Anyone ever built a Socapex tester ?

McCready00

Active Member
I found an box, a male and a female socapex connector, and thought it would be useful to built a socapex tester..

Probably just something with 7 buttons and LEDs for each lines, in order to see if it's all in order and if there is a short.

Anyone of you ever made one ?

Just looking around if some ideas may be added to mine.

thanks
 
Here is how one guy built one:
 
There is the one made by LEX. I think you hot up the circuits and check what is displayed. It looks like you could build it yourself with many neon lamps and much patience.
 
Yes, I have built many many. And or provided Stainless Steel parts to those making them for me in better - less wear resistant fittings for those I don't have time to build. Next problem is often the dropped tester, where the often dial switch gets broken - so safety handles so as to protect that switch lever which once dropped on can break the switch.

What is not done at this point in a Soco tester is a electronic version.

Is there a high resistance short between conductors? Normal testers will at best slightly light up a indicator lamp in detecting this, but possibly not in a noticeable amount. No warning buzzer for a short should also be for one be flipping thru circuits in "checking" faster than they are looking for a problem. This per the flip the switch dial a wire version. Other versions on the market I am sure. But yes I have built many testers for Soco over +20 years.
 
I wonder if it would be possible to use the guts of some cheap Cat5 cable testers like the one here? Less than $10 each on eBay. Guess that would only yield 16 or 18 wires if two ere used though.
cable tester.jpg
 
Tools for Stagecraft and TMB amongst other testers with ways to do this in live power or before plugging it in seemingly.

Main question, seven position switch, perspectively has a "off" and all six circuits for continuity between the circuits. In theory such a thing would also light up to other circuits shorted to if shorted. What about a short to ground?

Pin one in testing a circuit, needs to test to all 14 or 19 wires for both continuity between pin 1 and pin 1, and all other 19 other pins for a short. As above, a high resistance short often will not be detected by way of just plain obserable resistance from indicator lights. Also, it doesn't "idiot proof" someone just spinning thru the dial in testing the cable without looking for a "fault/short." And again, most multi-position switches, are drop sensitive - meaning if you drop the tester off the table and it falls on the switch lever - it's broken. So you have to protect that rotary dial switch. This assuming a rotary switch tester type.

Lex tester I did not try, TMB in-line did try and not a fan of. If testing a cable, it should be before testing in live voltage testing to see if a problem of.

Next problem for my past testers in being non-line voltage testing... people line voltage usage of them. Ciruit protection in this conplex tester, a good thing in otherwise blowing it up, this with the battery chargers to it etc.

Overall, you need to test all conductors in referenece to another during testing. The Lex might do this, but am I seeing it needs live power in not reading into it? Short to ground? Best test of cable is before it's plugged into live power. Electronically testing the cable so it self tests see's all conductors in relation to each other would be quickest and safest. TBA invented.
 
I built a fox-hound type of tester out of some old connectors and BUD boxes. It was a lot of fiddling... But it worked.
 
Two types you can build both fairly easy - one tester for pin to pin continuity - real simple ., a battery 19 diodes , 19 LEDs -
The second can test under voltage, little trickier and for liability since it’s putting A/C in shop people’s hands I would use a commercial tester.
don’t forget the threads on the locking rings they get damaged A LOT !
 
I ended up build simple 12v indicator LEDs, on/off Switches and 2x 9v batteries in parallel to give a chance on long lengh.

My biggest problem was to find a battery that would fit in the space I had.. I had no choice and I will change my idea in case it really does not work.

I want to avoid not regular types of batteries, and I can't find anything as small as 2x9v.

I am not scared on small size soapex cables, but hope it works on 100 feet cables..

What do you think ?

Anyone ever tried 2 x 9v / 12v LED on a 100' lengh ? otherwise, what's the maximum cable lengh was it fine with ?

Thanks
 
2x9V batteries should be fine for any length cable that's remotely usable for its intended purpose. It's a simple question of applying Ohm's law. 100' is no problem at all; 10,000 feet is equally fine for the tester, though not really appropriate for lighting (and I also can't imagine why you'd ever care to have your lights nearly two miles from your dimmers).

The LEDs operate at a current of maybe 20 mA. Your lights operate at maybe 10-20A. This means that the voltage drop with the LED is about 0.1% as great as with AC power. At 10,000 feet, the wire resistance of 14 gauge wire is about 25 ohms per conductor, which works out to only a 0.5V drop for the LED.

Along those lines, it's perhaps worth remembering that such a tester is great for detecting opens and shorts, but it won't detect (comparatively) high-resistance faults at all adequately. A dodgy connection at one of the connectors, with for instance a resistance of 1 ohm, will cause a .02V drop with your tester; but under a 10A load, will drop 10V...and dissipate 100W, which is a whole lot of heat to dissipate inside the connector.
 
2x9V batteries should be fine for any length cable that's remotely usable for its intended purpose. It's a simple question of applying Ohm's law. 100' is no problem at all; 10,000 feet is equally fine for the tester, though not really appropriate for lighting (and I also can't imagine why you'd ever care to have your lights nearly two miles from your dimmers).

The LEDs operate at a current of maybe 20 mA. Your lights operate at maybe 10-20A. This means that the voltage drop with the LED is about 0.1% as great as with AC power. At 10,000 feet, the wire resistance of 14 gauge wire is about 25 ohms per conductor, which works out to only a 0.5V drop for the LED.

Along those lines, it's perhaps worth remembering that such a tester is great for detecting opens and shorts, but it won't detect (comparatively) high-resistance faults at all adequately. A dodgy connection at one of the connectors, with for instance a resistance of 1 ohm, will cause a .02V drop with your tester; but under a 10A load, will drop 10V...and dissipate 100W, which is a whole lot of heat to dissipate inside the connector.

Thank,

I totally understand but as I am not that good with LEDs, I wanted a second opinion. I had calculated a maximum voltage drop of 0.5 volt on the 100 feet cable. Although I was not sure when voltage gets too low to see brightness on a 12v LED.

And yes I am totally aware it will only detects opens and shorts.. I just had the socapex plugs and the case hidden in a shelves since over 12 years.. for 40$, it will certainly saves me times someday.. :)

Thanks for the help
 
I built a Soco Tester that had an 18 position rotary switch which tested all 18 conductors individually.
The display was two rows of 18 LEDs, top row was the conductor being tested, bottom row indicated the wire the signal was returned on.
Worked really well and showed all possible faults and exactly what the problem was.

I am remembering that I had to Diode Isolate all the Outputs, because if there is any kind of cross-conductor short, the voltage will return on the shorted line and light up the incorrect Top LED.
 
Last edited:
Challenge of such testers is a high resistance short. An adjacent indicator light might or might not glow some not noticed.
 
It's that sort of fault which really needs some sort of intelligent tester, such as some way to measure the resistance from the currently selected leg to each other leg, and indicate pass-questionable-fail. Sort of thing a microcontroller (arduino/beaglebone/teensy etc) could do fairly easily.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back