Earth Bonding

Joined
29 Apr 2008
Messages
622
Reaction score
71
Country
Croatia
I am putting my house up for let and have had electrical and gas safety inspections done. The gas one was not a problem, one man came for about an hour and issued the certificate there and then. By comparison the electrics one has turned out to be a nightmare. Two men were at the house all morning and they found several things "wrong". One of the items was "No main earth to gas or water". Most of the water pipes are plastic but I now realise there were odd short lengths of copper like the washing machine pipes which were not earthed. I can rectify this but I don't know what they mean about the gas. I have visually checked and taken resistance readings on the gas pipes, meter and all the gas boiler pipework and everything shows earth continuity. The only thing I'm wondering is if these earth cables should go to an earth block outside the CU? They currently terminate at the earth block inside the CU. The earthing was also checked for the gas safety certificate and was passed.
 
Sponsored Links
One of the items was "No main earth to gas or water".

Always find it amusing with people carrying out inspection and testing and not knowing the difference between exposed and extraneous conductive parts.

Who on earth (pardon the pun) would wish to EARTH water or gas services?

Bonding is not Earthing and Earthing is not Bonding.
 
Sponsored Links
Bonding is not Earthing and Earthing is not Bonding.
Agreed, but bonding something to something else which is earthed results in the first something being 'earthed', whilst earthing two things (to the same earth) results in them being 'bonded' - which is what results in a lot of the confusion, particularly given that when one bonds two things together, at least one of them will usually be 'earthed'!

In practical terms, the distinction obviously becomes relevant in terms of the sizing of the conductors, depending upon the reason they were installed.

Kind Regards, John.
 
Just to clarify, I'm not having a go at the person who posted up the thread but rather those who wrote the report and made nonsensical statements. These people should be competent to carry out the work and surely competent people should understand the difference, and indeed the requirements of the Wiring Regulations against which they are supposed to be assessing the installation!
 
Just to clarify, I'm not having a go at the person who posted up the thread but rather those who wrote the report and made nonsensical statements. These people should be competent to carry out the work and surely competent people should understand the difference, and indeed the requirements of the Wiring Regulations against which they are supposed to be assessing the installation!
Of course they should. I agree totally and, like you, certainly don't think that the OP deserves any criticism.

Kind Regards, John.
 
Here we go.
Bonding is not Earthing and Earthing is not Bonding.
Agreed, but bonding something to something else which is earthed results in the first something being 'earthed'
No - only parts that are earthed may need to be bonded.
whilst earthing two things (to the same earth) results in them being 'bonded'
No - they may still need to be bonded elsewhere.
which is what results in a lot of the confusion, particularly given that when one bonds two things together, at least one of them will usually be 'earthed'!
No - they will each already be earthed.
 
Here we go.
Only if you want it to!
... bonding something to something else which is earthed results in the first something being 'earthed'
No - only parts that are earthed may need to be bonded.
(Main) bonding is required to an e-c-p which may ('be liable to') introduce a potential - usually (but not necessarily) earth potential.
whilst earthing two things (to the same earth) results in them being 'bonded'
No - they may still need to be bonded elsewhere.
I don't understand your 'No', but agree that they might still need to also be bonded eleswhere (or more effectively - higher CSA).
which is what results in a lot of the confusion, particularly given that when one bonds two things together, at least one of them will usually be 'earthed'!
No - they will each already be earthed.
As above, not necessarily. It is the fact that an extraneous-conductive-part may ('be liable to') represent a path to earth (or, exceptionally, a potential source of a non-earth potential) which creates the need for bonding. It is, after all, the fact that one of these 'already earthed' conductors might rise to above earth potential that results in the need for bonding; if one could guarantee (which one never could) that both would always be at true earth potential, there clearly would not be a need for any bonding.

Kind Regards, John.
 
(Main) bonding is required to an e-c-p which may ('be liable to') introduce a potential - usually (but not necessarily) earth potential.
Just 'liable to' and 'generally earth' so nearly always because it is earthed i.e. in the ground.
I don't understand your 'No', but agree that they might still need to also be bonded eleswhere
I was going to write "Yes but No". However if two parts need supplementary bonding (elsewhere e.g. bathroom) then I would consider that to mean that they are not bonded (satisfactorily).
(or more effectively - higher CSA).
Not necessarily - that would be supplementary bonding.
As above, not necessarily. It is the fact that an extraneous-conductive-part may ('be liable to') represent a path to earth (or, exceptionally, a potential source of a non-earth potential) which creates the need for bonding. It is, after all, the fact that one of these 'already earthed' conductors might rise to above earth potential that results in the need for bonding; if one could guarantee (which one never could) that both would always be at true earth potential, there clearly would not be a need for any bonding.
Again, just "liable to" not 'may be liable to' (does that mean definitely liable to i.e. probably does).

Otherwise - yes but that's the whole point?
 
Again, just "liable to" not 'may be liable to' (does that mean definitely liable to i.e. probably does).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would take 'liable to introduce' to mean 'may introduce'. If I meant 'does introduce', I think I would say so!

Otherwise - yes but that's the whole point?
My point was merely to indicate the reason for some of the confusion between bonding and earthing. As I said, if one 'bonds' to something earthed, then one is effectively earthing as well as bonding. If one earths two things by connecting them both to the same earth terminal (e.g. a MET), then one is 'bonding' them together, albeit not necessarily 'as well' (in terms in conductor CSA) as would be required by the regs for bonding.

Kind Regards, John.
 
(Main) bonding is required to an e-c-p which may ('be liable to') introduce a potential - usually (but not necessarily) earth potential.
Just 'liable to' and 'generally earth' so nearly always because it is earthed i.e. in the ground. .... Again, just "liable to" not 'may be liable to' (does that mean definitely liable to i.e. probably does).
An illustrative example has just occurred to me. A neighbour of mine has a metal oil tank sitting on a plastic/wood stand which is connected by a metal pipe (which does not go underground) into his house. I would personally say that should count as an e-c-p which needs main bonding, because it 'may' ('is liable to') introduce earth potential, even though it will not usually (if ever, certainly under dry conditions) introduce any potential. What would you say?

Kind Regards, John.
 
I would say he should make the whole lot live in case a bad man tries to steal his oil.
 
I would say he should make the whole lot live in case a bad man tries to steal his oil.
Jest ye not - it's a big problem in my part of the sticks. At least they haven't found a way of helping themselves to my LPG yet (although it might be fun to watch them trying!)!

Kind Regards, John.
 
Again, just "liable to" not 'may be liable to' (does that mean definitely liable to i.e. probably does).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would take 'liable to introduce' to mean 'may introduce'. If I meant 'does introduce', I think I would say so!
I did say probably does.
One dictionary defines liable as 'given or inclined to' which I would take as more than 'may' (which the definitions do not use - (may, that is)). I would say likely to. I suppose we could have a few pages on this.
Otherwise - yes but that's the whole point?
My point was merely to indicate the reason for some of the confusion between bonding and earthing. As I said, if one 'bonds' to something earthed, then one is effectively earthing as well as bonding.
Yes that is obviously so but only exposed (already earthed) and extraneous (already bonded because liable to be naturally earthed) parts need to be bonded to equalise potential in fault conditions.
Assuming a correctly installed installation, if a metal part is not already bonded or earthed then it does not need to be bonded.
If one earths two things by connecting them both to the same earth terminal (e.g. a MET) then one is 'bonding' them together,
This is where you're confused - If two exposed parts are earthed it would be at the earth bar in the CU (to operate a CPD).
Extraneous parts connected to the MET would be bonded (to equalise potential in the event of a fault).
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top