No, but I only work in town, i.e. small properties. I don't work in large country houses where it may be different.Agreed. The GN3 recommendation is a bit more demanding, but have you, in practice, found (m)any installations in which the 415.2.2 test is not satisfied?...but without them, without quoting every regulation, the equation of 415.2.2 is a good test, although GN3 recommends 0.05Ω.
Gas fitters still insist I bond all the pipes entering a boiler.
Interconnected (obviously) rather than muddled.Very true. This (and, indeed, the 'bath scenario') are examples of those situations in which, whether they like it or not, people simply have to accept that the concepts of bonding and earthing can get totally muddled up with one another.Also if disconnection times cannot be met. A better term for this would be Supplementary Earthing, but that would be another kettle of worms.
Only IF you bond it which I am adamant you should/must not.In the 'floating bath scenario' it is not 'bonding' which creates a hazard, it's the earthing which comes with the bonding
If not, then so be it.Not at all. I am again simply trying to ascertain whether you feel that, in practice, there is every going to be a need for Supplementary Bonding (given the presence of 'mandatory' MPB and the near certainty of an RCD - at least, in recently designed circuits).Yes, but you say it as if it were a bad thing..... If so, in practice, it would seem that there is effectively never going to be a need for Supplementary Bonding, provided that there is MPB and RCD protection - is that how you see it?
Somewhat. I thought I was never going to get out of this one.Are you surpised that I am agreeing with you?