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
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
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:
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
