18th 544.1.2

I too always read the bond consumers side bit of the regs and somehow missed the Extraneous part of the regs, in fact a relatives house still has the bond there from the 80,s.
However the gas pipes down the road have presumably been cut and now yellow plastic pushed through, rather than dig up the front gardens this was pushed through the pipes, i have yet to look under the floor, to see how it bends up to the meter and whether the old metal pipe is still continuous and still going into the ground. could they even push it through a 90 degree angle.
So too be honest, i am still unsure if this bond should now be relocated to the other side of the meter, totally removed or left where it is.
The people that done the meter and pipe never mentioned or done anything regarding the bond.
I cant see how to positively check if its Extraneous now as theres a metal meter and metal pipe internally throughout, without tracing and isolating any internal earth paths.

Refering to Alan's post and picture -

Well, it is and it isn't.

That will acbieve the desired result for that example, with no insulating sections, but, to be pedantic -

The connections are not at the point of entry, when easily could be. The water and gas stop cock could be removed leaving the suppy pipe unbonded and hazardous until refitted.

So, as the regulations call for bonding at the point of entry where practicable, is it compliant with the regulations?

Rocky,

Just test for continuity between the MPB conductor and the ground pipe.

There are two. Are they MPB conductors?

If there is continuity then it will achieve the desired result although it is in the wrong place (no matter which regulation you read).
If very high or open circuit then it doesn't matter because it is doing no good anyway.

To be fair, to Alan lots of electricians still believe the bond is there to actually bond ( or even Earth) the consumers pipework and I know electricians that apart from doing the update courses have never checked there regs books since college days, but still believe there work is top notch solely by the fact that it works, as in most trades i am sure.
.
Regardless of it being Extraneous or not, they believe the consumer side is where to bond, i believe the mix up is, most know and quote the old 16th reg 547-02-02 which indeed mentions bonding Consumer side and miss the old 16th reg 413-02-02 which mentions Extraneous and helpfully adds that service parts can also be extraneous.

I sometimes wonder if they did mean they wanted it bonded if it is Extraneous as in most of our minds, AS WELL, as they want the Consumers side bonded, even if not Extraneous (for some reason) as in Alans mind.

I believe they deemed metal dangerous for some reason hence the bond everything culture JohnW2 mentioned earlier

Maybe 16th meant, if there was an insulating section maybe having two bonds, 1 on the Extraneous bit and 1 on the consumers side.
I cannot believe as EFLI suggests the reg was wrong all them years.

Possibly why originally you was, as far as i remember required to bond across both side of the meter, rather than just the what likely would have been the extraneous incoming metal pipe i will dig out my 14th edition.

I am Time served apprenticeship with over 30 years experience, though still often known to be wrong and do believe the 3 most profilic posters on this post know there stuff but will admit they have known to be corrected, though in this case sorry to say Alan the odds on all 3 being wrong are slim, but I sympaphise with your battle.

I think we have been fair to Alan.

333rocky333 said:

I cannot believe as EFLI suggests the reg was wrong all them years.

Click to expand...

Well, they've altered it at last.

Physics hasn't changed.

EFLImpudence said:

Rocky,

Just test for continuity between the MPB conductor and the ground pipe.

There are two. Are they MPB conductors?

If there is continuity then it will achieve the desired result although it is in the wrong place (no matter which regulation you read).
If very high or open circuit then it doesn't matter because it is doing no good anyway.

Click to expand...

Sorry whats an MPB, Main protective bond?, i assume the bond was uncut and goes on to the water pipe, surely a continuity reading will just read through the internal pipework and any protective conducters and back to The MET and ground, unless i disconnect stuff.

333rocky333 said:

Sorry whats an MPB, Main protective bond?, i assume the bond was uncut and goes on to the water pipe, surely a continuity reading will just read through the internal pipework and any protective conducters and back to The MET and ground, unless i disconnect stuff.

Click to expand...

Main protective Bonding

333rocky333 said:

Regardless of it being Extraneous or not

Click to expand...

What the gas pipe or water pipe? Plus trying to work out what that fitting is within the trunking. Thinking plain union or filter to catch black dust (common particually in copper pipes) or just plain debris from main.

At the moment compleatly worn out will respond fully later.

333rocky333 said:

I too always read the bond consumers side bit of the regs and somehow missed the Extraneous part of the regs, in fact a relatives house still has the bond there from the 80,s. However the gas pipes down the road have presumably been cut and now yellow plastic pushed through, rather than dig up the front gardens this was pushed through the pipes, i have yet to look under the floor, to see how it bends up to the meter and whether the old metal pipe is still continuous and still going into the ground. could they even push it through a 90 degree angle.

Click to expand...

When I've seen them change metal to plastic gas supply pipes, they have always made the plastic-metal transition outside of the house, underground, leaving the last bit of the metal pipe going into the property still 'as it was'. We need someone familiar with gas regulations/practices to confirm, but I didn't t think it was allowed to have plastic gaspipe anywhere within a domestic property, even under floorboards). In the situation I describe, I presume there woulds still be enough metal pipe underground for the pipe supplying the meter to be an extraneous-c-p, hence needing main bonding.

333rocky333 said:

So too be honest, i am still unsure if this bond should now be relocated to the other side of the meter, totally removed or left where it is.

Click to expand...

Although 'the other' reg has confused the issue in many people's minds, I think that there has always been a reg which very clearly requires that any extraneous-c-p must have a main bond. That means that if, say, there is an 'insulating section/insert in the incoming pipe, than any pipe upstream of that must be bonded - and I think that has always been the case and, as I said, very clear in the regs, If there is an insulation section/insert, a G/Y cable from the consumer's side of that to the MET is really (unnecessary) earthing, and definitely not a main bond.

Kind Regards, John

333rocky333 said:

i assume the bond was uncut and goes on to the water pipe, surely a continuity reading will just read through the internal pipework and any protective conducters and back to The MET and ground, unless i disconnect stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you are just testing for coninuity across the meter.

I can see no insulating sections.

333rocky333 said:

To be fair, to Alan lots of electricians still believe the bond is there to actually bond ( or even Earth) the consumers pipework and I know electricians that apart from doing the update courses have never checked there regs books since college days, but still believe there work is top notch solely by the fact that it works, as in most trades i am sure. Regardless of it being Extraneous or not, they believe the consumer side is where to bond ...

Click to expand...

In that case, although the wording and arrangement of the regs may have confused them, it's not really a "regs' matter" but, rather, the fact that they can't understand the concept and purpose of main bonding.

It's really very simple....

If something IS an extraneous-c-p, it must be main-bonded, ideally as close as possible to the point of entry into the property (to minimise the risk that pipework may be altered, leaving a bit of extraneous-c-p without a bond).

If something is NOT an extraneous-c-p then it simply does not require main bonding - and that includes pipework downstream of any insulating section/insert which connects the pipe to something which IS an extraneous-c-p. I someone connects a pipe downstream of such a insulating section/insert to the MET with G/Y cable, then, as you say, that is earthing, not main bonding, and I don't k now why anyone would want to do it - particularly since it is 'unnecessary' and arguably (although rarely in practice) potentially dangerous.

Of course, if (as I'm now told there always is) there is electrical continuity across a gas meter, so long as the meter etc. remains in place it makes little electrical difference which side of the meter one bonds - the only real difference being that, with bonding, at least some of a very high fault current would go through the bonding conductor, rather than the meter. Of course, if a 'gasman' disconnected a meter (e.g. to change it) without utilising a 'temporary bond', he would be 'at risk' if the only main bonding was on the consumer's side of the meter.

Kind Regards, John

JohnW2 said:

Of course, if a 'gasman' disconnected a meter (e.g. to change it) without utilising a 'temporary bond', he would be 'at risk' if the only main bonding was on the consumer's side of the meter.

Click to expand...

Then he would be breaking the rules.

333rocky333 said:

I too always read the bond consumers side bit of the regs and somehow missed the Extraneous part of the regs, in fact a relatives house still has the bond there from the 80,s.
However the gas pipes down the road have presumably been cut and now yellow plastic pushed through, rather than dig up the front gardens this was pushed through the pipes, i have yet to look under the floor, to see how it bends up to the meter and whether the old metal pipe is still continuous and still going into the ground. could they even push it through a 90 degree angle.
So too be honest, i am still unsure if this bond should now be relocated to the other side of the meter, totally removed or left where it is.
The people that done the meter and pipe never mentioned or done anything regarding the bond.
I cant see how to positively check if its Extraneous now as theres a metal meter and metal pipe internally throughout, without tracing and isolating any internal earth paths.

20181020_122701

• 333rocky333
• 20 Oct 2018

20181020_122725

• 333rocky333
• 20 Oct 2018

20181020_122734

• 333rocky333
• 20 Oct 2018

Click to expand...

Rocky your inage 3 is closest to being correct so far

So how do you explain the 16th reg that i assume Alan is referring to which basically says where there IS an Insulating section at the point of entry then bond within 600mm of the Meter outlet union if internal, surely they realise that it is NOT an Extraneous part and require that bond for some other reason.