Can’t access main bond to water pipe.....

[Baddegg]

Can’t access connection of main bond to water pipe due to being (I assume under hardwood flooring) have confirmed continuity by disconnecting the 10mm at Met clamping on and testing with wander lead to copper pipe where it enters out of kitchen floor, but I can’t confirm the condition of the clamp,how would I record this on EIC? Or is just confirming continuity sufficient?
Incidentally the gas meter is at the top of a wall in the middle of the house,can visually see that clamp...

 

[buzzlightyear]

Yes westward, external met to the Cu ,3 x 10mm ,1 x 16mm to other sheath of main dno cable

3x10mm ?

 

[Baddegg]

3x10mm ?

Yes 1 needs upgrade to 16mm from Met to Cu Met,was trying to work out how to word it so I gave up and didn’t bother ha ha

 

[Baddegg]

Don’t know why but it is 16mm from clamp on sheath to external Met then reduces to 10 up to the Cu Met, is only 60a main fuse but CBA with the adiabatic so its getting upgraded!

 

[Wilko]

Hi - 16mm if selected from Table 54.7 but it's possible that 10mm will be ok if you calculate it from Reg 543.1.3 , tin hat on.

 

[Baddegg]

Hi - 16mm if selected from Table 54.7 but it's possible that 10mm will be ok if you calculate it from Reg 543.1.3 , tin hat on.

Hi wilko that’s my understanding but i prefer to just go with the 16mm and save the Brain ache!

 

[Nigel]

A tick for bonding in place.

A C3 for accessibility.

As your testing has confirmed the connection is sound I would not be overly concerned about the state of the clamp.

 

[Baddegg]

Thanks Essex much appreciated

 

[willy fixit]

Insert a plastic section where the supply enters? No bonding needed!
And a full bore lever isolator while your at it!

 

[The Ghost]

Sorry vortigern not sure what that meant

It means Non Verifiable. @Leesparkykent suggests to note you have verified continuity which I am personally somewhat loathe to do as I fear there may be parallel earths such as through the boiler earth or others which would all make me feel I really do not know the state of the bonding hence N/V as I cannot verify. Maybe I might give a cost for bonding. But It is unusual that no one knows where they turn the water off in the house.
By the way I can't PM you, maybe you could PM me? Your profile is turned off as well. I wanted to discuss with you a client in Portsmouth (Gosport is my Home town)

 

[The Ghost]

But can you use N/V and issue a satisfactory EICR ?

In the case of no bonding I would not issue a satisfactory EICR. There would be notes on the EICR and a classification to expand on the N/V

 

[Leesparkykent]

It means Non Verifiable. @Leesparkykent suggests to note you have verified continuity which I am personally somewhat loathe to do as I fear there may be parallel earths such as through the boiler earth or others which would all make me feel I really do not know the state of the bonding hence N/V as I cannot verify. Maybe I might give a cost for bonding. But It is unusual that no one knows where they turn the water off in the house.
By the way I can't PM you, maybe you could PM me? Your profile is turned off as well. I wanted to discuss with you a client in Portsmouth (Gosport is my Home town)

Disconnect parallel paths obviously.... just like you would if you wanted to check if something was extraneous. With experience you can be a little more educated about things.

 

[The Ghost]

Sorry @Leesparkykent unless I see it with my own eyes it is not verified in my book. As I have said before I make decisions as if I was before the beak. So when they say (after the householder gets a shock) You verified the bonding was in place without site of it? I would stutter a little. Whereas if I have notified the person ordering the report I cannot verify and note it on the certificate and discuss ways to deal with such a potential danger then there is no case. I always work with liability tipping away from me. When I get some experience I may as you say be able to be more educated.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Sorry @Leesparkykent unless I see it with my own eyes it is not verified in my book. As I have said before I make decisions as if I was before the beak. So when they say (after the householder gets a shock) You verified the bonding was in place without site of it? I would stutter a little. Whereas if I have notified the person ordering the report I cannot verify and note it on the certificate and discuss ways to deal with such a potential danger then there is no case. I always work with liability tipping away from me. When I get some experience I may as you say be able to be more educated.

It must be wonderfull looking through those rose tinted glasses?

 

[Wilko]

If I can't see the pipe connection I think I can still make a good estimate of its condition. Dis all parallel paths, take a reading with Wander as near as you can to where you think the clamp is located. Calculate the possible bonding cable length from 1.83 mOhms per metre (for 10mm) and compare to an estimated cable run from the board (looks like 15m to me Sarge). I then have 3 things - I know it's connected, it's of reasonable low value and it follows an expected path. I think that's enough for work to proceed (?).

 

[Baddegg]

Hi vortigern
Will look into PM later,how do I turn my profile on? Wasn’t aware it was in or off if I’m honest