Cable certifier/tester info 5

[techman3030]

I was browsing in some tools stores online and found this Test-UM NT-950 cable certifier and wanted to know if anyone has any experience with it? The price on line was $895, which is very low end when talking about cable certifiers. I appreciate any input. There was an older thread in this forum about Test-um certifiers, but I don't think this model was out then.

 

[franklin97355]

To truly certify cable there is a list of measurements that need to be taken and recorded. If this device meets the cable manufacturers specs you can use it for certification but you need to check with the cable manafacturer as to what their certification standards are.

 

[ISDNman]

There is a whole category of devices that call themselves "verifiers" vs true certifiers. Some use some phrase like "real world certify" in their marketing, but if you read the fine print they are not claimin gto be certification instruments.

The certifiers measure basic physical level functions such as frequency response, crosstalk, etc.

The advantage to this approach is they are agnostic - if you certify to Category X then any technology desinged for Cat. X should work.

Verifiers simply test the system using Ethernet packets and look for problems. But just because "it works" does not imply that it is necessarily up to spec.

These verifiers are great troubleshooting tools. Baiscally the approach I have seen suggested is

1) Have the installer certify the structured wiring system so that is is covered under warranty. Ge the reports and keep them in a safe place

2) Use the verifier for routine repair in troubleshooting of the previously certified system.

Good luck

 

[Jtodd]

As this question has come up A LOT lately, here is a link to Flukes discussion/discription of cable certifing vs. verifing. I believe it may have been posted before here, but may have also been in another forum.

http://kb.flukenetworks.com/display...&p=/cableiq/cableiq_vs__test-um_validator.htm

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[techman3030]

Thank You all for the replies. JTodd that is exactly what I was looking for. I was thinking for the price it would be a better choice to carry around in the truck (cheaper replacement if it was stolen or broken), but as with most things, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[Jtodd]

Very true, though it may still be a useful tool to have in addition to a true Certifier. At my old company we had both the Certifier (the now Fluke OmniScanner) and a Fluke 620 which essentially did just wire map. A very handy and quick device to verify wire map before doing the full blown test. Saved us lots of time as 99% of our test fails (when there were fails) where wire map issues.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[zenlikeme]

I work for a small company that sometimes pulls our own cable. I doubt we do enough that we need to be concerned with warranty (at least compared with the cost of a good certifier). Does anyone think that one of these "verifiers" would be a good trouble shooting tool. Especially for testing LMR-400 or rg-6, which is what we mostly pull (though testing cat5 to some extent would be nice as well).
thanks

 

[ISDNman]

Absolutely yes.

These are intended for troubleshooting and just for your kind of situation.

They are also good for the companies that certify - you put one of these in every truck for toublehsooting and only have 1 or 2 certifiers for fo rnew installs.

 

[wires]

> Does anyone think that one of these "verifiers" would
> be a good trouble shooting tool. Especially for testing
> LMR-400 or rg-6, which is what we mostly pull

The Test-UM NT-950 design is to test UTP in a PC network enviroment. As such it is not designed to test coax.

As I recall the Validator does not include a true TDR and instead gets it's footage measurements by using cable capacitance. Cable "speeds" are determined via various packet "tricks" that operate above level 0 and are therefore not applicable in a non-networking enviroment.

I wouldn't buy a Fluke DSP to check coax either.