Let me just say how strongly I support Neil's contention that the only way to be sure of compliance with the higher categories is to test. Furthermore, for the tests to be really representative, the equipment needs to be powered through a thermal cycle (i.e. powered on, allowed to come up to temperature and then switched off and allowed to cool down again) while held underwater.
Nick. At 15:17 +0100 3/9/09, Barker, Neil wrote: >John > >I really don't think the Class comes into this discussion. IP68 >denotes protection against solid materials as small as dust and >immersion in water to a specified depth >1m without ingress of >either to an extent that affects operation of the equipment. In my >experience, water and volts do not mix, no matter how little of >each. I go diving, and a flooded dive torch is seldom recoverable as >just a half-hour or so with volts present is sufficient to >completely trash the electrical contacts. Also, we never determine >the more stringent IP codes "by design" as too often we have been >proved wrong. It is easy to determine say IP20 by design, but IP68 >really needs testing. It's quick and not too expensive. > >Best regards > >Neil Barker CEng CEnv MIET HonFSEE MIEEE >Manager >Central Quality > - 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]>
