Why have they altered it now then? Can't have it both ways.
Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.
Of course, the regulation authors are not actually nor really in charge.
18th 544.1.2
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.
Of course, the regulation authors are not actually nor really in charge.
Sponsored Links
Both gas and water, really, since that was done years ago, i know a bit more about bonding and Extraneous pipes, anyway moving forward with the 18th a lot of this will become irrelevant and the remaining hopefully clearer .
As for the pipe in the picture, I think its just size adapters built up over time, firstly from removing the gas fire barrel pipe, then adding the cooker and combi, then the meter change
Maybe they actually wanted the consumer side bonding for some other reason, or advised by others and they now feel or realise it is not required.
For years they wanted kitchens cross bonded, what physically changed for that to no longer being needed or was that never required and wrong for years.
As said, all them drawings as shown by Alan, if they and the old reg were wrong i am sure it would have been noticed by someone higher up that our forum.
There was many amendments to the 15th and 16th where they could have
I hear what your saying regarding Extraneous, but maybe we should focus on another reason why it may have been justified, if any.
I think you have too much confidence in the system and those operating it.
As I asked Alan, do you think the Government is made up of geniuses?
As I asked Alan, do you think the Government is made up of geniuses?
Sponsored Links
Not sure if you have the 18th, is that actually still required, that it be at point of entry
No, but i would like to think someone with powers above Bas John and us two , would have chirped up
Believe it or not sometimes I ask things here rather than people above me at work.
It is still required but it is qualified now by "where there is a meter, isolator or union, 600mm etc" so I was wrong in saying that according to the regulation.
HOWEVER, it does not say where that "where there is a meter, isolator or union" has to be.
It could be anywhere in the premises, could it?
Also, this, presumably, applies to water, so the connection must be on the consumer's side of the isolator, as people have always mistakenly said about a stop cock. Now they are right.
There realy is no reason for this.
HOWEVER, it does not say where that "where there is a meter, isolator or union" has to be.
It could be anywhere in the premises, could it?
Also, this, presumably, applies to water, so the connection must be on the consumer's side of the isolator, as people have always mistakenly said about a stop cock. Now they are right.
There realy is no reason for this.
do you have a reg number, i failed to find it
Rocky just maybe tou are begining to see what I have been trying to say.
How can you admit that one? I was shouted down good and proper earlier for saying just that!
I keep trying to explain. Going to take dogs out then I'll try again! Plus I'll try to find some other images to prove the point I am trying to make.
Alan I hear what you are saying and for many years believed that, reading up and with peeps from this forum, i have looked more deeply into it and what they say justifies the Extraneous bit , for technical reasons, yet there is still a few unsolved issues that i dont know, i sympathise with your predicament but just take it all as banter and learn from it
By not using a temporary bond, you mean? If so, if the gas regulations are anything like the electrical ones, one might expect them to have requirements which were aimed to help keep people safe even if they do silly things or 'break the rules'.
Kind Regards, John
No worries its on page 1
Is that not essentially the same as in 17th - i.e. that that regulation fails to point out that it only applies to situations in which main bonding is required and that the regulation which requires main bonding makes it very clear (for obvious reasons of basic electrical/physics principles) that main bonding is only required for extraneous-co-ps?
If one understands just the very basic fact that the purpose (and only purpose) of main bonding is to avoid there being parts in the property at true earth potential which could present a hazard if touched simultaneously with something at MET potential, then it becomes totally obvious that main bonding is not required for a part which has no path to true earth (e.g. because it is isolated from true earth by an 'insulating section'.
Kind Regards, John
I would say that, even with the confusing previous editions of the Wiring REgs, that would be definitely non-compliant since the bonding conductor appears to have been attached after a branch in the pipework.
It that yellow bit near the floor plastic pipe and/or an 'insulating insert/section'? If so, no parts of the installation downstream of that would require any main bonding.
Kind Regards, John
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
