C
chopper
were currently doing a job in massive old pub whats going to be a libary, my gaffer says put 10mm bonding to gas and water but how do you actually work out what size is required
just to add to this, i have just finished a apprentiship and i have never been taught about this, we do mainly houses so we allways install 10mm, but i just like to know for my own knoledge
just to add to this, i have just finished a apprentiship and i have never been taught about this, we do mainly houses so we allways install 10mm, but i just like to know for my own knoledge
lol
olo
lol
after thinking about what i said, we did get a breif lesson i remember the tutor saying bonding should be half size of the neutral, after just looking in regs it does say this but if you have any notes or links that would be great
why is it half the neutral though and not half x a phase presume sometimes the neutral is different sizes on 3 phase some time, i not had much experience on 3 phse
lol
olo
lol
Hi Chopper, another thing to watch is distance from MET; for example if you're up to 27/28 metres with your bonding 'run' then its at the limit of its required resistance ( <0.05 Ohms ). In this case (if it was,say,35 metres) then you should use 16mm2.
Is that right btw re: the 1/2 the neutral size just for TNCS? Isn't it for TN systems. Or am I wrong again!
Yes, a bit of confusion, it's sized in PROPORTION to the SUPPLIER'S neutral conductor (not the tails) on TN-C-S systems, and there isn't actually a 0.05 Ohm resistance limit on main protective bonding.
[/COLOR]
and that's a new one on me. is the 0.05 only applicable to TN-S then, IQ?
NO...NO...NO...keep him posting please....as i have much to learn too (which is why i keep coming in here)...but i am sure his wisdom will soon baffle us all..............That is a totally inane post.
The lad is learning and asking questions on here after completing his training, and by posting that drivel as taught him absolutely nothing, except perhaps the merit of your help.
I have to assume you know everything by now and deem this lads question beneath you, if that is the case, perhaps you will refrain from posting such in-depth replies to subjects that are obviously beneath you.
As you have posted just 15 times in 3 years perhaps your best off as lurker status, and leave replies to peoples questions to those on here that wish to help them
He's the first person to successfully make it onto my ignore list!That is a totally inane post.
The lad is learning and asking questions on here after completing his training, and by posting that drivel as taught him absolutely nothing, except perhaps the merit of your help.
I have to assume you know everything by now and deem this lads question beneath you, if that is the case, perhaps you will refrain from posting such in-depth replies to subjects that are obviously beneath you.
As you have posted just 15 times in 3 years perhaps your best off as lurker status, and leave replies to peoples questions to those on here that wish to help them
Damn, just not applying myself.He's the first person to successfully make it onto my ignore list!
He's the first person to successfully make it onto my ignore list!
Never, unfortunately for you MalcOh don't ignore me TQ .........................please
HelloPage 74, GN3, 3.10.3 "detailed periodic inspecting". 4th para down :"When testing the effectiveness of main equipotential bonding conductors, the resistance value between a service pipe or other extraneous-conductive-part and the main earthing terminal should be of the order of 0.05 Ohms or less"Can't see the confusion there...? Am I missing something. Seems clear to me....
however, the extraneous part ( say water pipe) is connected to the MET by means of it's bonding conductor, so by inference, that bonding conductor must have a resistance of 0.05ohms or less.
:smile5:Morning:smile5:
IQ - Thanks for your patience. I hope you're not too jaded covering something you've clearly been over before, so thanks for bearing with me. I just wanted to understand why you said what you said, as, has been pointed out by several other (learned) members, and time served sparks I know, they all believe it to be so (the 0.05 Ohms or less for the main bond...etc etc). And also, recently, as BruceLee points out, on 2391 courses (was taught this on mine a few years ago too, and it was in all the text books I fervently acquired ....)
HOWEVER! I have stuck with it, re read it, re re read it, and I agree with you!
It is a very poorly written piece of English. Its a tricky language sometimes and to get to the bottom of it (what is written) requires a clear head and a freshly woken up mind.
I have it now. The text does as you say require 0.05 or less between the MET and the bonding conductor. Or other examples. It does not say (As I believed and have been led to believe by lecturers, text books, etc like Christopher Kitchers) that the, for example, disconnected (with a safely isolated installation of course) 88 metre run of 10mm2 main bond from one end to tuther has to be 0.05 or less. At last. I am with you!
You move in higher circles than me btw. I suspect you are a learned fellow. Again, thank you for your patience :mad2:
It's a poor piece of text that divides opinion but it's one of the points that should really be black and white.
It's often a criticism that BS 7671 is open to interpretation and indeed it is but that is because it is written to be interpreted by competent persons on an infinite range of scenarios that could not possibly all be catered for.
![]()
Hi
Hope you can clarify a issue.
Main protective bonding and its maximum length.
My understanding in general installations TN at 230 v we need a disconnection of 0.4 seconds as part of ADS, bonding needs to be sized as per Reg 544, and as such
there is no restriction upon length, this id due to the fact we have no limit on touch voltage assuming we meet the prerequisite of ADS.
If there is a limit on touch voltage in a general installation which regulation places this limit?
The only limit i see on main protective bonding is that of 415.2.2, this is additional protection and used in locations of increased electric shock. This is shown in Reg
701.415.2 (Note). Where we check the effectiveness of the main protective bonding utilizing 415.2.2.
There is a passage in GN3, though in my opinion the 0.05 ohms is clearly a value for measuring between to points where bonding clamps can not be removed for
example, not applied to the overall length.
Ive looked in GN8, GN5 and BS7430 and i see no limitation other than CSA or when additional protection is required.
Ive spoke to ECA and they are of the same mind, in that in general installation no limit is placed on the length of main protective bonding.
Its probable that many installations have circuits that would drop more than 50v across R2 alone, my understanding is this is ok providing we meet the requirements of
ADS, if additional protection is required then 415.2.2 applys.
Many thanks, hope you can clarify.
Regards Chris
Hello Chris,
I am required to preface my remarks by saying that I have no authority to interpret the requirements of BS 7671:2008, Requirements for Electrical Installations.
The interpretation of BS 7671 is one of the roles of the Joint BSI/IEE Committee JPEL/64. However, within that constraint, I hope you will find my comments helpful.
BS 7671:2008 does not have requirements that limit the length of a protective bonding conductor. Chapter 41 is based on the fundamental requirements of BS EN 61140 (Refer to Section 410) which includes reference
To the conventional touch voltage limit of 50V. The key technical intent is to meet the requirements for fault protection 411.3 covering protective earthing, protective equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection. Typically you would look to achieve the appropriate disconnection. If disconnection cannot be achieved in the appropriate time then Regulation
411.3.2.6 requires the appropriate supplementary bonding in accrodance with
Regulation 415.2.
GN3 includes reference to 0.05 ohms but this is more to do with proving there is an actual connection between two points rather than making any
Judgement on length. GN3 is currently being updated to clarify this.
Regards
Paul Bicheno
Standards and Compliance
The IET
Hope this helps, this is an email i sent a while back and one received from the IET.
Reply
Where the heck have you been lol?
That puts it to bed![]()
Wow Chr!s wish you'd posted that a few days ago you'd have saved me a few hours trawling thorugh OSG/BRB/GN3/GN8 trying to prove IQ wrong :bigcry::earmuffs:
(just kidding IQ)