Discuss New CU but no water bonding... in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Yes but that's nothing to do with main protective bonding of extraneous parts :mtongue::) although it is part of ADS

Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.
 
Just seen an ECA survey which states only 6% of businesses surveyed are in full support of the 18th Ed changes, I could have saved them a lot of time and money with that.
 
Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.

thought them wet-pants stopped using lead.
 
Yes but that's nothing to do with main protective bonding of extraneous parts :mtongue::) although it is part of ADS
Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.
i would say bonding a piece of metal not extraneous could introduce a shock hazard (during fault conditions in the installation) which might never have been there because it wasn't needed such as isolated from earth metal work
 
i would say bonding a piece of metal not extraneous could introduce a shock hazard which might never have been there because it wasn't needed such as isolated from earth metal work
that's why any metalwork should be tested to determine if it's extraneous. 22kΩ
 
If you ever read they magazine professional electrician the NICEIC did an article about it but can't remember what month it was.
That's if anyone trusts the NICEIC view :rolleyes:
 
Might have to up my estimate to 145 posts at this rate.
 
I realise the OSG is just a guide but it does state in section 4.5 (the green one) that there is no requirement for Main bonding if the incoming service is in plastic.
If there is metal installation within the premises (and plastic incoming) it suggests there should still be Main bonding unless the metal work doesn't test as extraneous.
 
As an aside, if you don't bond the metal pipe work (after plastic), you'll probably or may have to supplementary bond incoming metal pipes into special locations, perhaps ;)
 
As an aside, if you don't bond the metal pipe work (after plastic), you'll probably or may have to supplementary bond incoming metal pipes into special locations, perhaps ;)
if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway
 
Protective bonding works with protection a

if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway

You type quick, were you poised with a reply :)
 
if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway

Forgetting ancillary earthing, boilers etc. How likely are those pipes effectively be bonded to earth? I would suggest, apart from following like sheep, that's the most cost effective way of following reg 528.3.4 that most installs I've seen, seem to follow?
 
Forgetting ancillary earthing, boilers etc. How likely are those pipes effectively be bonded to earth? I would suggest, apart from following like sheep, that's the most cost effective way of following reg 528.3.4 that most installs I've seen, seem to follow?
A measurement can be made to verify the effectiveness of the pipework connected to a main protective bonding conductor

where doubt exists regarding the effectiveness of supplementary equipotential bonding, it shall be confirmed that the resistance R between simulataneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts and extraneous-conductive-parts fufils the following condition

R =<50 V/Ia in a.c systems
Or
R=<50v/IdeltaN for rcds
 

Reply to New CU but no water bonding... in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock