I went in to some length of discussion on the Cambium Facebook group about this issue. The consensus there was to just buy new ends.. I like to solve problems and not ignore them. So, to that end. I'll post the issue here and you can find out, or figure out what you like. Maybe I'm the only one who cares, or actually had the issue and that's fine. I've been making cables for the better part of 15 years, and we have never had an issue like this.
After checking multiple devices, and even using tools to test sizing on the Force 190 connector compared to others. It seems that Force 190 connector is of a slightly different size than every other device we use here. Which causes the ends to not click fully. I know, other ends do click. So, it must be the end... Well, other radios, POEs, routers, DO click with this end... So, which one is it? Does anyone recall the UBNT AF5 line with their ends that didn't work right? You HAD to apply upwards pressure for the link to stay active.. It happens.. On both sides of the coin. My hope is that this will get fixed ON BOTH SIDES. I've been working with Netonix on their end. And here is my Cambium attempt. Below are the threads on Both Facebook and Netonix's sites about the issue. Along with pictures, and PROOF.
Sorry, I'm not doing any more than this. Like opening tickets with Cambium teir zero (which I loath). I do things in public, with no hidden adgenda other than to help find a public resolution. I'm not here asking for help. So, I don't need comments about buying different ends either. We are perfectly capable of doing that, and have, for the interim. Again, it's about FIXING AN ISSUE. not covering it up.
Is it possible the problem is with the Cambium stuff, see this post and the pictures. I have not had time to pull the rest of the 190's in the case to see if they all the problem but the way those pins are I could see them not allowing the connector to slide in far enough for the tang to catch. I went back through a tub of radios in the back that were pulled/replaced and found both Force200s and 190's with this problem. So far no 180's but I know that not long ago we had a rash of 180's we replaced because the ethernet connections were failing... now I wonder if this wasn't the problem with them also.
thats odd... we don't use the netonix ends, but we do use the ubnt tough cable connectors on Shireen cable, we don't have a problem with the 190s. lock nice and tight.
waaayyyy back when we had problems with the passthrough style connectors locking in the pmp100 gear, using standard not pass through connectors fixed that for us, I'm wondering if its a combination issue. i noticed Chris said the batches got changed a little.
cambiums on the tight end of the spec, but not quite out of spec, and netonix is on the large end of the spec but not quite out. do unshielded jumpers fit without issue?
Netonix has two different ends apparently. One that's numbered on the tab, and ones that aren't. The "numbered" ends don't fit properly. UBNT ends fit properly.
The problem as I see it, is the numbered ends fit properly in everything else we have tried except the 190's....
I still need to get out the magnifying glass. But, I think the numbered ends have a slight taper to the sear point of the clip. AND the cambium 190s have a slightly shorter area for the sear to lock in to. So, the two combined are causing the issue.
Confirmed that some of the Netonix ends have a taper in the lock sear area. BUT, that doesn't change how the Cambium 190 is the only unit so far that we have tested to be non-compatable. Even Chris didn't know of the change until I brought it up... The more expensive (to them), numbered tang Netonix unit is the one that doesn't work. Again, this is all to try and get the issue fixed. I don't have a dog in that fight other than getting them all to work right with one another for our common goal of good installs.
I still need to check the clerances of the Cambium ports. But, I have already "mic'ed" the over all hieght of them vs other ports, and it's almost 3/4 of a MM shorter. That WOULD prevent the tab from opening up as much as others, and preventing the sear points from locking fully. I want to do some other measurements to verify some things though. But, that is my initial findings so far. Those pictures of the overall height are in my FB post listed above..
I have some RF Armor RFA-RJ45 that appear to be identical to those numbered netonix you have. I never used them before but I crimped one onto some cat5 and it stays in the 200's, 190's and 180's I have here at my desk. It also stays in the radios with the mashed/curled ethernet pins and the ones with the straight pins. Pic below of Ubiquiti and RF side by side and a side pic of the RF Armor one.
Since I haven't found a radio except the 190 that they won't work in. It's even harder to say why it won't...
A crimper wouldn't, or shouldn't change anything to keep the tab from locking. And we have even used two different crimpers to try and rule that out as a problem. So, interesting to say the least...
I'll let Chris know on the thread over there at Netonix, that it isn't a problem for you. If anyone else has some numbered ends, that is willing to look or try it would be of help.
I played around with the cable a little more. If I applied some force, did more than just a little tug, pulling straight out the RF connector wouldn't budge. Then I move the cable to the side a little and gave more than a tug and popped right out.. then after it popped out once I could pull it out with just a good tug regardless of direction.
I plugged the Ubiquiti connector in and pulling straight out I couldn't pull it out using a great deal more force than I used on the RF connector. I moved the cable around while pulling on the ubiquiti cable and it still wasn't coming out.
That said, once I had pulled the RF connector out it only took a tug to pull it out of any radio I plugged it into. But the connector still clicked in and wouldn't just fall out and I could even suspend the radio by the cat5 cable, you still had to give it a little tug to get it out.
Edit: So I guess I have two boxes of RF Armor connectors I won't be using on anything that isn't easy to get to...
I did the same on my last test. I was able to pull the end out of the radio, and in doing so deformed the end. It won't lock in to that same radio, but will lock in to other radios... So, make your own case there.
I have tested multiple radios with the RF armor "numbered" ends, The only one it does not like is the Force 190 in my testing and in use.. We don't use many 200 series radios. But, the port looks to be similar if not the same.
These ports are NOT normal Cambium. You don't use them on your POE's, or routers. And I bet there are reasons for that. It is my belief that the combination of the end design, and the Cambium ports are the problem here, and not just one or the other. That's my opinion of course. But, measurments don't lie. Dimensionally, the Cambium port is short relief area for the tab on the end. That is my best guess as to why these numbered ends don't quite fully lock. Along with a slight taper on the sear point on the end if you really look at the different between numbered, and non-numbered rf armor ends.
I hope someone actually listens, and fixes these things. I imagine Chris at RF armor will choose the different end design. And Cambium won't acknowledge a problem, or do a dang thing.
I will say that when it comes to the connectors coming out of the Ethernet ports easily we have always had problems with the ePMP power supplies... Those things are terrible about not holding the RJ45 connector and probably the #1 support call we have is one or both of the cables coming out of the power supply. Even when installing you sometimes have to push the little anti-snag strain relief tab *under* the tab/clip to keep it forced up or the cable just falls out of the power supply if you move it a certain way. And sometimes when you do that it just makes the problem worse.