IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: EICR Coding?
Topic Summary: Water bond to steel sink.
Created On: 17 April 2013 07:31 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 17 April 2013 07:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SherlockOhms

Posts: 322
Joined: 05 April 2011

Chaps,

As the summary says, we have a water bond (10mm) connected to the steel drainer of the kitchen sink.

All rings out ok.

C2 or C3?

S.
 17 April 2013 08:08 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4648
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: SherlockOhms
As the summary says, we have a water bond (10mm) connected to the steel drainer of the kitchen sink.

"We", what does Dr. Wattson say?

Regards
 17 April 2013 08:44 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 7479
Joined: 23 April 2005

Dr Wattson says, " No sh*t Sherlock are you sure you should be doing periodics Homes".

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 17 April 2013 09:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11507
Joined: 13 August 2003

Do you mean it's connected to the sink instead of the pipe?
- Andy.
 17 April 2013 09:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MrP

Posts: 843
Joined: 24 March 2006

I can't believe the depths some people on this forum will sink too

MrP
 17 April 2013 09:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SherlockOhms

Posts: 322
Joined: 05 April 2011

Yes it's connected to the sink not the pipe.
 17 April 2013 09:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SherlockOhms

Posts: 322
Joined: 05 April 2011

Originally posted by: John Peckham

Dr Wattson says, " No sh*t Sherlock are you sure you should be doing periodics Homes".


I am John, what I'm trying to accertain here is, are you guys?
I've noted it as a C2. I thought I'd get the views of the panel.
Thanks for your constructive input though.

S.
 17 April 2013 10:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11507
Joined: 13 August 2003

Yes it's connected to the sink not the pipe.

OK (I suspect other did as I did initially - thinking you meant that the bond to the water had been looped to the sink - hence the puzzled comments).

If the continuity is OK (e.g. <0.05 Ohms between the sink end of the bonding conductor and the incoming pipework), I'd treat it similarly to if the bond had been put after a tee or two on the pipework - not right, and risk of being defeated by work of other trades, but certainly no immediate danger. I would have gone with C3 at most.

- Andy.
 17 April 2013 01:06 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for davezawadi.
davezawadi

Posts: 2662
Joined: 26 June 2002

Is this a joke or what?
I couldn't agree with you more JohnP.
Assuming this is the main bonding conductor, pretty much as Andy says.
If it supplementary bonding or left over from the 15th then why the question, and see line 2.

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!
 17 April 2013 04:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Bluesmeister

Posts: 14
Joined: 05 April 2013

Originally posted by: John Peckham

Dr Wattson says, " No sh*t Sherlock are you sure you should be doing periodics Homes".


hahah now that made me laugh out loud!

Ditto AJ's reply. and perhaps even put there by some overzealous DIYer.

Some people often ask if they should bond the sinktop.

When we say it's not necessary they look at you as if you are giving them the wrong advice.

You can't win.
 17 April 2013 06:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for dickllewellyn.
dickllewellyn

Posts: 1150
Joined: 19 March 2010

The op says connected to steel drainer. Does that mean a metallic waste pipe? Does the waste pipe go outside?

-------------------------
Regards
Richard (Dick)

"Insert words of wisdom and/or witty pun here"
 17 April 2013 08:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Grumpy

Posts: 435
Joined: 09 January 2009

If the continuity is OK (e.g. <0.05 Ohms between the sink end of the bonding conductor and the incoming pipework), I'd treat it similarly to if the bond had been put after a tee or two on the pipework - not right, and risk of being defeated by work of other trades, but certainly no immediate danger. I would have gone with C3 at most.

Am I being a bit thick here or what? Are you saying Andy that the main bond to the incoming water can be tagged onto a sink instead of being at the stop cock or thereabouts? And what's with this 0.05 Holmes business?
 17 April 2013 08:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: SherlockOhms
. . . I've noted it as a C2. . .

As you are doing your inspection against the latest edition of BS7671, I take it you have found a regulation that it contravenes?

Regards,

Alan.
 17 April 2013 08:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1868
Joined: 21 November 2008

The 0.05 ohms business refers only to the integrity of the connection between the pipe and the cable via the earth clamp. Not the length of the bonding conductor as some seem to think.

The location of the main water bonding conductor is unchanged as far as I am aware from recent editions of the wiring regs.
 17 April 2013 08:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Grumpy

Posts: 435
Joined: 09 January 2009

How do you get that "originally posted" box to appear on your post?
 17 April 2013 08:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: Grumpy
How do you get that "originally posted" box to appear on your post?

Press "Quote" instead of "Reply".

Regards,

Alan.
 18 April 2013 07:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SherlockOhms

Posts: 322
Joined: 05 April 2011

Originally posted by: alancapon

Originally posted by: SherlockOhms

. . . I've noted it as a C2. . .


As you are doing your inspection against the latest edition of BS7671, I take it you have found a regulation that it contravenes?



Regards,



Alan.


Not at all but I believe it's better changed to a pipe connection and by noting it as a C2 it will be, and for just a few quid.
I don't think anyone would install it like that or show it to an inspector so why list it as ok?

S.
 18 April 2013 10:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11507
Joined: 13 August 2003

Am I being a bit thick here or what? Are you saying Andy that the main bond to the incoming water can be tagged onto a sink instead of being at the stop cock or thereabouts? And what's with this 0.05 Holmes business?

No, I'm saying it should have been connected to the incoming pipework before any joints. But on a periodic inspection we're not in the business of listing departures for the sake of it (not these days anyway), but trying to evaluate the actual danger that results. If the connection to the steel sink provides a good solid connection back to the incoming water pipe, then in practice the bond is effective and so there's no immediate problem. 0.05 Ohms is GN3's suggestion for checking that a bonding connection (from bonding conductor to pipe - i.e. the resistance of the connection between pipe & clamp and clamp & bonding conductor) is satisfactory - if the entire clamp-sink-backnut-whatever-pipework arrangement satisfied the same requirement, then it's hardly going to perform any worse is it? In short, the arrangement is unconventional, but not immediately dangerous.

There is a potential problem in that any future alterations to the sink or local pipework might inadvertently disconnect the bonding - a risk that BS 7671 addresses by asking for bonding conductors to be connected as close as practical to the point where the enter the installation - I think this could do with improving - hence the C3 code.

- Andy.
 18 April 2013 11:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for jsa986.
jsa986

Posts: 472
Joined: 08 February 2011

Originally posted by: SherlockOhms

Originally posted by: alancapon



Originally posted by: SherlockOhms



. . . I've noted it as a C2. . .




As you are doing your inspection against the latest edition of BS7671, I take it you have found a regulation that it contravenes?







Regards,







Alan.




Not at all but I believe it's better changed to a pipe connection and by noting it as a C2 it will be, and for just a few quid.

I don't think anyone would install it like that or show it to an inspector so why list it as ok?



S.


I think what Alan is saying is listing as C2 may be a bit over the top (potentially dangerous urgent remedial action required) and C3 may be more appropriate (may not comply etc), of which i agree

-------------------------
www.icertifi.co.uk
Electrical & Gas Certificates on iPhone & iPad
 18 April 2013 12:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogersmith7671

Posts: 886
Joined: 04 November 2004

"a water bond (10mm) connected to the steel drainer of the kitchen sink"

How might this situation be so potentially dangerous that urgent remedial action is required?

Regards.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » EICR Coding?

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.