Protection WP810


#1

I cannot find the protection class (for example IP67) of WP810 and of the other models of PHONES ip WIFI


#2

The WP825 has this on the datasheet


#3

OK thank you,
but as the title suggests, I’m interested in knowing the degree of protection of the WP810 which, as you can see from the link below, is a missing data


#4

Yes that’s true, it seems to be missing from all other than the 825. I imagine it’s safe to assume they’re not IP67 compliant unless stated.


#5

I understood that it is not IP67, but in my opinion, in order to be able to sell a product, it must mention the degree of protection.

am I right @GS.Jimmy?


#6

In order to claim any level of protection, it must be tested and certified and if there is no rating, then that in and of itself indicates that there is no IP rating (IP00)…no differently than any of the DECT phones from GS or most others for that matter. Have you ever seen a product listed as IP00?

The WP825 is specifically listed as being “ruggedized” which implies it likely does and/or should be IP rated and then the degree of protection offered comes into play where one can find out on the spec sheet what that rating is.


#7

no, but since I normally always read the degree of protection, I thought it was mandatory to mention it, then maybe in the EU there are different rules, I have to inform myself.

Example:
It is mandatory to report the IP Protection Index on the products in order to know if a spotlight, lamp or bell are suitable for installation in a specific environment.

From:

then, like all laws / rules, they must be interpreted and associated with their own country.


#8

Yes I agree with you, I was only stating this case which I believe is wrong…if there’s no weatherproofing protection then say so explicitly


#9

I guess the best protection for a device that isnt ip rated, is to leave it on the shelf at the distributor and purchase an ip66/ip67 rated device for the job…

The WP810 in my opinion is for indoors as a replacement to a standard cordless.


#10

I agree with you, you hit the point, only that at least that figure should provide an IP6X Product