Discuss Quick question about bonding! in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

DNS1

-
Arms
Esteemed
Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:  American Electrical Advice Forum

Hi chaps,

Just did a "mock" EICR on a friends place and found no bonding to incoming gas and water.

Am I allowed to use a single piece of 10mm to bond both of them back to the MET, or does it have to be 2 separate runs? Fairly sure 1 run is ok, but just wanted to be sure!

Sorry for the amateurish question!
 
uHeat Banner - Forum Discount Available
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
S

sparks1973

one bonding conductor is adequate ......dont cut it at the first point (BS951 clamp)...just bare the sheath of....expose enough copper to wrap around the screw termination......then its on to the second clamp......keep it continious...then when old wetpants comes along and starts disconnecting pipework without a care in the world...you still have continuity to the furthest point on the string...
Happy days...
 
S

sparks1973

by the way as well....if you ever find a single bonding conductor being used for more than 1 service....and it isn`t continuous from the 1st point (as has been described above)...or alternatively it hasn`t been jointed with copper crimps (lugs) at the first point onwards.....then thats an instant (2)....
 
O

Octopus

by the way as well....if you ever find a single bonding conductor being used for more than 1 service....and it isn`t continuous from the 1st point (as has been described above)...or alternatively it hasn`t been jointed with copper crimps (lugs) at the first point onwards.....then thats an instant (2)....
I have to disagree. BS 7671 does not state it has to be one continuous cable and only in the guidance notes does the continuous cable become a recommendation.
 
I have to disagree. BS 7671 does not state it has to be one continuous cable and only in the guidance notes does the continuous cable become a recommendation.
I agree that you disagree, this is good practice rather than a regulation-i'd be looking at a code 3 if anything.
 
O

Octopus

I agree that you disagree, this is good practice rather than a regulation-i'd be looking at a code 3 if anything.
I agree with you! lol

This is something that should be far clearer.

How anyone can give a C2 for non continuous bonding...........
 
S

sparks1973

I agree with you! lol

This is something that should be far clearer.

How anyone can give a C2 for non continuous bonding...........
well...shows you how wrong you can be..lol....
saying that though...i looked at a recent PIR that had a single bonding conductor down as a (1)....lol...
Well...(3) it is then...lol...
 
M

Mark_Burgess

Its 1 continuous length at my house, well, on the reel in the van, not quite got round to fitting it......
 
Its 1 continuous length at my house, well, on the reel in the van, not quite got round to fitting it......
The cobbler's children go barefoot....
 
S

SPARTYKUS

Busmans holiday Mark.

Still got the garage sockets to do.

And the brick lights.

And the power down to the shed.

And the socket in the end garage so the wife doesnt have to run an extension for the exercise bike.

And the outside lights (bought last year, cables there)
 

Des 56

-
Arms
Esteemed
Busmans holiday Mark.

Still got the garage sockets to do.

And the brick lights.

And the power down to the shed.

And the socket in the end garage so the wife doesnt have to run an extension for the exercise bike.

And the outside lights (bought last year, cables there)
Women hey
Minds not how much effort you make there's no pleasing them sometimes
 
One run is fine, just watch the length. Off the top of my head 27m for 10mm.
To stay below 0.05.......
There is no limit for the resistance of main protective bonding.
 
T

thekingiam

There is no limit for the resistance of main protective bonding.
got me worried then, i haven't heard of this reg either but then again ive only just got around to ordering bgb and on site guide.
i have got outside lights to do
change cu
wire in cooker( without 1 for a year now)
sockets to island and switches to lights
she just told me she wants decking outside and build a front drive gate
finish off on suite in one bedroom
put together childs playhouse

getting depressed now, a million other things as well.
and i ask her to lie on her back for twenty minutes and guess what response i get!,,,,

maybe 10 minutes
 
Since when?
There never was, a passage in Guidance Note 3 concerned with supplementary bonding confirmation between metallic parts is often mistaken to refer to main protective bonding-you have to read it 5 times to understand it ;)
 
S

sparks1973

no.. the adiabatic is for earthing conductors.
OK Tel..no probs...
 

rich.250

-
Arms
I'll admit I was under the impression that
0.05 was considered effectively the same....
Gn3 suggests it should be around 0.05
I can see why 0.05 for earthing conductors, am
Now questioning myself and the NIC inspector.... Lol
 
I'll admit I was under the impression that
0.05 was considered effectively the same....
Gn3 suggests it should be around 0.05
I can see why 0.05 for earthing conductors, am
Now questioning myself and the NIC inspector.... Lol
Ask him to show you the regulation, then take a seat and watch him squirm out of it!
If he mentions GN3, ask him why it says 'between metallic parts' if it's referring to main protective bonding which would by definition only be installed from the MET to an extraneous-conductive part.
 
S

sparks1973

yep...between metallic parts would be supplementary wouldn`t it IQ....
 
S

sparks1973

now on the subject of the adiabatic....i was aware of its use for earthing....but also was under the impression that it could also be applied to bonding.....
 
now on the subject of the adiabatic....i was aware of its use for earthing....but also was under the impression that it could also be applied to bonding.....
Not directly but on a non-PME system the bonding can be sized from the earthing conductor which can be sized from the adiabatic.
 

rich.250

-
Arms
I was just thinking it needs to be the same potential.... I.e 0.05, like r1 and rn conductors in a RFC.
I was told it had to be 0.05 on my 2391 also, just been looking through
My Notes for the reasoning why..... Lol.
Can't find anything!
 
G

Guest55

no.. the adiabatic is for earthing conductors.
And cpc's :-D
 

Reply to Quick question about bonding! in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Top Bottom