Great open barrel crimper for Molex terminals

I need to crimp a lot of Molex open barrel terminals for those servo power supplies. I was kind of shocked to find a tool from Molex for
$269. But then I found item HWS16166 from
http://www.phoenixent.com /
It does a great job.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've got one that's like a pair of pliers. I've been disapointed. Most crimps are great, then I get one where the wire slides back out of the crimp after a while. I started pulling on the just crimped connecter to test them and it mostly solved the issue.
Most of the trouble is with 22 guage and smaller. Have you tried this tool with this fine a wire and checked if they will pull out?
Karl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will use 20 gauge only for all control connections inside the cabinet. It seems to work well on 20ga. I also tried it with 24 ga and it seemed good also.
I always pull on every crimp I make.

It seems OK, but I will definitely check every crimp.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One uses different terminals and crimp dies for the various wire sizes.
The non-ratcheting pliers type crimpers are almost useless.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This one is a ratcheting, safety type. It would not release until I completed the crimp.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We use the Molex universal hand crimper (non-ratcheting) for small production work, on the small MiniFit Jr. pins and the bigger old-style ones. Molex part number is 638111000, at Mouser for $49 each. Non-ratcheting but has lots of sizes so you can handle any wire size in a given pin. You also have to do the insulation crimp as a second op, so not as fast but very versatile.
----- Regards, Carl Ijames

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's good. But it sounds like you don't have adequate match between wire size, terminal type (wire size acceptance range), and crimper dies. All must match.
And, crimping is for stranded wire, not solid wire. That said, in a pinch I solder the terminal to the solid wire.
I have also soldered stranded wire into terminals. The largest example was when I was attaching big copper terminals to some AWG #4 wire, to power a lighting panel for a stage. I was a teenager, and did not have the humongous and expensive crimper. I needed to use a small terminal, as there was not physical space for the usual mechanical wire-clamp terminal.
The terminal was made from copper tubing, one end being flattened and punched to accept the large terminal stud, the other end being an open cup. So, I held the terminal in a vise and soldered the big wire into the cup with a propane torch and plumbers' solder and Nocorrode grease flux, just like soldering copper pipe. The school maintenance folk were surprised at this approach, but soldered connections were (and are still) acceptable under the National Electrical Code.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    [ ... ]

    Amen! That is why I have a bucket (plastic cat litter bucket) full of crimpers -- just for terminals -- and not counting the hydraulic ones for 8 ga and larger.
    I've got a similar bucket full of air tools. One of the benefits of having cats. :-)

    With the hazard that if it is subject to vibration, it is far more likely to fail -- especially if you don't have and use anti-wicking tweezers.

    That sounds good -- though a proper eutectic lead/tin solder would have been better with a rosin flux -- and a solder pot to dip the wire into to tin it first. Was this AWG #4 wire solid or stranded?

    Certainly under the NEC -- but they are not acceptable with aerospace connections. Crimp terminals are by far preferred there.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All true, but in a pinch ...

I was a teenager doing a one-off job. Well, two-off. So, no reason to get all that nice kit. I did pre-tin the wire and the cup before sweating wire to cup.

Stranded.
Absolutely. Crimp is far more reliable, especially under vibration.
Solder-type coax connectors are quite unreliable - the heating-cooling cycle causes the big nut that clamps the shield to unscrew over time, causing open shields. I found this out when diagnosing an unreliable Xyplex satistical multiplexer (connects multiple VT100 terminals to a VAX, in the days before ethernet became practical). Many of the BNC connectors had open shield connections. The solution was to cut all the solder BNC connectors off the RG-58 cable and to install crimped BNC connectors in their place. If I recall, we used AMP tooling and connectors. Anyway, problem solved, almost overnight.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Understood. And where you were doing it -- you would not have much vibration -- unless perhaps for a performance of "Riverdance". :-)
    [ ... ]

    No reason -- and probably no resources either. :-)

    Good. Though for that size wire, a solder pot (and a pre-dip in the rosin flux) makes for a more thorough tinning job.

    So the pre-tinning goes without saying then. :-)

    Hmm ... various styles available. I've got two which could do the job.
    The first one does a separate crimp for the shield termination and for the center conductor pin. This is more likely to be used for BNC style connectors.
    The other crimps both the shield and the center conductor at the same time. There are two small windows which the crimper reaches in through to crimp the center conductor. But these are normally for insert coax pins to go in block terminals -- and D-series connectors like the 13W3 used by Sun for monitor connections. (I have been looking for the connector inserts for a long time -- just to have a few which work with that crimper. :-)
    Have you ever worked with the shield termination ferrules used for daisy-chaining a bunch of shields together and ending with a standard insulated wire to get a crimp-on pin for going into a block where the shields are not truly coax, but rather things like shielded twisted pair for low level signals but not RF frequencies? The crimper is the 59000 IIRC, with a whole series of interchangeable dies for different shield diameters. When you find them on eBay they may or may not have dies in them -- but the vendor almost never tells you which dies are installed. (Identified by color stripes to match the color of the ferrule which fits.) Purple for RG-174 (skinny coax cable) and similar size single conductor shielded (and perhaps some very small shielded twisted pair), and other colors for larger sizes, with brown and green being the ones I used most often.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That too. If I recall, the wire and terminals et al cost $1.72 in ~1965.

I used what the department had available, and any AMP crimp system was going to solve the problem.

Never had the pleasure.
But I do recall a problem in the late 1970s when a coax-cable computer link between buildings stopped working, even though there was continuity. Turned out that an electrician had cut the cable (don't recall if accidental or not) and spliced it back together with a pair of small wire nuts. The data signals bounced right off that impedance step. The poor man did not understand why we were laughing so hard, but sensed that he was somehow involved.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Indeed -- if you had both the right crimp tools and terminals. I tend to have crimpers for terminals which I've never found, and vice-versa. :-)

    Particularly beats having to unweave the braid, twist it into tails, slide on insulation, and the solder (or crimp) to pins in the connector. Particularly when there are a half-dozen shields to be terminated in one pin. :-) Each ferrule has two bulges (pre-crimping) to accept two wires -- either out the back along the jacketed wire or out the front to the connector pins.

    *Big* smile!
    Yes, I can imagine him not understanding it at all. He works with 60 Hz, and no runs long enough to be near a quarter wavelength or anything else significant. :-)
    The ohmmeter says it is good -- so it must be good. :-)
    Thanks,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This was in a big company, so we by chance did have a matching set for RG-58.

We did not try to explain it to him. It would be a magic show at best/
I have had the need to explain such things to other electricians, and gotten a big fight for my trouble. A person who does not know what he does not know, or even that there are such things.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/5/2010 9:47 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

That's one thing that bugs me about the State of Connecticut, one _must_ have an electrician's license to work on network cables. Never seen an electrician with said license yet who could identify a cable scanner, let alone who owned one,.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. An iron rice bowl: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_rice_bowl .
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Does this apply to:
1)    Network cabling outdoors?
2)    Network cabling in commercial or apartment buildings?
3)    Or even home wiring?
    When our house was being expanded, I ran some thicknet ethernet cable (picked up big spools of it at a hamfest) between several places where networked computers are sometimes set up. Had I known about 100BaseT and faster coming down the pike, I would have put in Cat-5 cable instead.
    Hmm ... also -- does it apply when running ethernet through fiber optics? No wires there at all! No excuse for needing someone who is accustomed to wiring voltages around. :-)
    And how about today's WiFi?
    Granted, I have a friend with an old house where it does not work well at all. The walls are not drywall, but rather real plaster over metal mesh. But I can't imagine an electrician knowing enough about that to even diagnose the problem. :-)
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on the local laws, I suppose. One should not be expecting a real technical rationale.

Hmm. This could be fun! Well, it looks like a wire....

Clearly, does not apply.

Eight or nine years ago, I paid an electrician to install the CAT5e cable from basement to my wife's office on the second floor, and I will say that the electrician and his helper earned their pay on that one. It's an old house, with wood lath plaster and strategically-placed bricks as fire-stops. It took hours, and they were working all the while.
I then terminated and connected the installed cable. It works just fine.
Installing that wire probably cost what a full WiFi setup would have cost, but once installed the wire just works, needs no sysadmin effort, has no security drama, and has far greater data capacity than the WiFi of the day. Only recently have wireless LANs even approached the theoretical datarate of a CAT5e wire. In practice, wireless LANs rarely achieve anything like the capacity of a cable.
If I ran cable today, it would be CAT7, which supports gigabit datarates, far exceeding any likely wireless LAN technology. The CAT7 wire is expensive to be sure, but installation costs will swamp the wire cost.
But the current 100 megabits per second is more than sufficient.
Actually, the best thing to install is plastic conduit, if one has the opportunity to do it reasonably easily, like if the walls are already open for some other reason.
I recall lots of ads from various wire manufacturers touting their latest (fastest, expensive) kinds of cable, saying that companies should buy the better stuff even if not strictly needed today, as "future-proofing". But, conduit is the true "future-proofing", as one can always upgrade the wire within, and easily. Nor does one need to guess which direction the technology will go and which wire it will need. For some reason, the ads didn't mention the conduit option.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/7/2010 8:30 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In Connecticut if you get paid to touch premise wiring you need the license unless you work for the phone company, which has a specific exemption. That includes network cabling outdoors, network cabling in commercial or apartment buildings, and home wiring. Homeowners in most areas can do their own wiring subject to permitting and inspection.

The law is specific about the definition of "electrical work" and it looks like fiber is exempted. So is wiring under 24v used for controlling lawn sprinklers--if you have a network-aware law sprinkler attached to your LAN does that mean that you're exempt?

The definition is: (2) "Electrical work" means the installation, erection, maintenance, alteration or repair of any wire, cable, conduit, busway, raceway, support, insulator, conductor, appliance, apparatus, fixture or equipment that generates, transforms, transmits or uses electrical energy for light, heat, power or other purposes, but does not include low voltage wiring, not exceeding twenty-four volts, used within a lawn sprinkler system;"
One could argue wifi either way.

Never. 802.11N has a theoretical maximum throughput of around 450 Mb/sec, CAT5E handles 1000.

CAT 5e supports gigabit just fine. You don't need CAT7 for, well, anything. 10 gig Ethernet runs on 6A. 7 is something that the cable manufacturers want you to think you need, but you don't unless you have unusual circumstances.

If it's not, you can get gigabit NICs for 20 bucks.

And it never was. CAT5 needed to be recertified to 5E to run gigabit (most CAT5 installations pass 5E, but they weren't tested to it until it became part of the requirement). CAT6 didn't meet the 10G spec, leading to 6A. 7 is a solution in search of a problem.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Definite iron ricebowl issue.

Given that radio communications is a major use, and yet isn't mentioned, it ought to be an easy argument.
And the backup argument would be that obviously the electricians need to obtain radio transmitter licenses from the FCC before touching any such equipment.

I was being nice. And hardwire links achieve a far greater fraction of their theoretical throughput than wireless links.

If I recall, the rationale for CAT7 is to carry 40/100 Gigabit ethernet short distances within datacenters, the theory being that optical was too expensive and not needed for such short links. Don't know if the market agreed.
In many systems I have worked on, we must use shielded twisted pair such as CAT7 to ensure that the ethernet works despite heavy EMI. The alternative is fiber, and cable is far easier for links between adjacent cabinets and/or to devices not supporting fiber.
And CAT7 is just dandy for carrying LVDS signals. This may not be what the wire companies dream of - volume far too low.

Yep.
Yep.
As discussed above.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    [ ... ]

    I was asking in particular about the Connecticut situation which J. Clarke mentioned.
    [ ... ]

    Might be fun to take it to court. :-)
    [ ... ]

    Sounds like you are thankful that *you* did not try to do it yourself. :-)

    Of course.

    Of course. I've got a wireless bridge running to a friend's house across the street and down one house -- using circular waveguide antennas which I machined up. Encryption enabled, good aggressive firewall on each end, and all logins from one side to the other via ssh.

    Certainly. I'm running my home directories from a server on another machine, and the speed is quite adequate for most things. If I want to run find(1) on the home directory, I do that on the server itself, of course.

    Hmm ... specifically plastic? Is there a problem running twisted-pair ethernet in close proximity to a metal surround? I know that some of the network wiring we installed at work was shielded four twisted pair cable. Or is plastic conduit simply less expensive?

    :-)
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.