Earthing the gas mains

[JohnW2]

in a different league from some people's (and old guideline's) belief that a non-continuous bonding conductor is a bad thing!

Did I say it was a bad thing?

Is this an argument about words?....

4. There is a water mains pipe which is earthed from the mains and is near the kitchen. Can I get the electrician to extend this to the gas main?

No! but they can be connected together, the earth cable must be in one continues length piece, no joints or cuts in the cable, not even at the earthing clamps.

The 'No!' and 'must' certainly seem to indicate that you didn't regard it as a 'good thing', so doesn't that make it a 'bad thing'?

I would prefer to stick to the guidelines of GN8 as mentioned earlier. It is questionable if the guidelines are out of date, as they are the current ones, as they were never updated.

As I said, probably only 3 weeks to wait!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

I was making a point that testing was not the most important part of an EICR.

And this is a very important point to make. I feel your example was valid and justified.

Satisfactory test results are just a part of the EICR. The majority of observations will be identified through a visual inspection rather than simple testing.

 

[JohnW2]

I was making a point that testing was not the most important part of an EICR.

I totally agree with that. If I had to choose between an 'EICR' based only on testing, and one based only on visual inspection, I know which one I'd choose any time (and it wouldn't be the former of those ). What was 'silly' was the suggestion that, because it was not part of testing, someone undertaking an EICR might 'ignore' a damaged shower housing ('enclosure').

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

The 'No!' and 'must' certainly seem to indicate that you didn't regard it as a 'good thing', so doesn't that make it a 'bad thing'?

Maybe I should not have given that advise to the OP but informed the OP that the best way in my opinion and in-accordance to GN8, that a bonding should be made continuous.
Just because something is not considered good, does not automatically make it bad.
We will wait and see what the updated version of GN8 has to offer.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If I had to choose between an 'EICR' based only on testing, and one based only on visual inspection, I know which one I'd choose any time (and it wouldn't be the former of those.

But that would be silly
There are both as equally important!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

delete

 

[JohnW2]

If I had to choose between an 'EICR' based only on testing, and one based only on visual inspection, I know which one I'd choose any time (and it wouldn't be the former of those.

But that would be silly There are both as equally important!

I said "if I had to choose..." and, if I did have to choose, I don't think it would be at all silly to go with the 'visual inspection only' choice.

I don't know from experience, since I obviously don't do EICRs, but I frankly doubt that it's very common for routine testing to reveal any 'unexpected' seriously hazardous problems but, in contrast, I'm sure that visual inspection reveals countless serious hazards every day.

However, I can understand that Joe Public is probably far more easily impressed by someone doing things with fancy bits of test equipment than if they are simply 'looking around' and unscrewing the occasional accessory!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I don't know from experience, since I obviously don't do EICRs, but I frankly doubt that it's very common for routine testing to reveal any 'unexpected' seriously hazardous problems but, in contrast, I'm sure that visual inspection reveals countless serious hazards every day.

I have already offered a prime example, a shower that circuit under test is compliant but has IP rating issues!
You could also have exposed live conductors, that under test are also compliant. But have no basic protection.

 

[JohnW2]

I have already offered a prime example, a shower that circuit under test is compliant but has IP rating issues! You could also have exposed live conductors, that under test are also compliant. But have no basic protection.

Exactly - so, in those cases, if you had had to choose between 'testing only' and 'visual inspection only' assessments of the installation, would you really think it would be 'silly' to choose the latter?

I still strongly suspect that it's pretty rare to discover seriously (or even significantly) hazardous 'unexpected' problems by routine testing of a 'working alright' installation.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I still strongly suspect that it's pretty rare to discover seriously (or even significantly) hazardous 'unexpected' problems by routine testing of a 'working alright' installation.

So are you saying that you would more likely find unsatisfactory items on a visual inspection, than you would through testing?
You would be surprised what can be found on in-service installations.
CPC continuity issues
IR problems
Zs problems
all serious and on systems that are in service or 'working alright' if that is how you choose to call it

 

[JohnW2]

I still strongly suspect that it's pretty rare to discover seriously (or even significantly) hazardous 'unexpected' problems by routine testing of a 'working alright' installation.

So are you saying that you would more likely to find unsatisfactory items on a visual inspection, than you would through testing?

Well, as you quoted, I actually said "seriously (or even significantly) hazardous 'unexpected' problems", not just 'unsatisfactory items' - but, on that basis, yes, that's what I would have thought.

You would be surprised what can be found on in-service installations.

Nothing would surprise me, but, as I've said, I would have thought that far more 'seriously hazardous problems' would be picked up by visual inspection than by routine testing of in-service installations (particularly installations which were visually OK). Am I wrong?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Nothing would surprise me, but, as I've said, I would have thought that far more 'seriously hazardous problems' would be picked up by visual inspection than by routine testing of in-service installations (particularly installations which were visually OK). Am I wrong?

your neither wrong nor right.
As may edit above.
you can find issues on in-service installations, that people think because they are functionally operational that they are alright and very often not.
I nearly always pick up something on an EICR
Just completed one with three C1s a C2 and a number of C3s and it was rewired in 2007!

 

[JohnW2]

your neither wrong nor right. As may edit above. you can find issues on in-service installations, that people think because they are functionally operation that they are alright and very often not. I nearly always pick up something on an EICR

Interesting. Do you mean that you nearly aways pick up something by testing when you do an EICR, even when the visual inspection has revealed no significant problems?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Do you mean that you nearly aways pick up something by testing when you do an EICR, even when the visual inspection has revealed no significant problems?
John.

Normally the visual will pick up Some form of IP problem. IPX4 and IPX2 is quite normal at the consumer unit and where surface mounted boxes have been installed. Also pendant and batten lights have damages or missing skirts.
Bare conductors at tails terminated at main isolator and circuit terminals at protective devices, is also common. Also no CPC on lighting circuits with metallic accessories. These crop up very often and all considered dangerous and my meter is still in it's carrying case.


Take the last three EICR I have made.

1) Visual:IP problems with CU, surface mounted boxes and Shower, damaged insulation on tails entering main isolator, bare phase conductors entering MCBs (to much insulation been removed)
Test: low IR reading on garage and RFC (downstairs sockets)

2) Visual: Again IP4X and IP2X
issue with CU and surface mounted boxes, damage to or missing skirts on pendant/batten lights.
Bare conductors on tails entering main isolator, damaged socket plate.
Test: All satisfactory

3) Visual: Damaged surface mounted back boxes, damaged socket outlet plates. Insulation failure on conductors of lighting circuit. 1.5mm T&E cable installed on a 30A socket radial circuit. Joist notched for cable routes and no mechanical protection for cables.
Test: IR failure on lighting circuit, neutral conductor broken on socket radial.

 

[JohnW2]

Normally the visual will pick up Some form of IP problem. IPX4 and IPX2 is quite normal at the consumer unit and where surface mounted boxes have been installed. Also pendant and batten lights have damages or missing skirts. Bare conductors at tails terminated at main isolator and circuit terminals at protective devices, is also common. Also no CPC on lighting circuits with metallic accessories. These crop up very often and all considered dangerous and my meter is still in it's carrying case.

Thanks. That's what I would have expected. However, of the things you mention, I think that only the metal lights without CPCs and the damaged light accessories (if sufficiently damaged) would get close to qualifying as the 'seriously hazardous problems' I was talking of.

Take the last three EICR I have made.
1) Test: low IR reading on garage and RFC (downstairs sockets)
2) Test: All satisfactory
3) Test: IR failure on lighting circuit, neutral conductor broken on socket radial.

Interesting. What was the cause of the two IR problems? I have to say that, in my very limited experience, I've never found an IR problem except when I've been investigating a known issue. Is finding IR problems in 2/3 consecutive EICRs 'usual', or was this a bit unusual? As for (3), I presume that the radial circuit with a broken neutral was not actually fully functioning, so that's slightly different from routine testing of a 'seemingly working' installation.

Kind Regards, John.