Great minds Tel only you was a bit quicker
Recording it for tomoz, they don't make em like that anymore.
The film you Div
Thank you for that,nice.
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 could try ringing it might be quicker. But make sure you have 40 cents more.
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.
D
davesparks
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.
M
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because it is only guidance.
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"?
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"?
Don't doubt that you did mate, just adding my pence worth
Oh mother!
This is very petty.If it is a mistake why make it the main point and divert from real material content?
You guys you have a lot of time on your hands.
This is very petty.If it is a mistake why make it the main point and divert from real material content?
You guys you have a lot of time on your hands.
i
Not petty at all how many posts have you tried to read with bad spelling and punctuation, and ended up with a migraine? By and By I have all the time in the world now I have been retired, after spending 55 plus years in this trade.
Good for you and enjoy your retirement by being picky.
I will don't you fret yourself Sylvia
So he failed for not following the design?
M
MDJ
You are obviously someone who can read gibberish. We are not all as talented as you, can you please decipher the OP then? we are only mortals after all.
Yes he did indeed. Bit harsh I thought, nothing wrong with what he did really
Does seem a little harsh.
That is what i meant you just seem not to have read what i was replying to.
Read it first and then disagree other than jumping on the band wagon
I am a pedant, so I am very tempted to jump in here right now, particularly as I like spelling and grammar to be correct, as also punctuation and the proper use of figures of speech, bearing in mind that additionally the use of a split infinitive should be avoided, always avoid aliteration and ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put!
Question:
I have a bit of bonding cable that goes from my water pipe, (ok, the house's pipe) then to the gas pipe and thereafter to the MET. It leaves the waterpipe, with its nice safety label intact, then gets attached to the gas pipe with another proper safety label, the bare conductor being wrapped round the screw, not cut, and finally to the MET. That, in my view is one continuous conductor.
However, if it is snipped at the gas pipe label, say a terminal is added, then the next run also has a terminal added, and both terminated ends are properly secured to the warning label, then finally the second length goes to the MET, then is that not also a continuous conductor? In effect, it is, surely?
In practice, it differs because undoing the midpoint temporarily then leaves the system unbonded, but if the bonding cable is not cut and joined at the gas pipe, removing that gas pipe label will leave the rest of the system intact. Now, I'm just trying to get my head round this, ok? It seems like terminology is causing confusion...continuous may be meant to mean one unbroken run, or maybe it means don't go wandering off popping short lengths into connectors and joining them up any old where?
I'm thinking that if the MET is in the "middle" of a house, and the gas comes in 10m away on one side, and the water 10m away in the other direction, then we have two things:
1. Quite a big house
2. A situation where it might be preferable for 2 separate bonding cables, one from each incoming supply, to the MET, each about 10m long, rather than running a 20m cable from one to the other then another 10m to the MET, which I would think would be awkward and more prone to damage, especially the 20m run.
Just my ramblings, and not those of a qualified person, however I am old enough to be shouted at, if required.
I have a bit of bonding cable that goes from my water pipe, (ok, the house's pipe) then to the gas pipe and thereafter to the MET. It leaves the waterpipe, with its nice safety label intact, then gets attached to the gas pipe with another proper safety label, the bare conductor being wrapped round the screw, not cut, and finally to the MET. That, in my view is one continuous conductor.
However, if it is snipped at the gas pipe label, say a terminal is added, then the next run also has a terminal added, and both terminated ends are properly secured to the warning label, then finally the second length goes to the MET, then is that not also a continuous conductor? In effect, it is, surely?
In practice, it differs because undoing the midpoint temporarily then leaves the system unbonded, but if the bonding cable is not cut and joined at the gas pipe, removing that gas pipe label will leave the rest of the system intact. Now, I'm just trying to get my head round this, ok? It seems like terminology is causing confusion...continuous may be meant to mean one unbroken run, or maybe it means don't go wandering off popping short lengths into connectors and joining them up any old where?
I'm thinking that if the MET is in the "middle" of a house, and the gas comes in 10m away on one side, and the water 10m away in the other direction, then we have two things:
1. Quite a big house
2. A situation where it might be preferable for 2 separate bonding cables, one from each incoming supply, to the MET, each about 10m long, rather than running a 20m cable from one to the other then another 10m to the MET, which I would think would be awkward and more prone to damage, especially the 20m run.
Just my ramblings, and not those of a qualified person, however I am old enough to be shouted at, if required.
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Advert
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8