Moving Gas Earth-Bonding Cable

[securespark]

That originated at the NICEIC as “best practice”

And as the NICEIC don’t write the regs (and neither do NAPIT) their guidance is often not worth listening to

Over my career, I have had many a "discussion" with NIC sparks.

They insist that the only document they use is 7671, then use "best practice" from their own books that has never appeared in 7671.

Hypocrites.

 

[Taylortwocities]

The "G" in GN8 stands for guidance. Its not a regulation. You'll find similar things in the On Site GUIDE. Helpfully, OSG (and I think the Guidance Notes) actually print any relevant regulation reference next to the guidance text.

 

[JohnW2]

Neither. It's in GN8, in the first edition published in 2008. Still exists in the current version.
It's unreferenced, and states 'should'.

Interestingly, even what you posted relates only to the situation when a bonding conductor 'loops' from one extraneous0-c-p to one or more others.

It says nothing about whether a bonding conductor between MET and just one (or the first) extraneous-c-p 'should'or should not, be 'continuous'.

 

[Murdochcat]

Yet another simple update to BS7671 , in the main book could clarify this in 1 simple sentence.

Not holding my breath and thankfully packing in this nonsense very soon

 

[EFLImpudence]

It doesn't need clarifying.

 

[Murdochcat]

It doesn't need clarifying.

Oh yes it does

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh no it doesn't.

The fact that BS7671 does not say the conductor must be continuous means it does not have to be continuous.

How clear do you need it to be?

 

[Murdochcat]

Oh no it doesn't.

The fact that BS7671 does not say the conductor must be continuous means it does not have to be continuous.

How clear do you need it to be?

Apologies , I thought you were taking Flameports side that it should be continuous and on that basis I suggested IF that was the case it needed to be clarified in BS 7671 - and not some seperate book or different regulation

 

[JohnW2]

It doesn't need clarifying.

Oh yes it does

I agree with EFLI that nothing needs 'clarifying'. Indeed, if BS7671 were to take a position on this issue, that would represent new regulations, not 'clarification' of anything (since it is currently silent on this issue).

What's so special about bonding conductors? If someone wants BS7671 to 'clarify' whether or not bonding conductors have to be 'continuous', then they would presumably want the same 'clarification' about other protective conductors (like CPCs) and also live conductors, wouldn't they?

I suppose that if one wants to talk about "best practice" (which some people do) then it can be argued that the 'best' practice is to never have 'unnecessary joints' in any conductor.

 

[JohnW2]

It's surely the documents which claim that bonding conductors have to be continuous that need to do the 'clarifying' - i.e,. clarifying that they have invented requirements which are not requirements of BS7671?

 

[Murdochcat]

That came from BS7430 along with the 'continuous conductor' statement.
None of it was ever in BS7671.

So if none of it was ever in BS 7671 why do we waste customers money on this at all

 

[Murdochcat]

It's surely the documents which claim that bonding conductors have to be continuous that need to do the 'clarifying' - i.e,. clarifying that they have invented requirements which are not requirements of BS7671?

Precisely.

 

[JohnW2]

Precisely.

Indeed - so why did you suggest that it was BS7671 which needs one simple sentence of clarification?

 

[securespark]

The regs do say that they are a minimum standard and they can be exceeded.

 

[JohnW2]

So if none of it was ever in BS 7671 why do we waste customers money on this at all

Do you mean that you are doing things that are not required by BS7671 and then expecting customers to pay for that unnecessary work?