Quick question about bonding!

[sparks1973]

no.. the adiabatic is for earthing conductors.

OK Tel..no probs...

 

[rich.250]

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

 

[IQ Electrical]

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.

 

[sparks1973]

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

 

[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.....

 

[IQ Electrical]

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]

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!

 

[Guest55]

no.. the adiabatic is for earthing conductors.

And cpc's :-D