Bonding

[highspark]

What page of the BGB or reg number states that bonding to water and gas has to have its own 10mm cable to each service and can't be interlinked from one to the other?

 

[Farmelectrics]

I always run separate earths in but not aware you can't interlink water and gas

 

[Octopus]

No such rule. They can be linked, i.e the same cable, and GN3 suggests that the cable has to be continuous.

 

[Farmelectrics]

Thought so myself Murdoch don't no why people do do it not something I've done myself but it's allowed

 

[SirKit Breaker]

As Murdoch. The main bonding cable (not always 10mm) must be continuous, and may be cross connected to all services. Generally it is 10mm, but there are situations where this may need to be larger, or could be smaller.

Cheers............Howard

 

[Farmelectrics]

Yes sir cut your right min must be 6mm and that's if your adiabatic sums work out

 

[Guest55]

What page of the BGB or reg number states that bonding to water and gas has to have its own 10mm cable to each service and can't be interlinked from one to the other?

There isnt one lol , it says exactly the opposite - services can share a common bonding conductor.

 

[spark 68]

There isn't such a reg in the BGB, the reg numbers for protective bonding conductors are 544 on page 167.

Strange, that I thought that they had to be a continuous run if a single bonding conductor was used, and we were indeed taught this, but there is no reference to this in either the 17th ed:2008 BRB, OSG or GN3, or the new 17th amd.1:2011 BGB, GN3 or OSG.

The only reference I can find is in GN8, but no reg no. given, which is still to the 16th until the new book comes out.

Please note Iam not saying it is not good practice to keep the conductors continuous, and I do this as a matter of course when required, but it seems it is not in the current or the immediately previous 2008 regs.

Ps. it's not even a reg in the 16th ed amd1:1995 and amd2:2004.

It must be one of those things that is taught as good practice (for good reasons) and is assumed to be reg when in fact it isn't a reg at all, well I live and learn

 

[topquark]

Isn't there a reg for when you bond both gas and water (for example) with one cable ... then it has to be contiguous.

 

[Guest55]

Isn't there a reg for when you bond both gas and water (for example) with one cable ... then it has to be contiguous.

yes Quark , it has to be continuous.
Have you been on the sherry today lol ?

 

[spark 68]

Isn't there a reg for when you bond both gas and water (for example) with one cable ... then it has to be contiguous.

That's what I thought TQ, but see my post above yours, I have searched through two 17th ed books, two OSG's, and two GN3's, also two editions of the 16th regs(amd1 and amd2) and one 16th amd1 OSG, and can find no reference to this other than the current old GN8

 

[Octopus]

All I can remember is a recommendation in a GN, but no specific rule.

 

[spark 68]

As you say Murdoch, a recommendation in GN8, but no specific reg.

Unless someone can kindly point the reg number out that I may have missed.

Still good practice though.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There is no requirement for protective bonding conductors to be continuous.
That is something the NICEIC, and many Local Authorities require.
I once came across a RFC wired by a DIT enthusiast, where all the conductors were contiuous.

 

[Octopus]

Still good practice though.

IMHO yes. Another reg that should have been made specific, and not open to interpretation, at the last update.