Gas and Water Bonded together

[Oli]

Just finished an EICR and there were multiple bonding conductors in the CU, when I tried to work out which was which using continuity with a long lead, I had one that didn't seem to be connected to anything, one that showed a terrible reading to the gas and one that had a great reading to both the water and gas.
Not sure what to think, but ultimately the gas and water is bonded, so end of story right???

 

[DPG]

Could you not see bonding clamps on either gas or water?

 

[Andy78]

Hi Oli.
What's a terrible continuity reading, ie what was the returned value ?
It's very likely the water and gas are connected at a common point such as the boiler connection plate.

As an aside, your profile is hidden from view. It helps others help you if you make your profile visible and fill it in ?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Not really the end of the Story unfortunately Oli ?.

They could be joined with a 1mm somewhere.

You've got to physically see the bonding clamp and then test for continuity back to the CU. If indeed the gas and water are bonded with the same 10mm I would feel happy with that if it was an unbroken run without any joints.

 

[Risteard]

Really you need to isolate the supply and check with the main protective bonding conductors disconnected from the MET to verify what is running where.

 

[Oli]

Hi Guys,
Thanks for replies.
I forgot to write down the high reading but it was in the hundreds.
Yes I found earth clamps, oh so many earth clamps, ones on water both hot and cold, ones on gas, ones on near the boiler on both hot and cold, reading with long lead test touching direct to pipes or clamps was 0.02. All earths were disconnected from MET and tested separately.
If the water say was connected to the gas by a 1mm then surely my resistance would shoot up when testing the water so I had ruled that out.
Do I need to worry that I have not identified the other wires, no idea where they could be going, normal house and no sign of any other types of bonding.

Will try and look into my profile.

thanks again

 

[Risteard]

If the water say was connected to the gas by a 1mm then surely my resistance would shoot up when testing the water

Not if it's a short length. It may not even be noticeable by measurement depending on the length.

 

[fairlight]

It is not always practical on an EICR to identify which conductor at the MET goes to which service. As long as a visual inspection confirms the correct CSA conductor at the correct position on the incoming service, a satisfactory continuity test with conductors still connected will be sufficient to verify a reasonable certainty of compliance. I would note down that conductors were not identified at the MET and the means that were used to verify safety.

 

[Oli]

I suppose if it's that short your right. I did see 10mm at the clamps on both water and gas so at least at some point it's touched a decent bit of wire, but how would I ever prove it without ripping the building apart?

 

[fairlight]

I suppose if it's that short your right. I did see 10mm at the clamps on both water and gas so at least at some point it's touched a decent bit of wire, but how would I ever prove it without ripping the building apart?

You don't necessarily need to. I'ts an EICR, if the test I suggested above proves satisfactory then note the result and clearly state that adequate CSA cannot be verified visually but that a test has been carried out with a satisfactory result. Flag it as an FI if you have doubts.

 

[Risteard]

I suppose if it's that short your right. I did see 10mm at the clamps on both water and gas so at least at some point it's touched a decent bit of wire, but how would I ever prove it without ripping the building apart?

That's one of the many reasons why inspection is more important than testing. It's also why an EICR has disclaimers in it about what cannot/will not have been inspected.