IPX8 standard explained!!!

[wapkil]

Thank you for the calculations. I know how complicated even seemingly simple fluid dynamics problems can be. The precise behavior of an object (flashlight) constructed from connected materials with different properties hit by water moving in the air is probably even harder to model. That's why I haven't even tried to calculate this myself.

I'm not sure how to interpret the almost 30 atm value you obtained. It is quite high and if I correctly understood it will start to rapidly lower immediately after the impact. Nevertheless, as you wrote, that would confirm that the IPX8 at 1m claim can be at the same time technically correct and completely meaningless for my flashlights use.

 

[Marduke]

T.... that the IPX8 at 1m claim can be at the same time technically correct and completely meaningless for my flashlights use.

EXACTLY!!

 

[roadie]

calc of pressure of a raindrop .................

wow!!!!!!

 

[Zatoichi]

Those high pressure numbers quoted for watches may also take into account the differences between static and dynamic pressures. Even if my watches of flashlights won't be thrown into the water more than one meter deep I may try to take them out fast. I have never measured my arm velocity but I believe I should be able to exceed 5m/s. I think that alone would add more than 0.1 atm of the dynamic pressure.

I don't know how to calculate the pressure of big rain drops or imposed during the impact when the light is accidentally thrown into the water but 0.1 atm also doesn't sound really safe here. Maybe someone with a background in physics better than mine could comment on that?

That's a fair point. I don't understand the maths and physics well enough (luckily Marduke was awake in maths class :wave but at the same time, I don't know how the tests are actually performed.

All the IP codes I've seen for hand held equipment state a depth rather than atmospheric pressure. If you look up expensive marine radios (including submersible ones) they all seem to have IPX7, IP67 and IPX8 ratings of 1m to 5m (mostly 1 - 1.5m). They're not flashlights, but if you think about it they're used in a similar way eg: carried with clips or in pockets, often hand held while in use. It's common to see IP codes for this type of equipment, and it's hard to believe if they're dropped in a metre of water instead of carefully placed in it, they'll leak. Being used on boats I Imagine they need to be splash and rain reisitant. Some are designed to float to the surface if dropped in water.

It's possible they're pressure tested much higher than the rating suggests (unlike watches), or they may even recreate conditions of use. Without knowing this it's hard to say how meaningfull the ratings are in use, but it's a widely accepted standard for everything from flashlights, marine radios and underwater boat lights to electronic components used in deep sea equipment. You sometimes see a Japanese JIS rating instead of, or along with an IP code, but they're very similar.

It would be great to have a manufacturer explain it, and find out if IPX8 can, in some cases, involve nothing more than a > 0.1m static pressure test for 30 minutes. I'd be surprised, but also enlightended. I have noticed that while with watches you'll see "30 ATM - but no swimming", IP ratings state "IPX8, sumbersible in water at 1.5m... " or words to that effect.

The only thing I own that I know to be IPX8 rated is the E01, and this probably surpassed it's rating in the washing machine. Anyone know what the pressure might be during a spin cycle? :huh:

 

[wapkil]

The IEC 60529 standard requires that the IPX8 test ensures that it will be possible to continuously use the tested enclosure underwater. I have no idea precisely what "continuously" means here. It is also required that the conditions for IPX8 be more severe than for IPX7. IPX7 is nothing more than 30 minutes in a 1 meter deep water tank.

The IEC 60529 requires a manufacturer to specify the operating position in which the enclosure is tested - and that's the next point making IPX8 alone, without the precise test specification, useless to me.

The standard explicitly states that if the enclosure is rated only IPX7 or IPX8 (i.e. without additional IPX5 or IPX6) it is not suitable for exposure to water jets (levels 5 and 6). It doesn't say anything about lower IP levels though. The spray nozzle (that looks to me like a shower head) used in the levels 3 and 4 has the water flow rate of 10 l/min. I think that a normal shower head had can easily have twice that number.

I find it highly misleading that up to the level 6 the stated protection level means that all the requirements of the levels below are met, while the rating of level 7 or 8 alone means that requirements for levels 5 and 6 are not met. I believe that for flashlights use outside of diving the information about compliance to the levels from 1 to 6 would be much more useful than IPX7 or IPX8.

It is also interesting to note that for the dripping water tests (levels 1 and 2) the test minimum duration is only 10 minutes, for the spray nozzle 5 minutes and for water jets 3 minutes.

To conclude, it seems that if a manufacturer provides precise information how the tests were conducted, the IP protection levels can be quite meaningful. Without this information (and usually without exceeding the minimal test requirements) the compliance to some IP level alone doesn't seem to promise much, if anything.

 

[Zatoichi]

My personal take on it is this: I want to be able to use my lights in the rain, and I don't want them to fail if they get wet (if I drop them in a puddle or my kit gets waterlogged). I've never had reason to worry about them being subjected to water jets.

In my experience, any well maintained flashlight sealed with o-rings can be used in the rain. I would expect them to survive a dip in water too, but it's good if they come with a guarantee of that. Even with an IPX7 rating, how often is a (non diving) flashlight going to spend more than 30 minutes in a metre of water? I suspect the number of people who go out to buy a flashlight for general use (EDC, keychain, car, house etc) aren't concerned about whether it can withstand water jets. In a way, it almost seems like overkill to have them officially rated at all. Surefire just state "o-ring sealed, weatherproof". IPX7 or 8 @ 1m for 30 minutes will tell you the o-rings are effective in normal use, which is a nice touch if you don't have Surefire's reputation.

On equipment where it really matters, I've seen IPX8 ratings up to 10,000 PSI. For the kind of lights I own, 1m+ for 30 minutes seems sufficient.

Just out of interest, here's an example from SOLAS requirements on ships, which illustrates tests can fit to the needs:

7.6 The enclosures of electrical components necessarily situated below the bulkhead deck shall provide
suitable protection against the ingress of water.*

* Refer to the following IEC publication 60529 (1989), as amended by its amendment 1 (1999):
.1 electrical motors, associated circuits and control components; protected to IPX7 standard;
.2 door position indicators and associated circuit components; protected to IPX8 standard; and
.3 door movement warning signals; protected to lPX6 standard.
Other arrangements for the enclosures of electrical components may be fitted provided the Administration is satisfied that an
equivalent protection is achieved. The water pressure testing of the enclosures protected to IPX8 shall be based on the pressure
that may occur at the location of the component during flooding for a period of 36 h.

 

[Burgess]

Very interesting, eye-opening thread here.


Thank you to Marduke for that technical info.


Thank you everyone, for your input.


:thumbsup:

_

 

[Mjolnir]

Since IPX-6 is protection from "powerful water jets," then wouldn't an IPX-8 light have to be able to take a hit from a raindrop? I'm pretty sure that the code is inclusive of the numbers below it, so an IPX-8 rating would also include an IPX-6 rating. Therefore, if it truly is IPX-8, then it should survive a raindrop. If it doesn't, then it isn't truly IPX-8. Marduke, I think you are looking at this a little too cynically. If a manufacturer states that a light is IPX-8 and can be immersed in X feet of water for Y amount of time, then chances are that it can survive a raindrop, and will probably not leak if it is moved around under water.
While manufacturers do tend to exaggerate (about pretty much everything), I don't think it is reasonable to assume that they find and exploit loopholes in absolutely everything they can. I have submerged my IPX-8 light, and turned it on, without any leakage.

 

[Marduke]

Since IPX-6 is protection from "powerful water jets," then wouldn't an IPX-8 light have to be able to take a hit from a raindrop? I'm pretty sure that the code is inclusive of the numbers below it, so an IPX-8 rating would also include an IPX-6 rating. Therefore, if it truly is IPX-8, then it should survive a raindrop. If it doesn't, then it isn't truly IPX-8.

No, IPX8 does NOT include any other ratings. IPX6 and IPX8 are NOT mutually inclusive, and a product MUST be rated for each INDEPENDENTLY. You can have a dual rating, but to quality for both you must actually have a dual rating.

 

[Zatoichi]

I don't see falling raindrops being a problem for most flashlights unless they're designed so they fall directly onto the o-rings. I've never had problems using them in rain anyway, IP rated or not. It's still a valid point though, as it illustrates (to me anyway) that these ratings don't appear to allow for certain conditions (temperature changes and button operation being others).

After participating in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that 'IPX8' usually means something like 'weather resistant, and can handle getting wet'. It tells me the light is fully o-ring sealed, but even then I consider it my responsiblity to make sure the o-rings are in good shape, fitted correctly and lubricated throughout the life of the flashlight. It's not meaningless to me, but I wouldn't confuse it with with being waterproof to 'x' metres under any conditions than those used in the test.

I would assume it's water resistant enough for normal flashlight use on land, and that the test is applied to make sure all the gaps are sealed with correctly fitting o-rings. That should be enough for most of us, unless we work in poorly lit carwashes or need to stick hot flashlights in cold water.

 

[wapkil]

No, IPX8 does NOT include any other ratings. IPX6 and IPX8 are mutually exclusive, and a product MUST be rated for each INDEPENDENTLY. You can have a dual rating, but to quality for both you must actually have a dual rating.

According to the standard, IPX6 and IPX8 are not exactly "mutually exclusive". When an enclosure is rated with only the IPX8 level, it is unsuitable for water jets (i.e. levels 5 and 6). It is not the other way round - if something is rated IPX6 we don't know whether it is or isn't suitable for immersion (i.e. levels 7 and 8). For IPX8 (and IPX7) we also don't know anything about levels from 1 to 4. And IPX8 includes IPX7.

When an enclosure is rated IPX8 without additional ratings, we know that:
- it meets IPX8 requirements (defined by the manufacturer)
- it meets IPX7 requirements
- it does not meet IPX6 requirements
- it does not meet IPX5 requirements
- it may or may not meet requirements of levels 1-4

 

[wapkil]

After participating in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that 'IPX8' usually means something like 'weather resistant, and can handle getting wet'.
(...)
I would assume it's water resistant enough for normal flashlight use on land, and that the test is applied to make sure all the gaps are sealed with correctly fitting o-rings.

My conclusion is similar but less optimistic. When I see IPX8 without an additional description of the test conditions, I now interpret it as "it doesn't have holes and probably has some o-rings". It can mean that it is splash proof. It may also be water resistant - it's not that hard to seal a metal tube. Unfortunately it may also leak when placed under a water tap or in water with temperature difference more than 5K from the flashlight body. The IPX8 rating alone doesn't promise it to be water proof to any degree in dynamic conditions so if you expect it to be waterproof, you'd better check it before buying.

That should be enough for most of us, unless we work in poorly lit carwashes or need to stick hot flashlights in cold water.

I think quite a few people here use their lights, either for professional or hobby purposes, in environments where they may be dropped into cold water or used outside during a rainstorm. Probably most of the flashlights would work correctly in such conditions but not because of the IPX8 rating but because they are built in the way strongly exceeding the minimal requirements of the IP protection levels.

 

[DM51]

When an enclosure is rated IPX8 without additional ratings, we know that:
- it meets IPX8 requirements (defined by the manufacturer)
- it meets IPX7 requirements
- it does not meet IPX6 requirements
- it does not meet IPX5 requirements
- it may or may not meet requirements of levels 1-4

When an enclosure is rated IPX8 without additional ratings, we know that:
- it meets IPX8 requirements (defined by the manufacturer)
- it meets IPX7 requirements
- it does not meet IPX6 requirements
- it does not meet IPX5 requirements
- it may or may not meet requirements of levels 1-4
- it is BS

I have added that last one in red. It's really all you need to know about IPX8.

 

[wapkil]

When an enclosure is rated IPX8 without additional ratings, we know that:
- it meets IPX8 requirements (defined by the manufacturer)
- it meets IPX7 requirements
- it does not meet IPX6 requirements
- it does not meet IPX5 requirements
- it may or may not meet requirements of levels 1-4
- it is BS

In a parallel thread Javier from Barbolight explained me that they treat this standard seriously. Unfortunately he hasn't participated in further discussion. I have no idea what are the conditions during diving so I can accept that in this situation IPX8 may be useful.

I have added that last one in red. It's really all you need to know about IPX8.

I've read this conclusion before but to fully believe it, I had to confront it with the standard. It's a pity that the IEC forgot to define a supplementary IP symbol for some manufacturers to show exactly what they mean. I think it could look like this: :nana:

Well, at least now I know that when rated IPX8 the flashlight body should have no open holes.

 

[Zatoichi]

My conclusion is similar but less optimistic. When I see IPX8 without an additional description of the test conditions, I now interpret it as "it doesn't have holes and probably has some o-rings". It can mean that it is splash proof. It may also be water resistant - it's not that hard to seal a metal tube. Unfortunately it may also leak when placed under a water tap or in water with temperature difference more than 5K from the flashlight body. The IPX8 rating alone doesn't promise it to be water proof to any degree in dynamic conditions so if you expect it to be waterproof, you'd better check it before buying.



I think quite a few people here use their lights, either for professional or hobby purposes, in environments where they may be dropped into cold water or used outside during a rainstorm. Probably most of the flashlights would work correctly in such conditions but not because of the IPX8 rating but because they are built in the way strongly exceeding the minimal requirements of the IP protection levels.

Well on the first point I tend to agree, which is why I said about not assuming water resistance under conditions other than those used in the test. I think 'may have o-rings' is a bit cynical for a test involving immersion though, unless some other kind of sealent is used, for the lens perhaps. If a light has gaps or holes to let water straight in, I don't see how it could have legitimately passed the IPX8 testing.

On the second point, I use mine in wet conditions and they sometimes do get waterlogged. I do consider using them in wet weather as 'normal use'. The only problem I've ever had with an o-ring sealed light was with a Minimag with a perished o-ring. That's where maintainance comes in, and even with a dive light I'd be inclined to check things out myself before trusting it, regardless of any ratings. IP ratings don't seem to account for QC, and certainly not wear and tear. I'm the same way with watches: I don't trust jewellers to change batteries in case they replace a damaged, missaligned or unlubricated gasket. I do it myself, and if the watch is valuable enough to warrant it, pay for a pressure test.

I agree that with or without an IP rating, many lights probably exceed the requirements of a minimal IPX8 rating. The only IPX8 light I have that I'm aware of is my E01, but non of them have had a problem with rain or getting wet. Even the Mag on my keychain has survived being dropped in a number of puddles. I don't think any have been under more than an inch of water for any amount of time though, which to my mind would be going beyond normal use.

 

[Marduke]

After participating in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that 'IPX8' usually means something like 'weather resistant, and can handle getting wet'. It tells me the light is fully o-ring sealed, but even then I consider it my responsiblity to make sure the o-rings are in good shape, fitted correctly and lubricated throughout the life of the flashlight. It's not meaningless to me, but I wouldn't confuse it with with being waterproof to 'x' metres under any conditions than those used in the test.

I would assume it's water resistant enough for normal flashlight use on land, and that the test is applied to make sure all the gaps are sealed with correctly fitting o-rings. That should be enough for most of us, unless we work in poorly lit carwashes or need to stick hot flashlights in cold water.

Exactly. Finally, some common sense applied to to real world conditions!! :twothumbs

 

[Marduke]

According to the standard, IPX6 and IPX8 are not exactly "mutually exclusive".

Have you actually read the standard?

According to the standard, they indeed are mutually exclusive. If it's IPX7/8, it is not necessarily also IPX5/6. Conversely, if it's IPX5/6, it is not necessarily also IPX7/8.

It is rated for both ONLY if the following rating is tested and applied (for example)

IP66/IP68

 

[wapkil]

Have you actually read the standard?

Yes I have.

If it's IPX7/8, it is not necessarily also IPX5/6. Conversely, if it's IPX5/6, it is not necessarily also IPX7/8.

Correct, but this does not make them mutually exclusive. It starts to get out of topic but "mutually exclusive" means that when one of the conditions is true, the second one is false, not that one doesn't merely imply the other. In the loose meaning it could be understood that e.g. IPX8 (when given alone) falsifies IPX6 but IPX6 doesn't falsify IPX8 and thus they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Marduke]

Not what's posted above, all 47 pages of the full standard?

 

[wapkil]

Not what's posted above, all 47 pages of the full standard?

Yes, the full IEC 60529 ed. 2.1 from 2001-02.