Hi, Just installed a steel bath and the hot/cold are via easyfit plastic so I need to bond the bath to the earth. My fuseboard is RCB etc so I need to know the size of the earth cable, should this be 6mm etc. Is there a regularion for this. By the way, I do see posts that say you dont need to bond but in the event of a problem, I think it should be and the bath does have a clamping point. Any help appreciated, thanks
Bath
- Thread starter kenj
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What problem do you foresee, that might mean the bath introduces a potential?
Assuming you do not have a metal waste -
Parts are bonded when and because they are connected to earth.
It is better that they are not.
It would introduce a hazard which does not now exist.
Yours is not needed.
Do you understand the question posed by stillp?
No, the pipes are plastic so you DON'T need to bond the bath.
Parts are bonded when and because they are connected to earth.
It is better that they are not.
No - 0mm.
There are several regulations which state why supplementary bonding should/must be applied but they do not apply in your case.
Not only 'don't need to' but should not.
It would introduce a hazard which does not now exist.
What problem do you envisage?
You are wrong.
They do in case it is needed - easier than welding on one had it not.
Yours is not needed.
Do you understand the question posed by stillp?
Sponsored Links
In that scenario bonding would make things much worse. You have plastic pipes, so the taps, and the bath, would not provide a path to earth. Bond them and they would.
As you will be aware, in relation to most scenarios, I would agree with you - but I think that the OP may have come across 'a (extremely unlikely) exception which proves the rule'! As I understand it, he was hypothesising a situation in which a wet floor had resulted in a (electrically floating) bath having a connection (via its feet and wet materials) with electricity light fittings below, such that a person in contact with both the ('live') bath and a (presumably earthed/bonded) basin tap would receive a shock. Such a shock obviously would not arise if the bath were connected to earth and/or bonded to the (earth-connected) basin taps.
However, I'm sure that the risk of this extremely improbable scenario is far more than outweighed by most other situations - in which, as you say, unnecessarily earthing/bonding the bath would considerably increase risk.
Kind Regards, John
Just in case the OP is thinking that his scenario needs protecting against I would compare it to the MP's daughter's death which lead to Part P.
In that case it would have been beneficial had her cutlery hook been earthed and her washing machine not earthed.
Clearly a situation not normally desired.
In that case it would have been beneficial had her cutlery hook been earthed and her washing machine not earthed.
Clearly a situation not normally desired.
Sad though that was, it did not lead to Part P at all.
1) The consultation document for Part P was issued in May 2002.
2) The results of the consultation were published in September 2002.
3) The first Part P amendment to the Building Regulations was made on 13th July 2004, and laid before Parliament on 22nd of July 2004.
4) Mary Wherry, Baroness Tonge's daughter, was killed on 31st July 2004.
Indeed (always assuming, of course, that that oft-quoted story is actually true!). As I wrote:
It's also like seatbelts and suchlike. Yes, there is a tiny proportion of cases in which one's chances would be better without one, but that tiny risk is greatly outweighed all the other cases in which the seatbelt could be life-saving.
Kind Regards, John
Yes, I think most of us have seen that, and therefore have no doubt about the extraordinary misfortune which resulted in the death of the MP's daughter.
It's whether or not that had anything to do with the introduction of Part P that I believe is much more speculative. The tragic event took place on 31st July 2004. Knowing how the wheels of government usually turn, I would be very surprised if legislation conceived because of the occurrence of that event would/could have been drafted and enacted quickly enough for it to come into force on 1st January 2005, just 5 months later. However, maybe I'm wrong!
Kind Regards, John
Well, yes, there was a reason, which was because I hadn't seen it (nor this one of yours, nor some others) - I somehow overlooked it. My apologies.
Anyway ...
... would appear to confirm what I was suggesting.
Kind Regards, John
Indeed it does.
Which should not come as a surprise, as all those dates have been a matter of public record for over 9 years.
Which should not come as a surprise, as all those dates have been a matter of public record for over 9 years.
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
