...and many plumbers who want their "cross bonding" under a boiler.I have witnessed many a gas engineer condemning such a thing, where he has expected it to be in the gas meter box.
Equally misguided and irrelevant.
...and many plumbers who want their "cross bonding" under a boiler.I have witnessed many a gas engineer condemning such a thing, where he has expected it to be in the gas meter box.
I'm not so sure about that - "as near as practicable to the point of entry of that part into the premises" does not, in itself, mean that either the meter or the 'point of bonding' necessarily has to be within the property, does it? Without thinking very hard, I can think of at least one house I know in which the point (for bonding) "as near as practicable to the point of entry of that part into the premises" is definitely outside of the property (near the external meter).Well, yes because you were rephrasing the rest of the regulation (after the first sentence) to try and make it apply to an external meter. ... Bearing in mind what the first sentence says, then it is obvious that the subsequent wording only applies to internal meters.
Maybe not, but then it renders the regulation ridiculous (albeit not a first).I'm not so sure about that - "as near as practicable to the point of entry of that part into the premises" does not, in itself, mean that either the meter or the 'point of bonding' necessarily has to be within the property, does it?
So what? The picture I posted in post #5 shows exactly that.Without thinking very hard, I can think of at least one house I know in which the point (for bonding) "as near as practicable to the point of entry of that part into the premises" is definitely outside of the property (near the external meter).
Do you mean it doesn't require bonding because it is bonded, orIf one does bond the pipe (to the MET of the property's electrical installation), then the pipe entering the property presumably ceases to be an extraneous-c-p, and therefore presumably does not require any bonding within the property?
I think that we have always agreed that there are big problems with the way that the reg is written (fractionally more in the past). Also, in addition to the uncertainties/ambiguities we are discussing (due to the poor wording of the reg), it seems that many readers of the reg have misinterpreted it because they have not 'noticed' that it applies only to extraneous-c-ps.Maybe not, but then it renders the regulation ridiculous (albeit not a first).
Not at all. In the case of an external meter, the 'practicable point' closest to the 'point of entry' will very commonly (probably nearly always) be inside the building. It is very commonly possible to bond (inside the building) within an inch or three of the true 'point of entry', whereas bonding 'outside' would be at least the thickness of the wall away from the 'point of entry'.In the case of gas, there is never not a meter, so are you saying you think the bond must be connected within 600mm. of the meter outlet - wherever the meter is and not "as near as practicable to the point of entry"?
As above, if one had (internal) access to a point close to 'the point of entry', then to do as in your picture would be ('common sense') daft. Furthermore, also as above, if the supply pipe were plastic and/or there was no electrical continuity across the meter, then there would be no need for bonding of anything, anywhere.... So what? The picture I posted in post #5 shows exactly that. The point though is: what if the meter (in the picture) was a distance from the point of entry?
I meant the latter, but I'm not sure that teh former is really materially different. As you know, an extraneous-c-p is defined as "A conductive part liable to introduce a potential, generally Earth potential, and not forming part of the electrical installation." ... and I would hope that we might agree that they are talking about 'a potential' which is different from the potential of the installation's MET? If one accepts that, then it obviously cannot be an extraneous-c-p if it is already bonded (before it even enters the building) to the building's MET.Do you mean it doesn't require bonding because it is bonded, or it ceases to be an e-c-p when it is bonded so it doesn't actually require bonding unless the bonding is removed?
I don't think we really disagree. Most, perhaps all, of what the reg says about meters is seemingly irrelevant. All that matters is that anything which IS an extraneous-c-p should be bonded to the MET, and anything which is not an extraneous-c-p does not require bonding, no matter where it is relative to the meter.I still maintain I am correct because the only occasion where it is necessary to mention the meter at all is when it is inside because the gas company does not want the bond connected to the supply pipe (even though it makes no difference when there is continuity through the meter joints).
Yes, ridiculous.As I know you agree, when inside the incoming supply pipe is the e-c-p and the meter outlet pipe might not be electrically connected to it but the regulation still states that the bond must not be connected to this actual e-c-p.
Agreed but I don't really think that relates to what I have been saying - namely, the meter requirements in the regulation only refers to internal meters.I think that we have always agreed that there are big problems with the way that the reg is written (fractionally more in the past). Also, in addition to the uncertainties/ambiguities we are discussing (due to the poor wording of the reg), it seems that many readers of the reg have misinterpreted it because they have not 'noticed' that it applies only to extraneous-c-ps.
If, as a consequence of a plastic supply pipe and/or the absence of electrical continuity there is no electrical continuity between pipework on the consumer's side of the meter and 'the outside world' ('true earth'), then that pipework is not an extraneous-c-p - which (as you've said, because of the first part of the first sentence) means that none of 544.1.2 (including the bits about the consumer's side of the meter) applies - since there is no requirement for it to be main bonded anywhere.
That means you agree with what I have been saying.Not at all.
I don't see how that is relevant.In the case of an external meter, the 'practicable point' closest to the 'point of entry' will very commonly (probably nearly always) be inside the building. It is very commonly possible to bond (inside the building) within an inch or three of the true 'point of entry', whereas bonding 'outside' would be at least the thickness of the wall away from the 'point of entry'.
Agreed.In any event, as you go on to say, all this business about 'where to bond' is actually (common sense, not necessarily regs!) irrelevant 'in normal service'. Since the pipe is very conductive, so long as the pipe remains intact it does not matter one iota whether one bonds it 'at the point of entry' or 20 metres away (e.g. at the boiler). Only if the pipe is 'cut' does the 'point of bonding' matter - since that cutting could leave a length of unbonded extraneous-c-p (if that's what it was!) upstream of the cut.
I don't see why.As above, if one had (internal) access to a point close to 'the point of entry', then to do as in your picture would be ('common sense') daft.
Obviously but again not relevant to the question.Furthermore, also as above, if the supply pipe were plastic and/or there was no electrical continuity across the meter, then there would be no need for bonding of anything, anywhere.
Agreed but the regulation states that is not acceptable when the meter is inside.However, as above, there may be occasions on which the closest 'practicable' point to the 'point of entry' (at which to bond IF it really is an extraneous-c-p) may be outside of the building - but that's nothing to do with the meter, per se.
I would be saying exactly the same if an underground metal pipe entered the building and then travelled a distance to an internal meter. The pipe between 'point of entry' and the meter would then need to be bonded 'as close as possible to the point of entry - and, in fairly unusual circumstances, that 'nearest point' might be 'on the other side of the wall' (i.e. external to the property).
Agreed but that is what the regulation states.Yes, ridiculous.
You definitely were alone regarding the supplementary bonding requirements.You and I cannot be alone.
Puzzling indeed.Common sense, coupled with an understanding of the nature of extraneous-c-ps and the reason for bonding them, could surely do a lot better than this reg which has been worded very badly (with only slight semi-recent 'improvements') for decades ?!
As I've said, I think the wording is sufficiently unclear that we cannot be sure what it is trying to refer to.Agreed but I don't really think that relates to what I have been saying - namely, the meter requirements in the regulation only refers to internal meters.
As I said, it's relevant in the (probably very uncommon) situation in which the closest point at which one can 'practically bond' an incoming extraneous-c-p is actually outside of the building. Of course, that depends upon one's view of 'practicable'- some would probably argue that a person with hammers, chisels, wrecking bars etc. could always gain access to, at bond at, the actual 'point of entry'.I don't see how that is relevant.
Very true. However, I probably thought it was fairly clear that when I wrote:I don't see why. If the MET is on the inside of the wall to the left then doing as in the picture might avoid considerable disruption inside the premises.
I think that we have always agreed that a lot of this reg, and/or interpretations of its unclear wording, makes little sense, but in the absence of any words such as "inside"/"outside" or "internal"/"external", I don't really know how you can be sure what it is trying to say about the location of the meter!Agreed but the regulation states that is not acceptable when the meter is inside. Agreed but that is what the regulation states.
That's obviously a totally different matter, but I continue to hold the view (based on electrical principles) that what a lot of people (and probably the regs) seem to believe about Supplementary Bonding is simply not true/correct!You definitely were alone regarding the supplementary bonding requirements.
Fair enough.... and I would say that "easy access" excludes the situation in which internal bonding would involve "considerable disruption inside the premises"
...because what it says (sensible or not) cannot apply to an external meter.I think that we have always agreed that a lot of this reg, and/or interpretations of its unclear wording, makes little sense, but in the absence of any words such as "inside"/"outside" or "internal"/"external", I don't really know how you can be sure what it is trying to say about the location of the meter!
Yes, I now agree with you but it was only you who realised it.That's obviously a totally different matter, but I continue to hold the view (based on electrical principles) that what a lot of people (and probably the regs) seem to believe about Supplementary Bonding is simply not true/correct!
So you believe, but since what it says doesn't make (electrical) sense even with an internal meter, I don't know what we can be sure about ... As you say ......because what it says (sensible or not) cannot apply to an external meter.
I'm glad we agree - we've now both said that the meter is irrelevant!Everyone seems to be only thinking of the meter outside as just on the other side of the wall (not elsewhere farther away) but even in this case there is no point even mentioning the meter as it has no effect on the situation.
.. but that only makes two of us, one of whom has no 'electrical credentials'.Yes, I now agree with you but it was only you who realised it.
The rest of it qualifies that because of the gas people not wanting the bonding conductor in the correct place on the supply pipe
In the case of gas, there is never not a meter
Maybe it is just another urban myth.This is all the gas regs say about the matter, nothing more...
So - there is a meter - somewhere.There actually can be "no meter". An outhouse can be fed from a main building, underground, with no meter as the one in the main building will do the metering.
It would depend what exactly and what else in in the outhouse.I only point that out to see what difference it makes to what you are discussing as I really don't know. Or does the outhouse pipework not matter as the main house pipework will be bonded?
So - there is a meter - somewhere.
As both EFLI and myself have said, despite the confusion created by BS7671, the presence/absence and/or location of a meter is (electrically) irrelevant.There actually can be "no meter". An outhouse can be fed from a main building, underground, with no meter as the one in the main building will do the metering. ... I only point that out to see what difference it makes to what you are discussing as I really don't know. Or does the outhouse pipework not matter as the main house pipework will be bonded?
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