John,
when the term EEBADS was in vogue it was both of those features.
No bad thing
when the term EEBADS was in vogue it was both of those features.
No bad thing
Bathroom Earth Bonding
- Thread starter microkid
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes, I understand that - but it still doesn't alter or invalidate what I said - that ADS alone does not require, and has nothing to do with, bonding.
You are obviously right in saying that 'ADS plus bonding' is 'ADS plus bonding', but that is pretty apparent
... of course, since one end of a bonding conductor is essentially inevitably connected to something which is earthed, it is effectively impossible to bond without also earthing!
Kind Regards, John
Surely, both ends?
It is effectively impossible to bond something that is not earthed.
It would be earthing it (unnecessarily).
I think we're into semantics again! Yes, both ends will have a path to earth. However, I was thinking about 'explicit earthing' by deliberate connection to the earthing system of the installation (ultimately, to the MET).
It's obviously not "impossible" (anyone with some G/Y cable and a few tools can do it!) - but, in the sense you mean, it unnecessary and usually undesirable. However, as above, it depends upon the semantics. You mean that bonding should always be between two things which both have a path to earth and, in that sense, I totally agree with you.It is effectively impossible to bond something that is not earthed. It would be earthing it (unnecessarily).
I think it's important to remember that there is 'earth and earth'. If 'earthed' always meant the same thing (i.e. having a very low impedance connection to some single common thing called 'earth') there would obviously never be a need for any bonding. It gets even more potentially confusing with a TN-C-S supply since, although we say we are 'earthing' something if we connect it (e.g. via a CPC) to the installation's MET (hence to the TN-C-S 'earth'), there is the voltage drop in the supply's neutral cable between that 'earth' and anything that could, in common sense terms, be regarded as 'earth'. That's obviously why we need Main Bonding - since 'earth' and 'earth' are not necessarily at the same potential!
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Hi John,
My "No, sorry" comment (plus the "Yes" too).
Meant.
Yes I agree with you ADS = Duration.
The No Sorry comment was in relation to thee EEB portion of EEBADS making the often used term "Earth Bonding" not incorrect in my opinion .
I thought you were disagreeing with my "Earth Bonding is not incorrect" statement. If so, then I was disagreeing with your disagreement.
Fair enough, but I'm still very confused. At the time you addressed your response to me, I had written nothing about either your 'No' or 'Yes' points
. I had merely said that ADS (alone) as we see it today has nothing, per se, to do with bonding.HmmmmI thought you were disagreeing with my "Earth Bonding is not incorrect" statement. If so, then I was disagreeing with your disagreement.
I certainly agree (as I have in this thread, and in others) that bonding will (should) between two things, either one or both of which will (depending on what one means by 'earthed - see my response to EFLI) will be 'earthed'. I therefore agree that 'earthed bonding', perhaps even 'earth bonding' are not necessarily 'incorrect' terms.However, given the confusion that seems to already exist in many people's minds about the difference in concept between earthing and bonding, to refer to bonding as 'earthed bonding' or 'earth bonding' would, surely, merely make life even more confusing for them?
Kind Regards, John
Un earthed bonding would really confuse people.
It would, but if one adopts what appears to be EFLI's meaning of 'earthed' (to mean anything which is either connected to true earth through a 'not too high' impedance path and/or connected to the 'earthing system' of the installation {whatever potential that may have to true earth}), then one would probably never have to contemplate any bonding which was not 'earthed'.
I do think that the point I made in my most recent response to EFLI is important - that we need to be careful in our thinking to distinguish between these various different flavours of 'earth'/'earthed'.
The 'cross-bonding' sometimes practised by plumbers might, of course, sometimes be 'unearthed bonding' - if the pipes they were joining together (but not joining to anything else) were actually 'floating'
Kind Regards, John
I think you are all confusing the matter lol
ADS is one of the requirements for protection against electric shock(BS7671), and it comes as a package, Protective Equipotential Bonding is part of that package.
Cheers
Chris
ADS is one of the requirements for protection against electric shock(BS7671), and it comes as a package, Protective Equipotential Bonding is part of that package.
Cheers
Chris
Whilst I agree that ADS and PEB are both measures ('part of the package') designed to provide protection against electric shock, I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that I'm confusing the matter by pointing out that they are different thing and, indeed, that one can exist without the other
Kind Regards, John
against PROLONGED electric shock, the electric shock current is often that "fault" which trips the protective device. No shock, no trip.
and make it a bit less likely that rescuers / first responders get a shock when touching the casualty if still in contact with the conductor that shocked them.
You're obviously thinking about RCDs which, admittedly, do provide 'ADS'. However, when ADS is provided by an OPD, what trips the device is obviously not the current through a person (unless they are already 'very well fried'!), and nor is it true that "No shock, no trip". That sort of ADS is obviously essentially 'pre-emptive', in removing a potential cause of a shock before anyone has a chance to experience a shock (it would obvioulsy be an incredible co-incidence if someone were to be touching the 'right' two things at the very instant a fault arose!).
Kind Regards, John
Whilst I agree that ADS and PEB are both measures ('part of the package') designed to provide protection against electric shock, I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that I'm confusing the matter by pointing out that they are different thing and, indeed, that one can exist without the other
Kind Regards, John
Hi John
Sorry i will have to disagree on that note, you need both, disconnection and MPB for ADS to be safe.
Cheers
Chris
It surely 'depends'?Hi John, Sorry i will have to disagree on that note, you need both, disconnection and MPB for ADS to be safe.I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that I'm confusing the matter by pointing out that they are different thing and, indeed, that one can exist without the other
I live in a village with no piped gas, and some of the houses (not mine yet) now have their water supply in plastic. At least some of those houses have no other extraneous-c-ps, and therefore have nothing to 'Main Bond' - but you presumably aren't suggesting that their ADS is, as a consequence, 'not safe'?
In any event, whilst to not have MPB when it is needed is obviously, in itself, not safe, I'd be interested to understand in what sense you feel that ADS becomes 'less safe' in the absence of MPB. Are you perhaps merely making the observation that for an installation as a whole to be 'safe' ('as safe as is reasonably achievable), it must have both MPB (if required) and ADS (as well as 'basic protection', any required supplementary bonding and maybe the 'additional protection' of RCDs)? If so, I would certainly not disagree with that 'statement of the obvious'
(in any event, this aside arose out of discussions about supplementary bonding, not MPB!).
Kind Regards, John
What about in an IT system?
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
