Bonding to Gas and water am2

[Sylvia Namusisi]

maybe not, but her mother might:

Thank you for that,nice.

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

maybe not, but her mother might:

Thank you for that,nice.

I don't need to write to them. BS7671 is a non-statutory document, the GNs are written off the back of this which also makes the non-statutory. The GNs are written to provide clarification and are non-binding.

You claim that two bonding cables are not OK and that the cable must be continuous. Can you please give me the regulation number stating this?

Non-statutory, yes but you can be prosecuted by refering to them hence the reason we have to be updated on them whenever there is a change.

 

[Devonchris]

Post them a letter and ask them.
I am sure they will get back to you rather quickly.Good luck!

You could try ringing it might be quicker. But make sure you have 40 cents more.

 

[Strima]

Thank you for that,nice.

Non-statutory, yes but you can be prosecuted by refering to them hence the reason we have to be updated on them whenever there is a change.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

You still haven't answered the question.

I have made a point ,i cannot add anymore.Go with what you know and i remain with what i know,simple.

 

[davesparks]

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.

Yes it is nonsense, your post clearly stated that main bonding must be one continuous conductor and not two separate conductors.
There is nothing in the regulations or guidance notes to support this.
Main bonding can be two or more separate conductors, and it is often better to do it this way unless items requiring bonding are close to each other.

Following your suggestion of one continuous conductor for all main bonds would lead to an excessively long bonding conductor linking gas, water, ducting, structural steel, lightning protection etc etc, utter nonsense.

 

[MDJ]

Quite right,

what if the water tap is 30 metres away from the gas meter LOL, I personally like to use an earth block and seperate cabling labelled, I have many many times used one cable when the 2 services are together, but it is no issue using seperate cables with the correct do not remove labelling on.

 

[Midwest]

What I want to know; in domestic, why isn't the water service bought into the property in the same place as the gas & electric? Make life so much more easier (if they require bonding).

 

[Pete999]

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

Well if you connect 1 to the water and 1 to the Gas, oth from the MET assuming it's the only bonding required both conductors would be continuous wouldn't they? they would be in my book, no breaks, just 2 conductors, how anyone can dispute this is, quite frankly beyond me.

 

[Pete999]

Thanks Tel

Right that's war, actually it's not bad spelling, it's bad punctuation, can we please have a bad punctuation icon, for the pedants in the Forum? thanks is spelt thanks it's the apostrophe that's missing in thank's. So thank's for that, oh sorry, that should be a full stop.

 

[Pete999]

Post them a letter and ask them.
I am sure they will get back to you rather quickly.Good luck!

Because it is only guidance.

 

[Pete999]

NSomething has irked mycuriosity with this post and I have come to the conclusion that there is a degree of misinterpretation of the regulation regarding Main bonding.
Some folk are saying that the conductor must be continuous, I agree with that statement, but only if you are taking 1 conductor to the water or gas pipe and then on to the whichever pipe.
I get the impression that the Neuvo Electricians are reading thi literally, meaning you take 1 bonding conductor to 1 pipe and on to the next without a break, reasonable, if thats your prfered method, but the best way and most common way is to take 1 conductor from the MET to each bit that requires bonding, as I said before how can this be misconstrued? it's down to logic, far to many people read something, misunderstand it and think it's Gospel, I blame the training estabishments. Some good some not so good, this is what is wrong with the way we train people these days in my opinion. As Camerabloke would say "where is the popcorn"?

 

[Midwest]

I kinda alluded to that in post36, I think?

 

[Pete999]

I kinda alluded to that in post36, I think?

Don't doubt that you did mate, just adding my pence worth

 

[ipf]

You could try ringing it might be quicker. But make sure you have 40 cents more.

Oh mother!