It may be worth having a good look first to see if the gas is already earthed somewhere. Gas fitters and the like assume if the earth clamp is not in the meter box then it's not earthed.
Earthing the gas mains
- Thread starter tusharinuk
- Start date
I too have never seen anything written that says the Bonding Conductor must be a single unbroken length.
Good practice- yes, a requirement- not quite convinced.
OP, if the water and gas are close to each other, i imagine the cost of getting a spark in with the appropriate tools and equipment to sort it swiftly wouldn't break the bank. (I am assuming that you probably don't have the facility to correctly crimp cables together)
Good practice- yes, a requirement- not quite convinced.
OP, if the water and gas are close to each other, i imagine the cost of getting a spark in with the appropriate tools and equipment to sort it swiftly wouldn't break the bank. (I am assuming that you probably don't have the facility to correctly crimp cables together)
Do you think one could even join the earth cable with an earth block (like the MET you sometimes have)?
I've already suggested that. As I said, so long as it is 'accessible' I don't see that this is apprecaibly 'worse' that the screw terminal joint which inevitably exists at the MET.
Kind Regards, John.
It's not that a joint (at a clamp) is not 'electrically continuous' but more that if a plumber (or anyone else) were to disconnect the joint at the water supply then two ends in one clamp would also disconnect the gas supply and may be inadvertently missed on reconnection - or so I've heard.
Using another earthing block which would allow separate joints for the earth wires to the MET, gas and water seems like a very good solution.
Using another earthing block which would allow separate joints for the earth wires to the MET, gas and water seems like a very good solution.
I think a crimped joint is even more fool proof (if done by an electrician).
As JohnW2 states there is no regulation prohibiting joining the gas bond to the water bond. If there is no way to get back to the MET or CU with out causing too much damage then joining to the water bond could be an option. If I come across this on an EICR I can not code it as there is no regulation breach.
Not best practice in my eyes but that is my opinion and not a regulation!!!
Not best practice in my eyes but that is my opinion and not a regulation!!!
Anybody read GN8?
G ? 
guidance note eight (earthing and bonding)G ?
Yes, I know. I assumed that EFLI's (enlarged and emboldened) point was that G= 'Guidance' (not regulation). However, although I know what it is, I haven't seen or read GN8, so are you going to share with us what it says about this issue?guidance note eight (earthing and bonding)G ?
Kind Regards, John.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,888
- Reaction score
- 506
- Country
As I believe I have posted before, the suggestion that main bonding should be continuous appears in Fig 4a, 4b and 4c of the 16th Edition On-site Guide, but was removed in the 17th. Much the contents of the OSG were once part of the regulations, but were removed as being the 'good practice' parts, and not real regulations. It seems that this is not even considered necessary for good practice, given that the IET decided to remove it from even the OSG.
regulations are another issue, where are these so called regulation coming from?Yes, I know. I assumed that EFLI's (enlarged and emboldened) point was that G= 'Guidance' (not regulation)guidance note eight (earthing and bonding)G ?
Anyway GN8 in a nut shell "Where the main ebc is looped from on extraneous-conductive-part to another. The main main ebc should remain unbroken at intermediate points, thus maintaining continuity to other extraneous-conductive-parts should one be disconnected for what ever reason"
I know it's guidance and not part of the requirements, but if you were I&Ting would use BS7671 or GN3?
In terms of continuity of the bonding path, it's difficult to how how they could regard it as necessary for 'good practice'. Main bonding exists only to minimise any pd bewteen CPCs (hence exposed-conductive-parts) of the installation and pipework etc. which is in continuity with extraneous-conductive-parts (usually the incoming gas/water pipes). In most situations, there will be at least 6 (often more) screw-terminal joints in the bonding/CPC path between the incoming extraneous-conductive-part and any exposed-conductive-part. To suggest that one additional screw terminal joint in the path to one of the incoming services would turn the situation into 'bad practice' would be a bit hard to justify!
As EFLI says, the usual reason mentioned for non-continuous linkage to a second extraneous-conductive-part being regarded as 'not good practice' relates to what may happen if a careless worker removes the bond to one pipe and does not take the appropriate precautions and/or forgets to re-instate all bonding connections properly. However, if 'good practice' required us to design electrical installations on the basis of all the careless, silly or ridiculous things that someone might subsequently do, then goodness only knows what electrical installations would look like !!
Kindest 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
