# IPX8 standard explained!!!



## roadie

*Test Level Definitions*

*IPX-0* No special protection 

*IPX-1* Protected against falling water Equivalent to 3-5mm rainfall per minute for a duration of 10 minutes. 
Unit is placed in its normal operating position. 

*IPX-2* Protected against falling water when tilted up to 15 degrees - Same as IPX-1 but unit is tested in 4 fixed positions - 
tilted 15 degrees in each direction from normal operating position. 

*IPX-3* Protected against spraying water - Water spraying up to 60 degrees from vertical at 10 liters/min at a pressure of 80-100kN/m2 for 5 min. 

*IPX-4* Protected against splashing water - Same as IPX-3 but water is sprayed at all angles.

*IPX-5* Protected against water jets - Water projected at all angles through a 6.3mm nozzle at a flow rate of 12.5 liters/min at 
a pressure of 30kN/m2 for 3 minutes from a distance of 3 meters. 

*IPX-6* Protected against heavy seas - Water projected at all angles through a 12.5mm nozzle at a flow rate of 100 liters/min at 
a pressure of 100kN/m2 for 3 minutes from a distance of 3 meters. 

*IPX-7* Protected against water immersion - Immersion for 30 minutes at a depth of 1 meter. 

*IPX-8* Protected against water submersion - The equipment is suitable for continual submersion in water under conditions which are identified by the manufacturer.


----------



## roadie

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

i got the info from some webby, its nice to have the tablet explained, therefore sharing with everyone whom has doubts abt IPX or planning to get a light with has IPX ratings.


----------



## aussiebob

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

Cheers man. :twothumbs


----------



## fasuto

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

So IPX-8 without deep says very little, may be same as IPX-7


----------



## Zatoichi

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



fasuto said:


> So IPX-8 without deep says very little, may be same as IPX-7



IPX-8 means suitable for continuous immersion in depths over 1 metre. That's quite different from IPX-7 which is dunkable up to 1 metre. AFAIK the IPX-8 tests are specified by the manufacturer so they can be appropriate to whatever is being tested. Eg: 12 hours at 30 metres might be sufficient for a diver's flashlight or camera, but not enough for something desgined to be permanently submersed in extreme conditions.


----------



## sledhead

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

Excellent. Nice summary chart, short and to the point.:twothumbs


----------



## [email protected]

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

And the x before the number stands for dust protection afaik mayby somebody could shed some light(wink wink) on it.


----------



## TITAN1833

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



[email protected] said:


> And the x before the number stands for dust protection afaik mayby somebody could shed some light(wink wink) on it.


Actually IP stands for ingress protection the X I found this may help 
Example - IP Rating
With the IP rating IP 54, 5 describes the level of protection from solid objects and 4 describes the level of protection from liquids.
An "X" can used for one of the digits if there is only one class of protection, i.e. IPX1 which addresses protection against vertically falling drops of water e.g. condensation.. :twothumbs


----------



## Marduke

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



fasuto said:


> So IPX-8 without deep says very little, may be same as IPX-7



IPX-8 is ANYTHING better than IPX-7. It can be longer time, deeper depth, or both. The details are specified by the manufacturer.

That is why you see so many definition of what "IPX-8" is all over the internet. Each manufacturer posts what they certify to, and people think what they Googled and found applies to all IPX-8 certified products, even from different manufacturers.


----------



## DM51

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

IPX8 is frequently quoted as a "standard", but it is virtually useless. It is supposed to be accompanied by a figure for depth to have any meaning, but that figure is only rarely given. 

Furthermore, it is a static test, not a dynamic one. There is no requirement to move the item when it is submerged, or to operate it (switch on/off etc).

To say any item is "waterproof to IPX8 standard" by itself is therefore totally meaningless.


----------



## petersmith6

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

my uk100 light cannon is IP 68 16..well i know it dosnt leak at 70meters and the swich was just fine.


----------



## Helmut.G

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

a bit more info on wikipedia (probably more than you'd ever need to know )
the article supports what DM51 already said, IPX8 without additional info from the manufacturer doesn't mean very much


----------



## kramer5150

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

LOL!!!

IPX8 = "Whatever the he11 the marketeering teams wants to claim."


----------



## StandardBattery

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



> *IPX-8* ... under conditions which are identified by the manufacturer.


 
*Update: Not-True *[Exactly... rather than 8 being the highest level, it actually means nothing. A light can be declared IPX-8 without even passing IPX-6 standards, so really it is just marketing and says... we have o-rings and if you enough lubrication on the threads we hope it will survive a dunking.] _It does appear that IP ratings are a scale and IPX8 is considered beyond IPX7 for continual immersion._

To be fair though, unless your buying a dive light, most of the lights do fairly well and are not destroyed by a accidental submersion even if they need to be dried out a bit. Many of the lights have shown to operate under static conditions submerged is shallow water.

So although the spec does not mean much, I'm pretty happy with the level of protection provided by most manufactures.


----------



## Marduke

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



StandardBattery said:


> Exactly... rather than 8 being the highest level, it actually means nothing. A light can be declared IPX-8 without even passing IPX-6 standards, so really it is just marketing and says... we have o-rings and if you enough lubrication on the threads we hope it will survive a dunking.



That's not true. IPX-8 is defined as equal to and greater than IPX-7 in _some way_.

When the exact information is not known for an IPX-8 claim, IPX-7 certification is inherently (and correctly) assumed as a bounding condition.

The product can do AT LEAST 1M depth for AT LEAST 30 minutes. The "conditions identified" can be >1M, or >30min, or both, but NOT LESS.


----------



## StandardBattery

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



Marduke said:


> That's not true. IPX-8 is defined as equal to and greater than IPX-7 in _some way_.


 
*I stand corrected.* I'm happy with what most manufactures are offering.

Just to clarify, this is the IP (Ingress Protection) standard, and X signifies no protection rating against solid objects.


----------



## mega_lumens

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

Am I missing something because even the highest IPX 7,8 doesn't sound like a rigorous standard. What rating do submarine lights or deep sea explorer robots meet to function at extreme conditions? Is there another international standard unit used besides IPX for more extreme conditions?


----------



## Wattnot

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

The way that definition reads (and I believe I first saw that in a much older thread) you would think that IPX-8 means it's automatically a full blown diving light. However, I don't believe any of our IPX-8 "certified" lights are suitable for real diving. Maybe some fun in your swimming pool but I'd say that's about it.


----------



## Marduke

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



mega_lumens said:


> Am I missing something because even the highest IPX 7,8 doesn't sound like a rigorous standard. What rating do submarine lights or deep sea explorer robots meet to function at extreme conditions? Is there another international standard unit used besides IPX for more extreme conditions?




IP certification is meant for dust, dirt, splash, and dunkable electronics. It is not intended to describe any sort of submergence rating whatsoever.

Dive ratings are much more rigorous, and ideally also take dynamic pressures into account. That's why a "200m" watch is really only meant for swimming or snorkeling at best. The dynamic pressures experienced at those shallow depths doing those activities are similar to a static pressure at 200m.


----------



## Zatoichi

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



mega_lumens said:


> Am I missing something because even the highest IPX 7,8 doesn't sound like a rigorous standard. What rating do submarine lights or deep sea explorer robots meet to function at extreme conditions?



Components on these type of things use IP ratings. While "IPX8" itself doesn't tell you much, it _can_ be rigorous. It can involve testing from 1 metre to over 1000 metres, and from 30 minutes to any amount of time. The ratings are used on components of ships (it's a requirement of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea), oil rigs, underwater vehicles etc. The conditions of the test vary accordingly.

But for the average flashlight, it will likely just mean you can drop it in a puddle. :shrug:


----------



## kramer5150

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



mega_lumens said:


> What rating do submarine lights or deep sea explorer robots meet to function at extreme conditions? Is there another international standard unit used besides IPX for more extreme conditions?



For watches, search ISO-2281 and ISO-6425... the latter being the more stringent requirement.


----------



## fasuto

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



mega_lumens said:


> Is there another international standard unit used besides IPX for more extreme conditions?



Barbolight example: IP68M (-200m. 20 Atm.)
I think that say a lot more than a Fenix IPX8
IPX8 should be folowed by "conditions which are identified by the manufacturer" without that conditions says nothing


----------



## LIGHTSMAD

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

often curious what each meant!

thanks!


----------



## LukeA

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

It's not "IPX," it's IP[variable][variable]


----------



## HKJ

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



LukeA said:


> It's not "IPX," it's IP[variable][variable]



No, it can be even longer, but wikipedia explains it ok.


----------



## TITAN1833

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

The IP standards are easy enough to understand but! for flashlights it would be easier just to say,
1.your light is splash resistant only! 
2. your light is dunkable static only! max depth 1M 
3.your light is dive rated and can be operated to a depth of ????M

IPX8 can cover the first two :twothumbs


----------



## Blue72

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*

The IPX standards are useless if you are looking for a water resistant light.

Lights left at 1 meter of water in static state has little to no water pressure regardless how long it is left in the water


----------



## Zatoichi

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



dd61999 said:


> The IPX standards are useless if you are looking for a water resistant light.
> 
> Lights left at 1 meter of water in static state has little to no water pressure regardless how long it is left in the water



True, but IPX8 doesn't necessarily mean it was only tested at 1 metre. It's just that most flashlight manufacturers seem to think around 1 metre is enough. Unless you take it diving or swimming, it probably is.


----------



## Barbarin

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



fasuto said:


> Barbolight example: IP68M (-200m. 20 Atm.)
> I think that say a lot more than a Fenix IPX8
> IPX8 should be folowed by "conditions which are identified by the manufacturer" without that conditions says nothing


 
Thank you Fasuto.

"M" after IP68 means that it will keep that condition even actuating on its moving parts. i.e. switching it on-off.

There is another one, IP69, and is used for parts exposed to high pressure water jets (for example car wash machines) . In my opinion was created because IP68 does not mention pressure.

It would be interesting too to explain about IK standards, which are related to resistance to impacts... althought interesting IK procedure is less realistic than Mil. Std. 810 STD. "Drop test". 

Javier 



Javier


----------



## Blue72

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



Zatoichi said:


> ......It's just that most flashlight manufacturers seem to think around 1 metre is enough. Unless you take it diving or swimming, it probably is.



Like I said the IPX rating (even if tested at 5 meters) is useless if you are looking for a water resistant light.


----------



## Zatoichi

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



dd61999 said:


> Like I said the IPX rating (even if tested at 5 meters) is useless if you are looking for a water resistant light.



I'm not sure whether you mean IP ratings are useless or the way flashlight manufacturers use them makes them useless. IPX8 specifically is for continuous submersion, so it's usefullness in a flashlight depends how it's going to be used. Even a 1m (IP) test should mean you're okay if your camping equipment gets waterlogged or you trip in a stream. That kind of water resistance in a flashlight is very useful to me.


----------



## Barbarin

In Spain and in Europe the norm is very clear. IP 68 followed by a number and "m" means how deep it will keep the IP68 characteristics. (example IP68 200 m) This followed by a M letter also means that the properties will be kept while moving parts are actuated.

IP and IK explained (Sorry, spanish)
NTP 588 explaining further the above norm.


----------



## wapkil

Barbarin said:


> In Spain and in Europe the norm is very clear. IP 68 followed by a number and "m" means how deep it will keep the IP68 characteristics. (example IP68 200 m) This followed by a M letter also means that the properties will be kept while moving parts are actuated.
> 
> IP and IK explained (Sorry, spanish)
> NTP 588 explaining further the above norm.



I would be grateful for more information about the IEC 60529 standard and its meaning for a casual user, if you could provide us with it.

Am I correct to assume that IPX8 certified light should work correctly in the test involving turning it on and then slowly putting in the water for the time duration and the depth specified by the manufacturer?

I've read somewhere that IPX8 should be not worse than IPX7 and that IPX7 is defined as immersion for 30 minutes at a depth of 1 meter. On the other hand the link to the document you provided seems to allow manufacturers to define any time and depth conditions *up to* 1 meter (I'm not sure - I don't know Spanish). Is it possible to tell anything about the waterproofness of a light when only the protection level is known and not those precise conditions?

I'm also wondering about the meaning of the IPX8 in a situation when a light is not submerged. I think that when a light is underwater the pressure is approximately constant. On the other hand, when water is sprayed the pressure changes dramatically when the water droplets hit and bounce. Does conformance to the IPX8 level tell us anything about a light behavior in such a situation (e.g. in the rain, under the shower, when someone spills the water on it) or should we look at different protections levels or different standards?


----------



## Zatoichi

wapkil said:


> On the other hand, when water is sprayed the pressure changes dramatically when the water droplets hit and bounce. Does conformance to the IPX8 level tell us anything about a light behavior in such a situation (e.g. in the rain, under the shower, when someone spills the water on it) or should we look at different protections levels or different standards?



There are different IP codes for those conditions. IPX8 is for emmersion in water. See post #1.


----------



## wapkil

Zatoichi said:


> There are different IP codes for those conditions. IPX8 is for emmersion in water. See post #1.



I know that but IPX8 is frequently the only level stated in the specification. I asked this question to be sure what to do if this is the only information I have.


----------



## Zatoichi

Unfortunately 'IPX8' on it's own tells you very little. I think that's why some people are so unimpressed by the rating when it's displayed like that. You can try contacting the manufacturer for the specifics of the test. It should be safe to assume if it has an IPX8 rating it's also okay for drips and splashes.

Because IPX8 on it's own _may_ only mean it's been tested in shallow water for a brief period (or using equipment to similate that), I wouldn't count on it standing up to powerful jets of water. Ideally the pressure used in the test should be => what it will encounter in it's proper, intended use.


----------



## wapkil

I have just read cave dave's post in the Zebralight quality thread and checked the watch on my wrist. It has the water resistance rating of 10 atm (100 meters). 

I haven't read the appropriate standards for watches but few years ago when I bought the watch this was the level when I could be confident it is reasonably waterproof for activities not involving intensive swimming or diving. Anything below 30 meters meant one shouldn't even think about putting the watch close to the water. If a light is certified with IPX8 at 1 meter (which seams to be popular) it would be *thirty times* less than what for watches was considered splashproof... 

I don't know if the test conditions for watches and in the IEC 60529 are comparable but if they are, the water resistance of 1m (0.1 atm) starts to look dangerously close to meaningless...


----------



## Zatoichi

A manufacturer's claim isn't necessarily the same as an official certification, but assuming honesty, they should amount to the same in this case.

Some people claim to have happily swam and showered in 30m rated watches with no problems, while others have had instant disasters with higher rated watches (this comes from a watch forum I frequent). I've only seen a very small number of watches with IP ratings mentioned. The proper standard for diver's watches is an ISO rating IIRC. I don't think there's any 'appropriate standard' required, they just pressure test samples to a certain level and that's it's rating.

My working theory is WR depths on watches are set so high to cover manufacturers. While a new 30m rated watch should be able to withstand 30m of static pressure, how will the consumer know at what depth his swimming will amount to that figure? Will he/she remember to change the gasket every two to three years? Will they subject it to chemicals that'll speed up the deterioration of the gaskets? I think they have good cause for a very wide safety margin. It's actually a selling point with watches too. Offices are full of desk-divers with 200 - 300m WR watches (in case they spill their coffee). 

You could ask why they don't seem to do this with flashlights. I don't really know, but people don't wear flashlights in the same way they do watches (perhaps with a few exceptions round here), and watches are generally more fragile and prone to permanent damage through water ingress. Personally I don't see high levels of water resistance being a big deal with flashlights, unless they're diving flashlights. 

There's a lot of 'I think' and 'probably's in there, I know.  One thing I can tell you for sure is, my son's IPX8 rated Fenix E01 survived the washing machine, as did another members here. 

What you said at the end of your post about 0.1 atm being dangerously close to meaningless is a matter of perspective. For a flashlight, if it can survive being rained on and dropped in a puddle - that's the difference between a working light and a dead one to me. If you see "IPX8" and think "great I can take it diving", then there may be problem. It can be misleading without further information attatched.


----------



## wapkil

Zatoichi said:


> (...)
> My working theory is WR depths on watches are set so high to cover manufacturers. While a new 30m rated watch should be able to withstand 30m of static pressure, how will the consumer know at what depth his swimming will amount to that figure?
> (...)
> What you said at the end of your post about 0.1 atm being dangerously close to meaningless is a matter of perspective. For a flashlight, if it can survive being rained on and dropped in a puddle - that's the difference between a working light and a dead one to me. If you see "IPX8" and think "great I can take it diving", then there may be problem. It can be misleading without further information attatched.


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?


----------



## Marduke

Dynamic effects include more than dynamic pressure. Moving under water there is also a point of stagnation pressure.


Edit:
I've decided to run through the calc of pressure of a raindrop. 

A large raindrop falls at roughly 9m/s

The pressure induced by impact is roughly equal to the pressure of the water hammer effect

P = rho*V*c
P = pressure
rho = density
V = velocity
c = speed of sound in media

rho = 1000kg/m^3
V = 9m/s
c = 331.3 m/s

so therefore, P = 2.982 mPa

For reference, the pressure of static water at 1m depth is 9.81 kPa

That raindrop pressure is over 300x greater, or the equivalant of 300M depth. Obviously time of action comes into play here, otherwise your house or car would be crushed in every rainstorm.

So there you see why a static pressure specification quickly becomes useless as a measure of "waterproofness" in real life.


----------



## 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

wapkil said:


> 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

wapkil said:


> 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

Mjolnir said:


> 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

Marduke said:


> 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

Zatoichi said:


> 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.



Zatoichi said:


> 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

wapkil said:


> 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

DM51 said:


> 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.



DM51 said:


> 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

wapkil said:


> 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

Zatoichi said:


> 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

wapkil said:


> *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

Marduke said:


> Have you actually read the standard?



Yes I have.



Marduke said:


> 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

Marduke said:


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



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


----------



## Marduke

Then re-read section 6


> [FONT=&quot]Up to and including second characteristic numeral 6, the designation implies compliance also[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]with the requirements for all lower characteristic numerals. However, the tests establishing[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]compliance with any one of the lower degrees of protection need not necessarily be carried[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]out provided that these tests obviously would be met if applied.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]An enclosure designated with second characteristic numeral 7 or 8 only is considered[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]unsuitable for exposure to water jets (designated by second characteristic numeral 5 or 6) and[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]need not comply with requirements for numeral 5 or 6 unless it is dual coded as follows:[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]{Table not quoted}[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]Enclosures for “versatile” application indicated in the last column shall meet requirements for[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]exposure to both water jets and temporary or continuous immersion.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]Enclosures for “restricted” application indicated in the last column are considered suitable[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]only for temporary or continuous immersion and unsuitable for exposure to water jets.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]IPX7/8 are “restricted” unless dual qualified. Once dual qualified, they are considered “versatile” and meet both specifications.[/FONT]


----------



## wapkil

Marduke said:


> Then re-read section 6



Actually I did before answering to your first post today.



Marduke said:


> IPX7/8 are “restricted” unless dual qualified. Once dual qualified, they are considered “versatile” and meet both specifications.



I feel this dispute about the precise meaning of words slowly becomes pointless, but please re-read my posts #51 and #58.

The only problem is with the term "mutually exclusive". I assumed that you used the term "exclusive" to note that IPX8 when alone means that the enclosure does not meet IPX6 and IPX5. And that's correct.

The problem is that when you say that IPX6 and IPX8 are "*mutually* exclusive" it also means that IPX6 when alone has to imply that the enclosure does not comply with IPX8. And that's not true - IPX6 doesn't say anything about IPX8 compliance (so an IPX6 enclosure may or may not comply with IPX8). 

In other words, for IPX8 and IPX6 to be mutually exclusive, IPX8 has to mean "IPX8 and not IPX6" (and it does mean that) but also IPX6 has to mean "IPX6 and not IPX8", which it doesn't.

I wasn't nitpicking. I thought that you meant that IPX6 when given alone implies "not IPX8" and that's what I wanted to correct.


----------



## Marduke

Poor choice of words then, call it "not mutually inclusive" then.

The entire point was meeting one doesn't necessarily mean you satisfy any of the others.


----------



## pthakor

Hi. We are making IPX8 rated medical device which is 1 meter submrged in water for 30 minutes.
Now, we can not perform water submerged test on production line. We have to use equivalent pressure / Vacuum decay tests. Tme million dollar question is, does anybody know the air acceptable leak rate equivalent to IPX8 OR does anybody know how to figure out equivalency. We like to use pressure decay test on production line.
Thansk for the help.


pete


----------



## Marduke

pthakor said:


> Hi. We are making IPX8 rated medical device which is 1 meter submrged in water for 30 minutes.
> Now, we can not perform water submerged test on production line. We have to use equivalent pressure / Vacuum decay tests. Tme million dollar question is, does anybody know the air acceptable leak rate equivalent to IPX8 OR does anybody know how to figure out equivalency. We like to use pressure decay test on production line.
> Thansk for the help.
> 
> 
> pete




If you cannot conduct the required IP certification on a representative statistical sample population, you would be unable to claim IP certification, and would need to use a different standard.

Note:
IP certification is not done on a production line basis. It's not part of the QC process for ever production item.


----------



## roadie

bump ...... :candle:


----------



## wapkil

roadie said:


> bump ...... :candle:



Why do you bump it? I thought everything was already discussed and explained...


----------



## strinq

The bump is usefull for newbies like me. 

Anyways, just a little info (someone was mentioning JIS above).
The JIS is an extremely strict standard. Much stricter than the ASTM (in testing methods). 
In one way that's why Japanese products are highly thought of.


----------



## Marduke

The standard discussed here is IEC, not ASTM.

The misconception is it *can* be stringent, but usually is not, partly due to the costs associated with the tests.


----------



## Bushman5

*Re: IPX standards explained!!!*



Marduke said:


> IP certification is meant for dust, dirt, splash, and dunkable electronics. It is not intended to describe any sort of submergence rating whatsoever.
> 
> .




so basically outdoor activities where a flashlight might get rained on, used in heavy rain or muddy situations (SAR) , dropped into a creek for a minute or two and retrieved, etc?


----------



## KiwiMark

This is interesting and all, but does anyone have any info on how waterproof Fenix and others ACTUALLY are? I know it said IPX8 when I read the details before buying it - but as mentioned in this thread that really doesn't mean much. I guess it should be fine in normal use and have no problem with rain/sweat/splashes and will probably survive brief shallow immersion. Has anyone tried water torture on their lights to find out what they will or wont take? Does anyone know how Fenix tests their lights for their claimed IPX8?


----------



## Marduke

KiwiMark said:


> This is interesting and all, but does anyone have any info on how waterproof Fenix and others ACTUALLY are? I know it said IPX8 when I read the details before buying it - but as mentioned in this thread that really doesn't mean much. I guess it should be fine in normal use and have no problem with rain/sweat/splashes and will probably survive brief shallow immersion. Has anyone tried water torture on their lights to find out what they will or wont take? Does anyone know how Fenix tests their lights for their claimed IPX8?



That would depend on the light. In reality, the E0 and E01 in proper maintained condition are good for about 100ft. I know of one person who uses the P1D diving.

Lights with rubber boots are much less, as the water pressure will press on the boot, and make operation impossible. I've seen most models survive the deep end of the pool, and multiple trips through the washing machine

Then I have also seen someone take a brand new light out of the package, fail to lube anything, dunk it in a sink, and it leaks. Gee, I wonder why that happened....


----------



## KiwiMark

Marduke said:


> That would depend on the light. In reality, the E0 and E01 in proper maintained condition are good for about 100ft. I know of one person who uses the P1D diving.
> 
> Lights with rubber boots are much less, as the water pressure will press on the boot, and make operation impossible. I've seen most models survive the deep end of the pool, and multiple trips through the washing machine



My Jetbeams all came reasonably well lubed already, I don't really recall with my Fenix lights. But I have lubed most of my lights with some Nyogel.

I have an L2D, which has a rubber boot - I wasn't really wondering whether it would be OK for diving, more just what it would take. Surely the water pressure wouldn't stop the switch from being able to be used if it was only a metre or 2? Has anyone tried diving to the bottom of the deep end of a pool and turned an L2D on and off, then checked to see if any water has gotten inside it? What if someone lost there wedding ring in the pool at night - could you take your EDC and turn it on, then dive into the pool and look for the ring with confidence that the EDC light wont leak? I carry a L0D, Jet-I Pro2 & Olight Ti Infinitum - would any/all of those be OK in a pool?

The deep end of a pool is about the most I was thinking about, I kinda think that for more than that it just makes sense to go with a purpose designed diving light. It would be cool if someone could give me some idea of how any of my lights might fare with typical domestic water hazards up to a swimming pool - I am pretty sure that I won't go as far as diving 50+ metres or anything near that extreme just because a light is rated IPX8.


----------



## Closet_Flashaholic

So, not to resurrect an old topic, and run the risk of derailing it on top of that, but:

Question about flashlights and pools:

1) I can understand about watches while swimming, but who takes a flashlight in the pool with them on a regular basis? 

2) Why?

3) Other than perhaps wearing a small light around the neck, how is it attached to your body when swimming?

4) Does the pool you swim in only work at night and have no outside lighting?

Just curious, as I don't own a pool and have never taken a flashlight with me swimming in a pool. Now, while swimming in a lake/ocean, I understand that.

Note: This is not about dive lights.. that's something I understand, at least intellectually, but swimming pools???


----------



## Marduke

Closet_Flashaholic said:


> So, not to resurrect an old topic, and run the risk of derailing it on top of that, but:
> 
> Question about flashlights and pools:
> 
> 1) I can understand about watches while swimming, but who takes a flashlight in the pool with them on a regular basis?
> 
> 2) Why?
> 
> 3) Other than perhaps wearing a small light around the neck, how is it attached to your body when swimming?
> 
> 4) Does the pool you swim in only work at night and have no outside lighting?
> 
> Just curious, as I don't own a pool and have never taken a flashlight with me swimming in a pool. Now, while swimming in a lake/ocean, I understand that.
> 
> Note: This is not about dive lights.. that's something I understand, at least intellectually, but swimming pools???




I can answer most of your questions at one time:

Because we're flashaholics, and it's fun...


----------



## roadie

Marduke said:


> I can answer most of your questions at one time:
> 
> Because we're flashaholics, and it's fun...


----------



## CocoMonGo

KiwiMark said:


> This is interesting and all, but does anyone have any info on how waterproof Fenix and others ACTUALLY are? I know it said IPX8 when I read the details before buying it - but as mentioned in this thread that really doesn't mean much. I guess it should be fine in normal use and have no problem with rain/sweat/splashes and will probably survive brief shallow immersion. Has anyone tried water torture on their lights to find out what they will or wont take? Does anyone know how Fenix tests their lights for their claimed IPX8?



Kinda missed how this post before I started mine but FYI i emailed Fenix about this. I posted the email correspondence here Fenix Email Reply

Bottom line is they (Fenix) claim they are IPX8 when they clearly are up to only IPX7. Why? because IPX8 should be for continuous submersion under water. Hope this helps.


----------



## Cataract

WOW, you guys are taking things so seriously for a non-diving flashlight! I'm just happy to know I could take any of my lights out in a storm, drop it and find it in working condition the next day...


----------



## Marduke

CocoMonGo said:


> Kinda missed how this post before I started mine but FYI i emailed Fenix about this. I posted the email correspondence here Fenix Email Reply
> 
> Bottom line is they (Fenix) claim they are IPX8 when they clearly are up to only IPX7. Why? because IPX8 should be for continuous submersion under water. Hope this helps.



Again, that is incorrect. See my reply in you thread for why.


----------

