Re: IP testing per EN60529
In message de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d02673...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes: It seems I am interpreting it correctly, and some other mfr's and competent bodies are not. None of us is perfect, but careful reading does give you the correct answer in this case so it's a bit frustrating. The trouble is that many standards don't actually say clearly what they mean, which leads to 'interpretations', some official but many unofficial, which come in three kinds, 'true', 'perhaps' and 'false'. When you are told of an 'interpretation', it may be very difficult to find out which kind you have! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: IP testing per EN60529
Thanks everyone. It seems I am interpreting it correctly, and some other mfr's and competent bodies are not. None of us is perfect, but careful reading does give you the correct answer in this case so it's a bit frustrating. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering and SW Test Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IP testing per EN60529 This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: IP testing per EN60529
You are interpreting the standard the way I've always interpreted it. Regards, Brian Epstein ENT Consulting bepst...@entconsulting.net 805.591.9587-Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IP testing per EN60529 This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
In message p06240812c226d8d0cad0@[192.168.1.60], dated Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes: It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Indeed. Part of the confusion is down to the European Commission, in notifying EN 60529 under the LVD as if it were a safety standard. It isn't: it's a classification standard. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
I agree with Ted that you are correct, Jim. The IP code is widely misunderstood as being the same as a pass/fail requirement in one of the product safety standards. In fact it is not, it is standardised method of making measurements of the performance of a product with regard to ingress protection, and whether or not a product is acceptable for any given application is not the purpose of the code. It is wrong to think of the results of testing to EN 60529 in terms of 'pass' or 'fail'. It is there to assign a code number to a given enclosure and whether this is adequate for the intended application is (in most cases) the subject of other standards. Nick. At 07:24 -0500 21/3/07, ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote: Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: IP testing per EN60529
Your understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether the probe reaches the stop before hitting anything. If the probe tip enters the enclosure, the enclosure fails the test. IEC 529 IP ratings, and NEMA enclosure ratings, are intended determine the level of protection from environmental contamination. The pass/fail criteria for IP2X, 3X and 4X are whether the probe can enter any distance into the enclosure. The test is to determine is environmental contaminants can enter the enclosure, get into the electronics or mechanics and cause the product to fail. It is not necessarily related to human safety. For example, if the equipment has a rating of IP32, no object greater than 2.5 mm can enter the enclosure. It doesn't matter if the electronics are two meters from a grill with 3 mm holes. That would still fail the IP32 requirement. Contaminants between 2.5 mm and 3 mm could enter the enclosure and work their way to the sensitive parts, causing a failure. As a side note, even I get a little careless with the nomenclature. There is a NEMA enclosure rating of 4X which roughly correlates to an IEC 529 rating of IP66 - IP68. There is a rough correlation between NEMA/UL enclosure ratings and the IEC classification, but it is not exact. The test criteria are different. Ted Eckert American Power Conversion/MGE http://www.apc.com/ The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC, MGE or Schneider Electric. The speaker does not represent APC's, MGE's or Schneider Electric's official position on any matter. Jim Eichner Jim.eichner@Xant rex.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 03/20/2007 07:07 IP testing per EN60529 PM This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
IP testing per EN60529
This has to do with the IP 3X, and 4X ratings and tests. The testing is by way of 2.5mm rod or 1.0mm wire probes, which seems quite straight forward at first. But the probes are not meant to be used the way I'm used to. It's not about whether they can touch anything, it's about whether they can enter at all. This is pretty clear in the text and tables giving pass pass/fail criteria, and is made really obvious if you read the note under 13.3. That note says that for IP3X and 4X the requirements are meant to prevent spherical objects of 2.5mm or 1.0mm diameter that are capable of motion from entering the enclosure. So basically an indirect or tortuous entry path doesn't do the job and you have to limit the size of an opening somewhere along the path to less than the diameter of the probe. It's easy to get misled on that point, for a variety of reasons: - the probes have a defined length and a stop, neither of which comes into play with the shall not enter criteria, but their presence suggest the more typical ok to enter but not to touch hazardous parts criteria - some of the examples in Annex A can easily be misinterpreted - safety compliance people are used to criteria that allows the probe to enter but not touch things - the standard touches on pass/fail in several places and the additional letters and first numeral have requirements that overlap but are different I have seen products on the market and results from certification bodies that make it clear this is being misinterpreted. People are assuming it's ok for the probe to enter as long as adequate clearance is maintained to live parts, whirling blades, etc, when in fact it is not acceptable for the IP3X and 4X probes to enter the enclosure. So given what I am seeing as widespread mis-interpretation my question is, am I wrong? Are the labs and other products on the market right, and I'm misinterpreting the requirements? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager - Compliance Engineering Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
