Agreed - but given that, even with your interpretation, the reg is incorrect/silly, I don't think we should discount the possibility that it has also indicated a requirement to bond something that is not an extraneous-c-p.
Yes, but perhaps they thought like I do. It is, after all, virtually impossible to fit anything at (your definition) the point of entry.
It is but they could not write that as anywhere inside would be after the point of entry.
Ok but how would it be possible to fit it touching the ground?
That is true, but
I don't understand the point you are making.
Yes, but my main contention is that it requires parts that are e-c-ps be left unbonded.
I'm saying that, no matter what interpretation one utilises, the regulation appears to be, at least in some situations, 'incorrect'.
No. I personally would do what I (and you) believe to be 'correct' and would ('in private') advise anyone else to do likewise, regardless of what the regulation says. Whether or not 'we' (and that should include BAS) feel it appropriate to give that same advice 'in public' is what has to be decided.
Indeed so. As I recently wrote, my daughter's water supply is a prize example, with a couple of metres of relatively 'touchable' pipe which would remain unbonded (in her TN-C-S installation) if the meter is non-conductive (it certainly all looks plastic), were it not for the fact that I have bonded it for her. As I have discussed before, the situation in my house is even worse, since there is a 5-6 metre length of totally touchable steel pipe in my cellar upstream of the (again, seemingly plastic) water meter - which, again, if I had obeyed the regs, would have remained without effective bonding.
Exactly, but that would appear to be 'contrary to regulations'!
Agreed - to your last two posts.
Goodness, we seem to be making progress!
Quite so - so, as you say, in either case it is 'wrong'.
Exactly.
Does it matter? It is just wrong with either definition.
Well, yes, it could matter in some cases. If the insulating section were sufficiently far from the point of entry that not even you would regard it as being 'at' the point of entry, then the regulation would not be wrong, because it would then require the pipe upstream of the insulating section to be bonded 'as near as practicable' to the point of entry - which is what you, I and electrical common senses says should be done.
Indeed - and I think we are agreed that when the distance is 'considerable', the reg is, arguably, not just 'wrong' but actually 'ridiculously wrong'/dangerous.
I don't think that even the infamous regulation ever requires that bonding be applied 'at' the point of entry - only 'a close as practicable', which allows one to take into account practicalities such as you mention.
Is it touchable at the same time as any equipotential parts? How about the cellar floor, is that damp and at local earth potential? Maybe you need mesh in the floor too!
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
