Bonding to Gas and water am2

[Octopus]

deleted

 

[Octopus]

Guidance note 8 (earthing & bonding) page 57.

Right - this isn't a reg, its guidance

Most people don't have the Guidance Notes ......

If the IET intended this to be a reg it would be in the big book

 

[Pete999]

Section 54

It is not nonsense, protective conductors have got to be continuous.
It is up to you if you want to use one conductor for water and another conductor for gas but continuity is key no breaks at all.
Guidance note 8 (earthing & bonding) page 57.

Thanks not got GN 8 does it say anything about seperate conductors being no compliant? because I think the post saying it is, and a single conductor is the best practice is incorrect.

 

[Ian1981]

Yeah section 54 says diddly squat about unbroken conductors and connections.

 

[Octopus]

Thanks not got GN 8 does it say anything about separate conductors being no compliant? because I think the post saying it is, and a single conductor is the best practice is incorrect.

Hit, nail and head and rather proves my point I think.

I would have thought that you would have it Pete!

 

[Richard Burns]

A single conductor to each service is the ideal situation, however to use a single conductor to one service and loop it on to the next service is totally acceptable.
There is a suggestion in GN8 that a looped service should be unbroken to avoid the chance of a disconnection at the first service also causing disconnection at the second service.
Though it is interesting to note that this will only be applicable if someone carefully undoes the wiring connections, in which case they would probably be careful to reconnect, rather than just snipping the conductor.
However where the conductors are not looped there is no suggestion that they need to be unbroken and in many cases will often be jointed several times before they arrive at the MET particularly in large installations.

 

[telectrix]

there is no reg. stating that a single bonding conductor to 2 services should be continuous. it's just been accepted as good practice for the reason i stated in post #5.

 

[Pete999]

Hit, nail and head and rather proves my point I think.

I would have thought that you would have it Pete!

there is no reg. stating that a single bonding conductor to 2 services should be continuous. it's just been accepted as good practice for the reason i stated in post #5.

Thanks Tel

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

Right - this isn't a reg, its guidance

Most people don't have the Guidance Notes ......

If the IET intended this to be a reg it would be in the big book

You can argue as much as you want and dismiss advice here.
The op who posted wanted guidance and if he is going to sit his AM2 and does that he is going to fail.
The issue of you not having the guidance note is your problem ,you can choose to refer to as many books and notes as you wish.
The Guidance note 8 (Earthing & bonding) is an exampanded form ofchapter 54 of BS 7671 2008 amendment 3.
All information in their is correct and binding.

 

[Strima]

So why is it called a guidance note and not a compulsory note?

 

[telectrix]

You can argue as much as you want and dismiss advice here.
The op who posted wanted guidance and if he is going to sit his AM2 and does that he is going to fail.
The issue of you not having the guidance note is your problem ,you can choose to refer to as many books and notes as you wish.
The Guidance note 8 (Earthing & bonding) is an exampanded form ofchapter 54 of BS 7671 2008 amendment 3.
All information in their is correct and binding.

so where in BS7671 does it state that boding conductors to e.g. gas and water should be separate, or , if 1 conductor, should be unbroken/continuous?

 

[Pete999]

So why is it called a guidance note and not a compulsory note?

Same reason BS7671 is an advisory document to allow us to comply with the Electricity at work Act

 

[telectrix]

Same reason BS7671 is an advisory document to allow us to comply with the Electricity at work Act

pete, think it's time we jumped on the bandwagon and got some help for the over 70's without dementia. after all, the loonies get help, why should we be excluded?

 

[Pete999]

pete, think it's time we jumped on the bandwagon and got some help for the over 70's without dementia. after all, the loonies get help, why should we be excluded?

Why not indeed, we should have an age range, from xxxxx to zzzzz after al we mustn't get accused of being ageist, perish the thought. Just having a glass of Cotes very nice to.

 

[Sylvia Namusisi]

So why is it called a guidance note and not a compulsory note?

Post them a letter and ask them.
I am sure they will get back to you rather quickly.Good luck!

 

[Midwest]

I have a feeling you all saying the same thing, not necessarily in the same order.

 

[Strima]

Post them a letter and ask them.
I am sure they will get back to you rather quickly.Good luck!

I don't need to write to them. BS7671 is a non-statutory document, the GNs are written off the back of this which also makes the non-statutory. The GNs are written to provide clarification and are non-binding.

You claim that two bonding cables are not OK and that the cable must be continuous. Can you please give me the regulation number stating this?

 

[Pete999]

I don't need to write to them. BS7671 is a non-statutory document, the GNs are written off the back of this which also makes the non-statutory. The GNs are written to provide clarification and are non-binding.

You claim that two bonding cables are not OK and that the cable must be continuous. Can you please give me the regulation number stating this?

There aint one Strima.

 

[Strima]

There aint one Strima.

I know, I was hoping Sylvia was going to find one.

 

[telectrix]

I know, I was hoping Sylvia was going to find one.

maybe not, but her mother might: