modify and retest. I have in-house capability to test for IPX6 as well as NEMA 4, and I get designers to send me test samples early. This is because, from a probability standpoint, I expect them to fail more times than not the first time through. There is a normal test-mitigate-retest progression that goes on. Water ingress failures tend to be chaotic in nature, and are often difficult to fix. So, early testing allows the designer time to make changes. One last point—the “garden-hose test” that you might have conducted on your sample before subjecting it to the IPX6 test is fine to weed out obvious problems, but it is not in the class of water impact that the IPX6 test delivers at 100 liters per minute through a 12.5 mm diameter nozzle. It is closer to pre-compliance for an IPX5 test of 12.5 liters per minute through a 6.3 mm diameter nozzle. Best regards, Don Gies Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA ________________________________ From: Amund Westin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: IP test - pass or fail? We’re doing an IPX6 test (high pressure water jet) according to IEC60529. Some water enter the unit, but drain holes make their job. Only plastic enclose in that area anyway. But, a few drops are discovered on a plastic material switch inside the unit and also some drops on two connection poles on the swicth. We have failed on this test because (according to the test lab) in the long term, creepage currents can cause the two poles to be shorted and thereafter a incorrect function will appear. Is it likely to believe that such creepage currents can occur, when the two poles are placed 10mm from each other and the voltage supply is 3.3VDC? b.r. Amund SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]>
