What is the name of the fault when main bonding high resistance?

[nazoom]

Hi

What do we call the type of fault when the main bonding conductor has high resistance higher than 0.05?

Is it called non-continuous? Or high impedance?

Many Thanks

 

[oldtimer]

Did you check the connections on this ?

 

[nazoom]

Yes, The continuity of main bonding to water was higher than 0.05. About 2.2 ohm. And the length of cpc is not longer than 2 meters.

Thanks

 

[ackbarthestar]

Several possible options here.
1/ Twist and pull the cable while doing the continuity test, if the value stays the same then its either a failed connection, non calibrated instrument. (press the calibration/zero button each time you do a low reading ohm measurement test)

2/ If the reading changes then the connection is loose or corroded. or the conductors within the cable are damaged, unlikely, but still....

 

[gooner85]

A length of cable less than 2m and 2.2ohms resistance and the connections are good. Have u checked your tester?

 

[Edd]

Hi

What do we call the type of fault when the main bonding conductor has high resistance higher than 0.05?

Is it called non-continuous? Or high impedance?

Many Thanks

I would say High Resistance as your not testing with AC, your Low ohms meter is DC

 

[nazoom]

Yes I checked and nulled out my tester. I just want to know the name of this fault so i can record it in the report.

Thanks.

 

[ste77]

you refer to it as a main bonding conductor then call it a cpc....time to get your terminology correct

 

[telectrix]

would have taken less tim to fix the problem that posting on here.

 

[onions1066]

I smell a college homework question here .

 

[KAS1]

Sounds like a high resistance fault( HRF) on a cable that should have a low resistance, you could refer to it as a or HRR (high resistance reading) or a HRROAC ( high resistance reading on a cable) or a TAHRROTCWSIPOTSFT (that's a high resistance reading on that cable what should I put on the sheet for that) lol

 

[oldtimer]

would have taken less tim to fix the problem that posting on here.

That what I was driving at and have been in the situation where I have fixed it .

Also if this is a school question why not just declare it

 

[nazoom]

So it is not called main bonding conductor is discontinues?

Thanks.

 

[trev]

Yes I checked and nulled out my tester. I just want to know the name of this fault so i can record it in the report.

Thanks.

Equipotential bonding conductor to gas/water(delete as appropriate) has a resistance of X ohms,
Report done.
See that, I used my head for about 3 seconds and came up with something even a monkey could understand.

 

[telectrix]

you're right trev, i can.

 

[oldtimer]

So it is not called main bonding conductor is discontinues?

Thanks.

I think you are being disrespectful so I will unsubscribe from this post and ignore all your future posts

 

[trev]

you're right trev, i can.

You're anything but a monkey Tel, and well you know it mate

 

[telectrix]

been called worse, mate.

 

[markythesparky]

Sounds like a high resistance fault( HRF) on a cable that should have a low resistance, you could refer to it as a or HRR (high resistance reading) or a HRROAC ( high resistance reading on a cable) or a TAHRROTCWSIPOTSFT (that's a high resistance reading on that cable what should I put on the sheet for that) lol

Brillaint!

 

[Konrad]

So it is not called main bonding ....?

No.
It's called "Main Protective Bonding Conductor"

...is discontinues??

High Resistance Fault. Exceed expected 0.05 Ohm

Continuity - Failed code C1

 

[HandySparks]

Continuity - Failed code C1

Not a C1. There's no immediate danger present. Code it as a C2, potentially dangerous.

 

[glasgospark]

is your meter calibrated ? leads ok ?

 

[glasgospark]

No.
It's called "Main Protective Bonding Conductor"


High Resistance Fault. Exceed expected 0.05 Ohm
Continuity - Failed code C1

blind leading the blind

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

I thought it was called "fooked" and it got replaced with one that was called "unfooked".


I may be wrong.

 

[Konrad]

blind leading the blind

544.1 - any other questions ?
I don't question his qualifications (might be cowboy) - just try to help without sarcasm. Is like speed camera - if you slow down and are not flashed, then it fulfilled its role.

In the past I had guys learning from me in work and become contract maganers afterwords - still yet being judged. You have no clue what is Kirhoffs laws? Or for example where the factors in BS7671 have come from? Or let me say that Impedance is not resistance measured under AC conditions but is summary of two different reistances Z=R+X resistance and reactance, which varies from resistor, trough condensor and inductor in electrical circuit. Also that in AC we use not full curve of voltage under frequency of Hertz. Have you ever heard of these ever? Or just passed 3 years school, then 2382, NICEIC registartion - and playing smart? For you - SPD was introduced in UK in 2011 - in Eastern Europe they are vastly used since '90. Every building and installation has to have surge protective installation since I remember and I graduate in 1989.
So I tell you this - go and learn ring final better.

 

[glasgospark]

Are you asking me this ?
old gustav kirchoff lol
ohms law R=V
I

 

[glasgospark]

544.1 - any other questions ?
I don't question his qualifications (might be cowboy) - just try to help without sarcasm. In the past I had guys learning side by side in work and become contratc maganers - still yet being judged. For what that you have no freaking clue what is Ohms or Kirhoffs laws? have you heard of these ever?

You told the guy it was a C1 code this part I stated blind leading the blind

 

[Konrad]

because it is C1 - no continuity on MPBC. The resistance over 2 ohms on MPBC the cable is f ... d and is not able to accomodate fault current flow into safety

- - - Updated - - -

 

[glasgospark]

Its a c2 you fool even if the cable wasn't in it wouldn't be a c1

 

[HandySparks]

because it is C1 - no continuity on MPBC. The resistance over 2 ohms on MPBC the cable is f ... d and is not able to accomodate fault current flow into safety

- - - Updated - - -

Have a read of this, in particular page 12: http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[glasgospark]

because it is C1 - no continuity on MPBC. The resistance over 2 ohms on MPBC the cable is f ... d and is not able to accomodate fault current flow into safety

- - - Updated - - -

i bet you make a fortune doing eicr and classing everything in site a C1

obviously someone shouldnt be doing EICR'S in here wink wink nudge nudge

 

[Silly Sausage]

I was with someone once who was dishing out old code 2s on RFCs with 20A breakers!
Must've been on company orders to generate the remedials!

 

[glasgospark]

it usually is , companies going in bottom dollar and finding loads to fix ,

 

[Silly Sausage]

I took over the job about halfway through (a hotel) and didn't code the rest.
Strangely I didn't get any more work off them. Coincidence???

 

[glasgospark]

haha profit must have delined dramatically half way through

 

[Des 56]

konrad
C1 Danger present,immediate risk of injury


Without any means of earthing there will always be a potential danger,but it won't an be "immediate" risk of injury
A system can function for eons without an earth and the danger is always only potential

For it to be immediate there has to be direct risk at that moment,you can shove your fingers on a live bare conductor for instance,the earthing is very important but not a life threatening present condition

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, The continuity of main bonding to water was higher than 0.05. About 2.2 ohm. And the length of cpc is not longer than 2 meters.

Thanks

Just thought I'd better mention that there is no upper limit on main protective bonding conductor resistance values.....
Obviously the lower the better and in the scenario that you describe, there is certainly a fault but there is no 0.05 Ohm limit.

 

[Eggster71]

Just thought I'd better mention that there is no upper limit on main protective bonding conductor resistance values.....
Obviously the lower the better and in the scenario that you describe, there is certainly a fault but there is no 0.05 Ohm limit.

The firm I'm subbing to insist on 0.05, calculated from potential touch voltage, I have asked them to confirm this, and where the formula is and they go "a bit vague" on me....they tend to be a bit "monkey see...monkey do". Unless it's the supplementary bonding formula...415.2.2...

 

[IQ Electrical]

The firm I'm subbing to insist on 0.05, calculated from potential touch voltage, I have asked them to confirm this, and where the formula is and they go "a bit vague" on me....they tend to be a bit "monkey see...monkey do". Unless it's the supplementary bonding formula...415.2.2...

Yes, the passage reads like this:

This method can also be used to confirm a bonding connection between extraneous-conductive parts where it is not possible to see a bonding connection, e.g. where bonding
clamps have been ‘built in’. The test would be done by connecting the leads of the
instrument between any two points such as metallic pipes and looking for a low reading
of the order of 0.05 Ω

I've highlighted the key words-'between extraneous-conductive parts'

 

[Rampantchilli]

So, if it has no continuity how does the OP get a value of 2.2ohms? Surely it's just got a high resistance value but is still continuous?

as for Konrads rant, he lost me, when did this become a matter of surge protection?