Then the 'cpc busbar' is the MET.The bonding is to the CPC busbar in the CU (where all the other CPC's connect) and there does not appear to be a MET.
Then the 'cpc busbar' is the MET.The bonding is to the CPC busbar in the CU (where all the other CPC's connect) and there does not appear to be a MET.
You're welcome, and fair enough. If you wanted to bring it up to compliance with regs (even if it makes little sense), you would merely have to move the connection from the supply side to your side of the gas meter.Thanks - really helpful. In terms of the gas bonding, the green/yellow cable goes from the CU CPC busbar direct to the Gas meter (adjacent pipework).
Do I take it that those are two separate G/Y cables - i.e. one from CU to earth stake and the other from earth stake to incoming water supply? (rather than a single continuous cable that is not broken at the earth stake). If so, as I've said, ideally the cable from water supply should be re-routed to the CU/'MET'. If it were a single continuous cable (probably unlikely), that would not really be necessary.The same busbar that has all the CPC and the green/yellow cable to the main earth stake and then onto the bathroom incoming water supply.
Particularly if you're a landlord.You'd be stupid not to put right a C1 and some C2's though.
This is a bit different from the "usual argument". As you say, there is certainly no regulatory requirements for continuous bonding conductors, and I personally wouldn't be at all concerned about a few joints in such a conductor (after all, there are inevitably several joints in the path between extraneous-c-ps and exposed-c-ps, even if the bonding conductor itself is continuous).What difference does the 'continuousness' of the cable make? I know the usual arguments but it is not required, is it?
See above. If the ('separate') connection between CU/MET and earth spike were lost, that could theoretically result in a potentially lethal situation (although not in OP's case - see below). You are perhaps thinking that incidental 'parallel' paths would connect any metal water pipework to the CU/MET - but one obviously should not rely on that.Anyway, in a TT installation would bonding to or via the electrode not achieve the desired result?
.... it is not a bonding conductor, it is an extraneous-conductive-part.The bonding conductor is taken to the earth spike, rather than the CU/met - which means ....
I'm a bit confused; did you make a typo and a mistake?However, the OP's situation is different. The bonding conductor is taken to the earth spike, rather than the CU/met - which means that if the earthing conductor (from CU to earth spike) (if 'separate') were to become disconnected or broken, there would be no bonding path between extraneous-c-ps and exposed-c-ps - particularly dangerous since the loss of the earthing conductor would mean that the cpcs, hence exposed-c-ps would rise to near line potential in the case of an L-cpc fault. However, if the cable from water to supply pipe (via earth spike) were 'continuous', that risk would not exist, and it would be no different from a conventional, 'dedicated', main bonding conductor directly from water supply pipe to CU/MET.
I don't believe I made either!I'm a bit confused; did you make a typo and a mistake?
By 'disconnected', I was referring to an iffy (or even 'fallen out') connection at one of the ends of the earthing conductor. If that happened, then the water pipe would end up bonded to nothing (other than a disconnected earth spike) - which, as I said is theoretically a "doubly dangerous situation" (firstly, lost connection between cps and earth; secondly, lost bonding of extraneous-c-p to cpcs)Surely if the earthing conductor between the CU and spike were broken (disconnected would imply intentionally so not really applicable) what difference would it make if it were continuous to the water pipe or joined at the spike?
It doesn't have to be 'at the same time'. A broken earthing conductor could have been present, unnoticed, for years before the L-cpc fault arose. ... you might just as well say that you wouldn't worry/comment about a broken main bonding conductor, since it would be 'implausible' that an L-cpc fault 'would arise at the same time'!IAlso, for this to happen (unearthed installation) at the same time as a fault L-cpc is just thinking up implausible reasons.
That's stretching it a bit.It doesn't have to be 'at the same time'. A broken earthing conductor could have been present, unnoticed, for years before the L-cpc fault arose. ... you might just as well say that you wouldn't worry/comment about a broken main bonding conductor, since it would be 'implausible' that an L-cpc fault 'would arise at the same time'!
But it is connected to the MET.As a matter of interest, are you implying that if you were undertaking an EICR, you wouldn't even comment on, let alone code, the fact that a main bonding conductor was connected (separately) to an earth electrode rather than to the MET?
You seem to be attempting to draw me into a discussion/argument that I never intended. Right at the start of this thread, I told the OP that I did not regard this as a 'real concern' - and that was even before I knew that he had virtually no internal metal water pipework! My view remains unchanged. It was securespark, not me, who raised concerns about the bonding conductor from the water supply pipe going to the earth electrode, rather than 'directly to the CU.That's stretching it a bit. None of the conductors should be disconnected. What if {all sorts of things}?It doesn't have to be 'at the same time'. A broken earthing conductor could have been present, unnoticed, for years before the L-cpc fault arose. ... you might just as well say that you wouldn't worry/comment about a broken main bonding conductor, since it would be 'implausible' that an L-cpc fault 'would arise at the same time'!
Again, this isn't really 'my argument', but ... I presume that the top of the earth spike could be defined as the MET, but I imagine that there would be a requirement for an 'outdoor MET' to be adequately protected from 'the elements'. Although probably not stated as such in the regs, I think that most people probably believe that there should only be one 'MET' (hence the "M") and that all main bonding conductors should be connected "directly" to that single MET. For those who adopt that interpretation, the bond to the gas pipework would presumably have to be re-routed to the earth spike? ... or do you feel it's OK to have two or more 'METs', provided they are joined electrically?But it is connected to the MET. Can the top of the spike be the MET? Is an earthing conductor allowed to be used as a bonding conductor or vice versa?As a matter of interest, are you implying that if you were undertaking an EICR, you wouldn't even comment on, let alone code, the fact that a main bonding conductor was connected (separately) to an earth electrode rather than to the MET?
Indeed - but, as I said, it's really secure you should be arguing/debating with, not me!it may be irrelevant to the OP but the general question was introduced.
Indeed, it almost becomes semantic. Once one has accepted that any of the conductors concerned may have 'joints' (i.e. don't have to be 'continuous') (about which I think you and I are agreed), all that matters electrically is that the MET, earth electrode (or DNO-supplied earth terminal), CU earth bar and any extraneous-c-ps be joined together with cables of adequate CSA - and which point/object one chooses to define as the 'MET' is essentially arbitrary. Looked at like that, if there is any issue at all it would presumably relate only to whether one can/should consider an outdoor joint to be as reliable as an indoor one.You can have a MET and an earth-marshalling point but there can only be one MET, as such, but it can be any connection point so if you ( I ) consider the top of the spike to be the MET then I presume the same arguments will be forthcoming regarding the gas and cpcs. However, they are all connected so which point you regard as the MET and which conductors are what (if all the same csa) is questionable ...
Yes, I have been rather assuming that there is probably a practical/convenience issue such as that to explain the (unusual) arrangement the OP appears to have. If it is like that, there presumably is a fairly long conductor which is doubling as an earthing conductor and a main bonding conductor (for either gas or water, depending upon where one defines the MET as being) - but I don't think there is any regulation which precludes such a dual function conductor.With regard to the OP situation, as I said, we do not know the location of the items. Perhaps the water and spike are close together and the gas and cu at the other side of the house, or - ...
Indeed - another possibility. In that case, of course, the 'bonding conductor' between spike and water supply would actually mean that the installation would continue to enjoy the (very probably better) earth afforded by the water pipe - and, given an adequate connection (again a 'dual function' one) to the CU would more-or-less preclude any appreciable pd arising between extraneous-cps and the cpcs (hence exposed-c-ps) of the installation.it is an installation for which the water used to be the earth and now it is not allowed, someone has placed a spike near the water for a compliant but inferior earth.
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