Fixing TT earthing problems and gas bonding for an EV charger

[flameport]

People have been talking about that alleged requirement for as long as I can remember, but I don't know where it came from.

Guidance Note 8.

 

[StuB]

Yes, as Octopus have confirmed, bonding not required.

I've sent them some more pictures along with some other details just so they can confirm they're happy with my setup.

 

[StuB]

When I did my 16th our lecturer read that out to us, probably from that same document (although we were working to 16th 2004) and made his interpretation, something to the effect of:

If there is a join in a bonding conductor it should be permanent and permanent can be achieved by crimping, soldering, braizing, etc. He even mentioned two wires into one crimped lug makes it permanent and therefore continuous.

It appears to me that has been done in your case and I feel any inspector or even octopussey should have no issue with that installation.

This was certainly something which was regularly and vehemently enforced 20 years ago. However something I used to find which caused issue was an earth bar associated with a submain where services entering the area served would be bonded individually from that earth bar so very far from individual or unbroken from the MET but somehow a second inspection always seemed to override the first.

Hopefully Octopus will share that interpretation too.

 

[StuB]

Guidance Note 8.


View attachment 406803

Thanks for that.

That will likely explain where the info is from and it's interesting to see that what they want to achieve is if any extraneous conductive parts is disconnected it mustn't break the connector to the others which is what would happen if the wires were permanently joined together by crimping or similar.

 

[JohnW2]

Guidance Note 8.

Thanks. My guess was wrong, but I suppose the myth (about an alleged regulatory requirement) it had to have come from somewhere!

The wording of what you quote (with my emboldening) ("...However, it is permitted to collect them collectively or in groups where the the main bonding conductor is looped from one extraneous-conductive part to another,. Where bonding is undertaken in this way, the bonding conductor should remain unbroken at intermediate points ....") the implication is of a 'requirement', and I'm sure many readers would take it as such.

It's perfectly reasonable/sensible advice, but I personally don't think it really should be made to look like a regulatory requirement (when it'snot), do you?