The mods are clearly having to waste their time doing more work - it's tempting to suggest that the source of these recent problems should be 'removed'! Whatever, whilst the previous thread was being locked, I was typing the following ....
Your Example 3 obviously raises an issue. As your note indicated, although this is 'correct' (electrical, in terms of the purpose of main boinding) it 'may be' (I would say "is" seemingly non-compliant with 544.1.2 (which nearly all of us believe is 'incorrect'). Given that there are people here of the view that one should comply with what regulations "actually say", even if we don't like it (e.g. because we don't think it is correct), is it appropriate that we should advise people to do what we believe to be 'correct', even if that makes it non-compliant with a regulation?
I realise that one of your aims is presumably to emphasise the point you often make (correctly) that 'isolated' bits of metal pipe do not need to be main bonded (and, arguably, 'should not' be main bonded). However, I wonder if, in your efforts to do this and to be 'comprehensive' are not making things over-complicated and hence potentially confusing. ...
... your Example 5 is virtually never going to be seen. It is hard to imagine a situation with entirely metal pipework without there being a connection, somewhere, to a CPC - essentially, it could only happen if there were no boiler, no immersion and no CH. Although not impossible when there is a mixture of plastic and metal pipework, even Examples 2 and 4 (which are essentially electrically the same) are going to be pretty rare - since one wonders what those bits of isolated pipe will be supplying that does not invoke a connection to a CPC.
If they are to be there, you could consider combining (2) and (4) into a single diagram, by having an 'insulating section' in both branches of the metal pipe.
It's probably the case that many of the questions about bonding relate to supplementary bonding in bathrooms, so it would perhaps be worthwhile considering corresponding diagram(s) for that. That could obviously be more complicated, since it will often be permissible to omit supplementary bonding , and there is the problem of defining what constitutes an extraneous-c-p (not simply a question of whether or not it is 'connected to true earth' as per your diagram).
Those are just my initial quick thoughts, to which you may wish to give some consideration. Keep up the good work!
Kind Regards, John
I didn't have enough time to get involved in this yesterday, but commend you on your efforts. A few initial observations:Anyway, latest version.
Your Example 3 obviously raises an issue. As your note indicated, although this is 'correct' (electrical, in terms of the purpose of main boinding) it 'may be' (I would say "is" seemingly non-compliant with 544.1.2 (which nearly all of us believe is 'incorrect'). Given that there are people here of the view that one should comply with what regulations "actually say", even if we don't like it (e.g. because we don't think it is correct), is it appropriate that we should advise people to do what we believe to be 'correct', even if that makes it non-compliant with a regulation?
I realise that one of your aims is presumably to emphasise the point you often make (correctly) that 'isolated' bits of metal pipe do not need to be main bonded (and, arguably, 'should not' be main bonded). However, I wonder if, in your efforts to do this and to be 'comprehensive' are not making things over-complicated and hence potentially confusing. ...
... your Example 5 is virtually never going to be seen. It is hard to imagine a situation with entirely metal pipework without there being a connection, somewhere, to a CPC - essentially, it could only happen if there were no boiler, no immersion and no CH. Although not impossible when there is a mixture of plastic and metal pipework, even Examples 2 and 4 (which are essentially electrically the same) are going to be pretty rare - since one wonders what those bits of isolated pipe will be supplying that does not invoke a connection to a CPC.
If they are to be there, you could consider combining (2) and (4) into a single diagram, by having an 'insulating section' in both branches of the metal pipe.
It's probably the case that many of the questions about bonding relate to supplementary bonding in bathrooms, so it would perhaps be worthwhile considering corresponding diagram(s) for that. That could obviously be more complicated, since it will often be permissible to omit supplementary bonding , and there is the problem of defining what constitutes an extraneous-c-p (not simply a question of whether or not it is 'connected to true earth' as per your diagram).
Those are just my initial quick thoughts, to which you may wish to give some consideration. Keep up the good work!
Kind Regards, John