Bonding to Gas and water am2

[Jakegood]

hi all,

I have my am2 coming up. Just going over a few things. I am correct in saying that the Gas bonding would terminate in to the clamp below the joint, and not above it?
Also, I was going to use one continuous length of 10mm is this allowed, or is it better practice to use to lengths?

Regards

 

[MDJ]

Bond needs to be on consumer side not the meter providers side, one cable is fine if unbroken, but i would install 2 and labell them, thats personal choice

 

[telectrix]

if the supply is from the bottom, then the clamp needs to be below the branch joint.

 

[MDJ]

I thought he was referring to bonding the gas and water together

 

[telectrix]

yeah i know. the idea of using a single cable, unboken, is to prevent wet-pants from dissing one service when messing about with the other.

 

[MDJ]

Are you trying to say wet pants doesn't reconnect bonds? lol

 

[Jakegood]

I was going to put the clamp below the t joint. But, then that would not be the consumer side, is that correct?

 

[Cadgey123]

Look the where the previous have been..... the pipes battered

 

[Pete999]

Are you trying to say wet pants doesn't reconnect bonds? lol

What do you think?

 

[Octopus]

Bond needs to be on consumer side not the meter providers side, one cable is fine if unbroken, but i would install 2 and label them, thats personal choice

2 cables are OK by the regs BUT best practice says a single continuous cable is better.

 

[Pete999]

hi all,

I have my am2 coming up. Just going over a few things. I am correct in saying that the Gas bonding would terminate in to the clamp below the joint, and not above it?
Also, I was going to use one continuous length of 10mm is this allowed, or is it better practice to use to lengths?

Regards
View attachment 41146

Consumers side of the intake

2 cables are OK by the regs BUT best practice says a single continuous cable is better.

1 Bond to the H2O and 1 bond to the Gas= 2 conductors it would need to be continuous, which would be difficult if the gas and water entered the building on different sides of the building, can you show me where it says 1 conductor is best practice Murdoch please?
Sizing main protective bonding conductors - https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/sizing-main-protective-bonding-conductors

 

[westward10]

I prefer conductors, not cables

 

[Pete999]

I prefer conductors, not cables

Changed my post just for you Westy

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

2 cables are OK by the regs BUT best practice says a single continuous cable is better.

No 2 cabes not okay by the current regs.
The protective bonding cable has got to be continuous no breaks at all.

 

[Ian1981]

No 2 cabes not okay by the current regs.
The protective bonding cable has got to be continuous no breaks at all.

Can you quote the regulation number stating this please?
For the record I prefer an unbroken cable if I was only using one

 

[polo1]

No 2 cabes not okay by the current regs.
The protective bonding cable has got to be continuous no breaks at all.

Sorry, that’s nonsense. Either individual conductors to gas and water, or one single, continuous conductor serving both.

 

[Sparkie30]

No 2 cabes not okay by the current regs.

The protective bonding cable has got to be continuous no breaks at all.

Think you contradicting yoursel there.

 

[Sparkie30]

No 2 cabes not okay by the current regs.
The protective bonding cable has got to be continuous no breaks at all.

Think you contradicting yoursel there.

 

[Pete999]

Sorry, that’s nonsense. Either individual conductors to gas and water, or one single, continuous conductor serving both.

Sizing main protective bonding conductors - https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/sizing-main-protective-bonding-conductors
For info

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

Can you quote the regulation number stating this please?
For the record I prefer an unbroken cable if I was only using one

Section 54

Sorry, that’s nonsense. Either individual conductors to gas and water, or one single, continuous conductor serving both.

It is not nonsense, protective conductors have got to be continuous.
It is up to you if you want to use one conductor for water and another conductor for gas but continuity is key no breaks at all.
Guidance note 8 (earthing & bonding) page 57.

 

[Octopus]

deleted

 

[Octopus]

Guidance note 8 (earthing & bonding) page 57.

Right - this isn't a reg, its guidance

Most people don't have the Guidance Notes ......

If the IET intended this to be a reg it would be in the big book

 

[Pete999]

Section 54

It is not nonsense, protective conductors have got to be continuous.
It is up to you if you want to use one conductor for water and another conductor for gas but continuity is key no breaks at all.
Guidance note 8 (earthing & bonding) page 57.

Thanks not got GN 8 does it say anything about seperate conductors being no compliant? because I think the post saying it is, and a single conductor is the best practice is incorrect.

 

[Ian1981]

Yeah section 54 says diddly squat about unbroken conductors and connections.

 

[Octopus]

Thanks not got GN 8 does it say anything about separate conductors being no compliant? because I think the post saying it is, and a single conductor is the best practice is incorrect.

Hit, nail and head and rather proves my point I think.

I would have thought that you would have it Pete!

 

[Richard Burns]

A single conductor to each service is the ideal situation, however to use a single conductor to one service and loop it on to the next service is totally acceptable.
There is a suggestion in GN8 that a looped service should be unbroken to avoid the chance of a disconnection at the first service also causing disconnection at the second service.
Though it is interesting to note that this will only be applicable if someone carefully undoes the wiring connections, in which case they would probably be careful to reconnect, rather than just snipping the conductor.
However where the conductors are not looped there is no suggestion that they need to be unbroken and in many cases will often be jointed several times before they arrive at the MET particularly in large installations.

 

[telectrix]

there is no reg. stating that a single bonding conductor to 2 services should be continuous. it's just been accepted as good practice for the reason i stated in post #5.

 

[Pete999]

Hit, nail and head and rather proves my point I think.

I would have thought that you would have it Pete!

there is no reg. stating that a single bonding conductor to 2 services should be continuous. it's just been accepted as good practice for the reason i stated in post #5.

Thanks Tel

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

Right - this isn't a reg, its guidance

Most people don't have the Guidance Notes ......

If the IET intended this to be a reg it would be in the big book

You can argue as much as you want and dismiss advice here.
The op who posted wanted guidance and if he is going to sit his AM2 and does that he is going to fail.
The issue of you not having the guidance note is your problem ,you can choose to refer to as many books and notes as you wish.
The Guidance note 8 (Earthing & bonding) is an exampanded form ofchapter 54 of BS 7671 2008 amendment 3.
All information in their is correct and binding.

 

[Strima]

So why is it called a guidance note and not a compulsory note?