We use cookies to provide our visitors with an optimal site experience. View our privacy notice and cookie notice to learn more about how we use cookies and how to manage your settings. By proceeding on our website you consent to the use of cookies.
Here small lightning system with Universal mini Mate N Lok connectors in use. Two lamps overall.
Originally these were halogen spot lamps 20W each, low voltage but sinus-wave power. Currently on rebuilding power supply for these lamps retrofitted to LED. Original power supply going to be untouched, inclusively its cable toward lamps. Lighting was purchased some when years 2005 till 2007. Its maker crimped at first lamp in cascade (electrically parallel) two braid wires 0.75 mm square each in one single connector terminal/socket.
If find on ebay, an local retailer metal sockets for connector with close parameters but still not perfect. They can house 0.5 till 1.39 mm square wire. Unclear if these are specified for two-wires crimp. Retailer’s offer description refers to TYCO Electronics and communicates following part numbers as equivalence: 171637-1, 14-0155, 171639-1, 14-XXXX.
Which socket contacts/terminals should I look for, brand name and part number?
I will also need replacement for matching pin/insert counterpart. Which brand and part number?
Tyco became TE Connectivity 171637-1 and 171639-1 are good part numbers, we have many tens of thousands in stock.
Unrelated to the connectors and contacts, I hope you’re not planning on wiring LEDS up in parallel with this power supply. LEDs have a tendency of not having matching forward voltages which cause them to fail in a snowball fashion if wired in parallel.
Thanks for input, will consider it. In the mean time I continue my search and the latest results are that TE Connectivity AMP Connectors matches stronger way what I get in local situation.
I don’t know if you kindly mean handling discrete LED components. This project handles actually light device built from a number of LEDs (+ bit more electronics on PCB). The bulb (regardless of whether halogen or LED) uses G4 socket, LED-replacement accepts both AC and DC power supply and a range of voltage if DC. New driver/power adapter unit was purchased to match these parameters. The job is to assembly power connection to unmodified cabling of two lamp fixtures.
I the meantime I realize that retailer, for the offer already found, provides in description few farther equality numbers. However I am not sure if it will help, because the connector socket contacts can house only up to 1.39 mm-square cross-section while local settings has two 0.75 wires crimped on one socket terminals if the lamp is not the last one in parallel cascade.
I understand. I just fear that it’s going to be very difficult to find a contact capable of reliably working for both one and two of those wires crimped together. I was just trying to think of an alternative which might perform a similar function.
All pictures I shot (upload unfortunately does not work as of this minute)
so far demonstrate the fixture original state, as it was
purchased slick-new in time period years 2005 till 2007.
Only two contacts were removed by myself from connector because
I was forced to reengineer to learn the type of connector and its contacts.
My original plan I follow so far is to conduct replacement and modification
in the minimal possible scale, let the rest to be as it is originally.
Original power supply is the heavy transformer, hence my desire to replace
it with LED-typical driver of appropriate output power due concerns of electrical efficiency.
Actually it will be universal power adapter of appropriate power and voltage.
It is planned to have cable connectors matching lighting original state.
The plan sound is, just remove the old power supply from assembly but not damaging it
(because I can’t judge if some future day I will though want to use it).
Application uses unsealed connector.
At later point of time I got forced to extend my search to the identification
of contact / connector terminal type.
This is because lighting OEM has crimped in one socket terminal two stranded wires of
the cross-section 0.75 mm square. This is the stage of reeingineering I am still in.
Still don’t know wich socket contact to order, its crimping will need to house two
strain-wires of cross-section 0.75 mm-squared each. Two lamps are circuited
in parallel (from electrical point of view) to form a cascade, daisy-chain of lamps.
Only the last one in cascade doesn’t crimp two 0.75 mm-squared wires in one contact/terminal.
Very first phase of my reengineering was focused on the search
for name of connector type in use originally. I had no focus on the
type of contacts in connector those days. That phase revealed the term
Minifit Molex. However further search steps revealed that Minifit has
rectangular/square-shaped cross-section of contact hence the conclusion
it can’t be Minifit.
My very first purchase was a set of one socket connector and a pair of
socket contact but those won’t definitely house 2x 0.75 wire in the crimp section.
Retailer (on eBay) labeled them AMP-sockets with actually no further details regarding
type and branding.
In next step I encounter an offer of pure contacts (again an eBay retailer, eBay item id
157124412363) labeled Universal Mini Mate N Lok, it can crimp in range 0.5 to 1.39 mm cross-section. Mathematically it does not suffice and I afraid to have problems on crimping 2x 0.75 wire in it. Retailer maps it to Tyco Electronics brand.
My previous comment refers to equivalent model numbers.
Retailer answers to technical inquiry in very short time, they informed however
however that if definitely is not for 2x 0.75 mm in terms of cross-section.
As of this minute there is following choice in front of me:
amazon, kali 1802 AMP MUMNL, ASIN on German amazon B0DPQRG31S with no further
references
one other online retailer offers also kali 1802. Its offer links document TE application spec 114-16017 where one can find in table following entry “AWG 20 (2 wires), insulation diameter 1.91 [.075] Max (2 Wires)”.
Yet quick reference guide stating "20-16 [.5-.12] or 20 x (2) [.5] Wire Size Range AWG and
.079-.126 [2.01-3.20] or .075 x (2) [1.91] Ins. Dia. Range”. For this product chatGPT wasn’t able to find a proof that 2x 0.75 mm cross-section was within spec nor out of spec”.
geometry of kali 1802 mimics perfectly my local original - I can judge only roughly
retailer fortunately maintains his sales in my region / country
part numbering scheme of this sale offer on amazon is possibly old AMP-scheme as current TE* part numbering scheme of this sale offer on amazon is possibly old AMP-scheme as current TE document uses different scheme - hard to find hard proof that it can house 2x 0.75 cross-section
quick reference guide states that cit. "snap-in pin and receptacle contacts are used to terminate 30-16 [0.05-1.2 mm2] AWG” and it is clearly out of range 2x 0.75 mm cross-section. That matches recent answer of retailer who has contacts up to 1.39 mm-squared in sales offer.
Hence I am still out of valid choice and struggle how has original maker of this lighting system
managed to crimp 2x 0.75 mm-squared in MUMNL.
My doubts rise of found crimps of two 0.75 mm-squared in one single MUMNL terminal is actually a clean work.
With the wires you have on hand wrapped together would you be able to measure the diameter of the combined wires?
For the connector housings you have would you be able to measure the center to center contact pitch?
– As If we can ID the housing you already have we can then verify the contacts that could be used in them.
It is also possible that the contacts used in the original designed were not really meant to be used in that way that are in the images given.
looking at information I had found for two wires being installed either wrapped or in parallel I see that we get a size that is fairly close to 16-17awg. With the next size of 15awg being too much larger in size for the given values and 18 also looking to be too small.
With 16AWG being a fairly common size the contacts that @Kristof_2649 had given originally looks to be a fairly good fit.
Thank you for information from you and your work.
So far I was never able to open spec documents on web of TE. I afraid, in my role of consumer I won’t get that access.
I find offer of 171639-1 on ebay in my country. The retailer however labels it AMP171639-1 only one time, no other part numbers for reference in that sales offer. But product drawing attached to item description refers to 114-5050, 411-5105, 108-5138, 108-5151. At the same time they state “0.5 - 1.3 mm2” yet “AWG 22-18”. I am aware of the risk that specs provided by retailer may be inaccurate. Due to lack of access to TE document I can’t prove how far retailer is doing their statements.
My reengineering caused a damage of one or two male contacts of original power supply. I want to buy new to repair it.
Also following points are unclear to me
I guess that as long as one sticks on one type of connector (in this case MUMNL) the AWG figure plays (contact-level) only in the crimp area a role. It plays no role in the mate insertion area. This way MUMNL AWG 16 capable will provide as good electrical conductivity as the variants specified to AWG 18 and thinner wires. Is a right understanding?
This point arises because across whole settings in my current project only selected spots house 2x 0.75 mm2. I can’t say if the original assembly uses system-wide AWG 16 compliance, or only at the spots where it is needed.
How do you think, is point pointed in this bullet a real risk? Typical summary isolation of 2 wires 0,75 mm2 altogether has diameter bigger than typical isolation in case of one single AWG 16 wire. This has the potential for myself to get challenged in the crimp making time.
My cheap crimping tool can crimp the wire braid and strain relief (insulation) only in two steps, crimping copper, then crimping insulation. Its die has crimping beds for three ranges. Ranges are labeled by wire cross-section size. Two lower ranges are 0.5 to 1 and 1.5 to 2.5, all in mm2. This is the first time in my life I need to crimp MUMNL. Probability is high that I will never again, or rarely need do this job again.
