Where to bond?

[JohnW2]

...The water bond was done at the stop tap, and then just lugged to a bolt through a steel column. This was within maybe 15m of the mains intake, so lazy. The NIC pretty much said "what if it was the other side of the building, would you expect a cable run back then?". This is when he brought up the use of an extraneous part. I had always known about this for supp bonding, but had always assumed it was not permitted with a main bond.

Is this (the NIC's question) not the point which EFLI and I have been making? If this were allowed for main bonding (and I confess that I have yet to find anything in the regs which says that it isn't), then every water pipe which entered 'on the other side of the building' from the MET would surely be (wire) bonded close to the MET, regardless of how far that was from the extraneous-c-p's entry into the building? As I've said, I really do doubt taht the regs intended to allow that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Lectrician]

I agree, I highly doubt it is what was intended.

Bonding it at any position is some what different from using it as a bonding conductor, there is a slim devide between these two scenarios.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, I highly doubt it is what was intended. Bonding it at any position is some what different from using it as a bonding conductor, there is a slim devide between these two scenarios.

I suppose so - but a very 'slim divide', I would have said!

What if a properly bonded (near entry into premises) long water pipe passed the point of entry into the premises of a gas pipe in its travels. Do you believe that the regs intend that the gas pipe can be main bonded by connection to the water pipe at that point (provided 543.2.6 is satisfied for the water pipe)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't give a lot of credence to NIC rulings, so -

Is this too simple an explanation which should have been realised before?


Headings -

543 Protective conductors - relates to circuit protective conductors (earthing).

544 Protective bonding conductors - relates to protective bonding conductors (bonding).


Hence - main bonding must comply with 544.1.2

 

[Lectrician]

I only have the red regs on my laptop to search, not the green (really wish a PDF would become available for the green )

It's an annomolly that I thought would start a debate. I hate the idea of it, perhaps the definitions section should be re-worked. Perhaps it has - Have you got the green regs to hand? My green regs stay at the office, only have red here on the laptop.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I have BGB here.

 

[Lectrician]

Is this too simple an explanation which should have been realised before?


Headings -

543 Protective conductors - relates to circuit protective conductors (earthing).

544 Protective bonding conductors - relates to protective bonding conductors (bonding).


Hence - main bonding must comply with 544.1.2

543 makes several references to "Protective bonding conductors". Almost like 543 covers protective conductors in general, inc MPB, and 544 has some additional requirements for MPB specifically.

 

[JohnW2]

Is this too simple an explanation which should have been realised before?
Headings -
543 Protective conductors - relates to circuit protective conductors (earthing).
544 Protective bonding conductors - relates to protective bonding conductors (bonding).
Hence - main bonding must comply with 544.1.2

Needless to say, I would certainly like to be able to believe that but, as so often, the wording of the regs is far from unambiguous. In particular, the very first sentence of 543 (in 543.1.1) starts off by saying:

The cross-sectional area of every protective conductor,other than a protective bonding conductor, shall be ...

It is quite difficult to read that as not implying that they consdier a 'protective bonding conductor' to be a type of 'protective conductor', isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

All 'Protective' definitions are the same.

You will note that there is -
'Protective bonding conductor' ...
'Protective conductor' which has '(PE)' after it.

 

[JohnW2]

All 'Protective' definitions are the same. You will note that there is -
'Protective bonding conductor' ...
'Protective conductor' which has '(PE)' after it.

I'm not sure I get your point - you almost seem to be arguing against yourself. There is no "(PE)" in the main heading of 543. I think I have to agree with Lectrician here that (although some of the consequences were presumably not intended), the regs probaby 'intend' that (except where specifically excluded , as in 543.1.1) 543 refers to all 'protective conductors', including bonding ones.

As so often, a mess!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As so often, a mess!

Can't argue with that.

It's in chapter 2 - definitions.