Finding alternatives for circular connectors can be quite challenging. Even though many of them may follow some general standards/practices, it may not always guarantee a cross if you do match the main specifications found in the filters. Let me provide a solid example of what can happen.
839-54-00241-ND vs. 1754-M12A-04PFFC-SF8B15-ND
Let’s say you want to find an alternate for 839-54-00241-ND (54-00241) that has some pigtails on one side. If you look at the main specifications of 1754-M12A-04PFFC-SF8B15-ND (M12A-04PFFC-SF8B15), one might think this would be a suitable cross. These share the following details you may consider for a cross:
- Connector Type: Receptacle, Female Sockets
- Number of Positions: 4
- Shell-Size Insert: M12-4
- Mounting Type: Panel Mount
- Mounting Feature: Bulkhead - Front Side Nut
- Fastening Type: Threaded
- Orientation: A
However, there is a bit of a snag if you didn’t review the datasheet carefully: orientation differences.
Datasheet Differences
Here are the datasheets for each part: Tensility and Amphenol LTW. Let’s go over the drawings to point out the difference that has to be taken into consideration.
Tensility Drawing
LTW Drawing
When you make a panel cutout for these connectors, they are made in a way where they cannot rotate in the hole they fit into. There are flat sides on both sides of the threads to prevent the part from slipping.
Even though both have an “A” code, the normal rotation for the LTW part is 45 degrees to the left facing you. Manufacturers do not have to be consistent in terms of orientation when it comes to keying, even when using commonly accepted codes such as ‘A’. Because one would have to rotate one panel cutout 45 degrees, I would not call these compatible designs. This is why we often suggest sticking with the same manufacturer and/or checking the drawings for any subtle differences when it comes to circular connector alternates. Other details may also not be consistent even if the connector design is more common.