Cooker bonding

[69er]

HI

Advice sought on following scenario.
Have an argaar cooker which is fed by an outside oil tank. The feed comes into the house less than 1 metre from the cooker. This will be bonded in 10mm - can I rely on the pipe work and argaar to earth the steel chimney? Or should I run the earth through? Any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks

 

[andy]

if the chimney needs earthing, earth it. otherwise leave it.

 

[69er]

thanks

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This will be bonded in 10mm - can I rely on the pipe work and argaar to earth the steel chimney? Or should I run the earth through? Any thoughts appreciated.

Bonding and earthing are not the same thing.

 

[plugwash]

well unless you put a seperate rod in (which you should not do at least not within a building) you can't earth something without bonding it to other earthed stuff

equally you can't really bond something without earthing it unless you plan to install a completely earth free environment. (earth free environments are also not really for the diyer, they have some safety advantages but also require special precautions).

 

[69er]

Thanks for replies

Bas - what do you mean? Surely mains "Earth" bonding will "earth" the required item - if it goes back to the met or f/b then surely it is "earthed"? Or do you know something I don't - and don't say you know a lot!

Plug - not planning on making an earth free environment but regs state all extranous parts to be bonded, but as I am bonding within 1 m of said chimney was not too sure if bonding needed to be looped, when the pipe work would supply the "continuity" make sense?

 

[plugwash]

a chimny should not need to be main bonded as thier is little chance of it introducing an extra earth into the property. And suplementry bonding is not required in kitchens so thier shouldn't be any need to bond to it.

 

[69er]

plug - was meaning main equi bonding not supp - apologies was unclear. Possibly why bas said what he did? Thanks

 

[Spark123]

I'm with plug on this, there is little chance of a chimmey introducing potential into the property hence there is little point in main bonding it. As a check if you can measure the resistance between the chimney and main earth terminal. If the resistance is above 23Kohms then a main equipotential bond is not required.

 

[69er]

Spark - will test tommorrow. Just wanted to be 100% sure. Thanks for all replies.

 

[securespark]

Is it exposed structural steelwork?

 

[69er]

Secure - in my opinion (which could be wrong) it is as it comes out the top of the cooker all the way to the ceiling - we are boxing in most of it tho and like i said the main earth will be 1 m away - therefore was not sure if i could rely on the connected pipe work to give continuity. Had a call from the Stanley engineer and he reckons it is earthed under the motor inside the machine and conforms to regs (didn't say which ones) - unforts he got disconnected coz of bad signal so client will ring him tonight and have a word. I have never heard/seen of any reg that states you can earth the appliance nearest instead of the incoming service? Client is of the opinion that he is correct and she will stand by what he says. Thanks

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Thanks for replies

Bas - what do you mean? Surely mains "Earth" bonding will "earth" the required item - if it goes back to the met or f/b then surely it is "earthed"? Or do you know something I don't - and don't say you know a lot!

Equipotential bonding is installed to ensure that all extraneous-conductive-parts are at the same potential. Generally that will be "earth" potential, particularly with main equipotential bonding where incoming services are connected to the MET.

However, your cooker hood is not an extraneous-conductive-part. It may or may not be an exposed-conductive-part, but if installed correctly it will be earthed if required by the cpc of the circuit supplying it. It does not require bonding.

Plug - not planning on making an earth free environment but regs state all extranous parts to be bonded, but as I am bonding within 1 m of said chimney was not too sure if bonding needed to be looped, when the pipe work would supply the "continuity" make sense?

As said - the hood is not an extraneous-conductive-part. See the document here for more details.

 

[69er]

Thanks for info bas - but I didnt say hood. I said chimney ie vent/duct. As is have done an ir test and proves satisfactory.

 

[james 29]

69er, dont mean to be funny but interested in the post and wondered what you did an ir test on?