Exactly. I see nothing in the regs which says that a copper MPB conductor can't be hollow, or that it has to be insulated - so, if it is not a pipe being used for other purposes, I don't see it as being any less acceptable as an MPB conductor than is standard G/Y cable.
This is the problem of a book of 'regulations' turning into a book of specifications because people started to add bits to avoid questions like "Can I use a bit of pipe as a supplementary protective bond?" becoming a contentious issue in the workplace.
I would still class it as an oil pipe as although it's not in use the oil, importantly the flammable bit, will remain at the bottom unless it's been properly flushed, cleaned, and dried (which I very much doubt).The IET said:
Probably not, but I would say that it's the oil, not the fact that it used to be an oil pipe, which is the issue. If it were a brand new, unused bit of pipe of a type used to carry oil, I would see nothing to prevent it being used as a protective conductor. Regs-wise, it's all matter of whether 543.2.3 regards an 'ex-oil pipe' as an 'oil pipe'.
Yes, that's why it's 'good practice' not to have the 'looping' part separate from the rest - but, as you say, it requires a bit of interpretation of regs (about which people probably wouldn't agree) to find a reg which actually insists on that. I was talking more generally about the (AFAIAA untrue) belief that some people have (including, I gather, NIC) that the regs insist that the main run of an MPB conductor cannot have any joints in it. I don't believe the regs say, or even imply, that, anywhere.
I can't disagree with any of that, but I think this tangential discussion about using the pipe istelf as a conduction is a bit irrelevant. EFLI and myself both mentioned it as a theoretical possibility only really so that we could dismiss it - and I really don't think that anyone should be seriously consdiering it as an option.
Or as suggested recently, which I had not thought of before, fit an earth block nearby.
Are you refering to my suggestion in a recent thread when a bonding conductor was 1 metre short of reaching the CU?
Yes, excellent idea.
No, not as a MET, just a solution to adding the bonding of a nearby service, the removal of one leaving the other(s) intact, and to which no one could possibly have any objection.
You'll have to ask 'them'
I can bit presume that those (and there do seem to be at least some) who believe that MPB conductors must be continuous (all the way from MET to extraneous-c-p) would object to this just as much as they would object to any other type of joint in the conductor, wouldn't they? ...
I can understand your view, but there is really no reason why anyone would/should ever disconnect connections from the earth block - if they were working on one or other of the pipes pipe, they would presumably disconnect from the pipe. If you really were worried, I suppose you could put warning labels, take steps to deter inteference with the earth block, or even put the earth block in a sealable enclosure (or use a Henley, rather than an Earth Block, so that it can be sealed). I do agree that a 'loose' piece of G/Y joining the two pipes is not a good idea, since someone removing the connections from the 'first' (closest to MET) earth clamp, to work on that pipe, could easily leave the other pipe unbonded.
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
