Steel Bath how to earth.

[EFLImpudence]

Yes. Does that not mean that supplementary bonding is not necessary when the e-c-ps are already bonded - i.e. by bonding elsewhere.

Exactly. 701.415.2(vi) appears to be saying that if all the e-p-cs are already adequately connected together (electrically), they don't need to be additionally connected together locally (by 'supplementary bonding') - which seems to me to be little more than a statement of the obvious, for any location.

This surely means that without RCDs bonding may be needed - if above conditions are not met - but with an RCD it may be omitted - even if above conditions are not met.

No - and that's my point. 701.415.2 says that supplementary bonding can anly be omitted only if all three of 701.415.2(iv), 701.415.2(v) and 701.415.2(vi) are satisfied. In other words, if there is no RCD protection (i.e.701.415.2(v) not satisfied), then you have to have supplementary bonding even if all the e-p-cs present are already adequately connected together (electrically). That is what I was suggesting appears very illogical - do you agree?

In a way, logic does seem to make the regs. confusing.

It presumably means that even WITH an RCD if (iv) and (vi) are not met we still have to apply supplementary bonding.

 

[JohnW2]

In a way, logic does seem to make the regs. confusing.

I think that's a kind/diplomatic way of saying that the regs are illogical in this respect! They're not really confusing, since they are very clear - but they are certainly (IMO) illogical, unless I'm missing something!

It presumably means that even WITH an RCD if (iv) and (vi) are not met we still have to apply supplementary bonding.

Exactly the point I've been making (actually, "...if (iv) and/or (vi) are not met..."). ((Even with)delete) WITHOUT an RCD, the regs require supplementary bonding even if adequate electrical connection between e-p-cs is already in place.

Kind Regards, John.
Edit: error corrected

 

[ebee]

The regs are very clear.

ALL of the conditions must be met. If any one is not met then supplementary bonding must not be omitted.

Sorry if I've started the great Earthing/ Bonding/ Earthed Bonding debate again , `twas not my intention

 

[JohnW2]

The regs are very clear. ALL of the conditions must be met. If any one is not met then supplementary bonding must not be omitted.

Indeed, as I've been saying, the regs are very clear - but can you make any sense of the thinking (or lack of it) behind the requirement for supplementary bonding if 701.415.2(vi) is satisfied, even if one or both of the other conditions is/are not met?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[matt1e]

The regs are very clear.

ALL of the conditions must be met. If any one is not met then supplementary bonding must not be omitted.

Sorry if I've started the great Earthing/ Bonding/ Earthed Bonding debate again , `twas not my intention

absolutely

and this is also only on condition that Main bonding fully complies with 411.3.1.2

 

[EFLImpudence]

Exactly the point I've been making (actually, "...if (iv) and/or (vi) are not met...").

It would be quite rare/exceptional for (iv) and (vi) to be NOT met?

Even with an RCD, the regs require supplementary bonding even if adequate electrical connection between e-p-cs is already in place.

Only if (iv) not met - as, presumably this may help ADS. but I see your point.

 

[JohnW2]

absolutely ... and this is also only on condition that Main bonding fully complies with 411.3.1.2

Indeed - but, again, the same question - can you make any sense of the regulation in question?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also -

If (iv) cannot be met , isn't a remedy to fit RCD?

Separate issue but seemed odd.

 

[JohnW2]

It would be quite rare/exceptional for (iv) and (vi) to be NOT met?

Exactly - so, in practice, it usually all comes down to the RCD - which still seems illogical to me.

Even with an RCD, the regs require supplementary bonding even if adequate electrical connection between e-p-cs is already in place.

Only if (iv) not met - as, presumably this may help ADS. but I see your point.

Apologies for the typo/error - see edit in original message.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Also - If (iv) cannot be met , isn't a remedy to fit RCD? Separate issue but seemed odd.

Even worse than that, really, since 411.3.2 actually seems to allow that the (iv) can be satisfied by an RCD - so, if (v) is satisfied, (iv) ought to be as well! However, we still have what I see as the major anomoly - that ( if (iv) and/or (v) are not satisfied) supplementary bonding may be required even when (vi) is satisfied.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

we still have what I see as the major anomoly.

Perhaps it is.

 

[dormermike]

So if interpreting the regs causes this much debate amoungst sparkies how is mr joe public to be assured that in hiring a spark the regs will be implemented correctly?

 

[sparkticus]

So if interpreting the regs causes this much debate amoungst sparkies how is mr joe public to be assured that in hiring a spark the regs will be implemented correctly?

You can take any set of regulations and start to "interpret" the exact meaning. The wiring regulations are extensive and complex. They do not provide solutions for all specific scenarios. They are in fact "designed" to be interpreted. I almost hesitate in saying this (because I don't want to get on my high horse again ) but the wiring regulations do require some degree of scientific understanding and that is not for everyone including some "electricians"

 

[JohnW2]

So if interpreting the regs causes this much debate amoungst sparkies how is mr joe public to be assured that in hiring a spark the regs will be implemented correctly?

Quite so - and, just for the record, I'm not an electrician, but rather an interested and reasionably-informed outsider.

Joe Public's best hope is probably that he employes an electrician who makes sensible and safe interpretations of the regulations, based on a sound understanding of the underlying principles.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

So if interpreting the regs causes this much debate amoungst sparkies how is mr joe public to be assured that in hiring a spark the regs will be implemented correctly?

Quite so - and, just for the record, I'm not an electrician, but rather an interested and reasionably-informed outsider.

I would say much better informed than some of the electricians that I refer to as "electricians"