What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle. Firstly how did he
know that it was not bonded below the floor? Secondly my toilet
flushing handles are plastic, and there is not metal in the flushing
mechanism either. So where is the risk?

Cheers
John T

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:33:28 +0100, Broadback
wrote:

What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle. Firstly how did he
know that it was not bonded below the floor? Secondly my toilet
flushing handles are plastic, and there is not metal in the flushing
mechanism either. So where is the risk?

Cheers
John T
I saw the prog also and i suspect the presenter is misinformed. There
were amendments to the reg a while back which made it a requirement to
have additional earth bonding within wet areas eg bathroom. I dont
think these regs were retrospective though!,i could be wrong..

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle.

Because he was being a smart alec - again.

Firstly how did he know that it was not bonded below the floor?

As the house was quite old it probably had all copper pipes and was bonded
at the water and earth entry point to the house. Only modern plastic
plumbing needs wires everywhere and even these should be crimped and hidden
under the floor to stop little fingers fiddling with them.

O
I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle. Firstly how did he
know that it was not bonded below the floor? Secondly my toilet
flushing handles are plastic, and there is not metal in the flushing
mechanism either. So where is the risk?

Cheers
John T

So the presenter was fully qualified electrician ?

Dave

--

Some people use windows, others have a life.

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle.

Because he was being a smart alec - again.

Firstly how did he know that it was not bonded below the floor?

As the house was quite old it probably had all copper pipes and was bonded
at the water and earth entry point to the house. Only modern plastic
plumbing needs wires everywhere and even these should be crimped and
hidden
under the floor to stop little fingers fiddling with them.



Anyone see the TV prog when that Gavin installs the cross bonding under the
boiler in the kitchen

Fixes the four or five clamps in place and the offers the earthwire up to
the first clamp and cuts it!! bet the sparks that actually did the running
of the cable winched, then as he links it to the next one he says or you can
do it by stripping off the g/y insulation and just looping them together .
little point after cutting the first

Steve

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle.

Because he was being a smart alec - again.

Firstly how did he know that it was not bonded below the floor?

As the house was quite old it probably had all copper pipes and was bonded
at the water and earth entry point to the house. Only modern plastic
plumbing needs wires everywhere and even these should be crimped and
hidden
under the floor to stop little fingers fiddling with them.

Plastic piping is most unlkikely to have wires everywhere as a bathroom
plumbed in plastic will not need supplementary bonding.

Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle.

Because he was being a smart alec - again.

Firstly how did he know that it was not bonded below the floor?

As the house was quite old it probably had all copper pipes and was
bonded
at the water and earth entry point to the house. Only modern plastic
plumbing needs wires everywhere and even these should be crimped and
hidden
under the floor to stop little fingers fiddling with them.

Plastic piping is most unlkikely to have wires everywhere as a bathroom
plumbed in plastic will not need supplementary bonding.

Sorry to disagree but there was a debate here on this very subject and
opinion was all metal items - taps, radiator and so on in a bathroom DID
need bonding whereas in a kitchen they did not.

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to
copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be
bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle.

Because he was being a smart alec - again.

Firstly how did he know that it was not bonded below the floor?

As the house was quite old it probably had all copper pipes and was
bonded
at the water and earth entry point to the house. Only modern plastic
plumbing needs wires everywhere and even these should be crimped and
hidden
under the floor to stop little fingers fiddling with them.

Plastic piping is most unlkikely to have wires everywhere as a bathroom
plumbed in plastic will not need supplementary bonding.

Sorry to disagree but there was a debate here on this very subject and
opinion was all metal items - taps, radiator and so on in a bathroom DID
need bonding whereas in a kitchen they did not.



Kitchens do not need supplementary bonding regardless of the type of pipe
used in it's plumbing.

A bathroom that is piped in all plastic should not have its radiator bonded.
This has been mentioned in many earlier threads here and is also stated in
the IEE OSG and on NICEIC newsletters. Taps that are supplied by plastic
pipes do not require bonding and taps that are supplied by copper piping are
protected by bonding the copper pipe. I have never seen a 'bonded tap'.

Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Kitchens do not need supplementary bonding regardless of the type of pipe
used in it's plumbing.

Agreed


A bathroom that is piped in all plastic should not have its radiator
bonded.
This has been mentioned in many earlier threads here and is also stated in
the IEE OSG and on NICEIC newsletters.

Could whoever argued for this last time answer this ? You convinced me to
do so last time. Thanks.


Taps that are supplied by plastic
pipes do not require bonding and taps that are supplied by copper piping
are
protected by bonding the copper pipe. I have never seen a 'bonded tap'.

Some brands of tap come with a bonding tag. Whether this is required in the
UK is another matter of course.

A bathroom that is piped in all plastic should not have its radiator
bonded.
This has been mentioned in many earlier threads here and is also stated
in
the IEE OSG and on NICEIC newsletters.

Could whoever argued for this last time answer this ? You convinced me to
do so last time. Thanks.

Well I argued that you definitely should NOT bond radiators, metal baths,
taps or metal window frames that would otherwise have no connection to
earth.

These items should only be bonded if they are already earthed, such as
through metal pipework or touching the structural metalwork of the building.

Christian.

In message ,
tarquinlinbin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:33:28 +0100, Broadback
wrote:

What is the rational behind earth bonding? Surely one bond to copper
water pipes should be sufficient, after all copper and the water it
contains are conductors.

I was befuddled by a comment on one of TV's home programmes. The
presenter looked at the toilet and said, this will have to be bonded,
there is a risk from the toilet flushing handle. Firstly how did he
know that it was not bonded below the floor? Secondly my toilet
flushing handles are plastic, and there is not metal in the flushing
mechanism either. So where is the risk?

Cheers
John T
I saw the prog also and i suspect the presenter is misinformed. There
were amendments to the reg a while back which made it a requirement to
have additional earth bonding within wet areas eg bathroom. I dont
think these regs were retrospective though!,i could be wrong..

Not retrospective, but there are exceptions. I remember the programme;
it was Location - L - L with two "first time buyers". I can't remember
which one it was viewing that house, but if it was the lady from London,
don't forget that she was viewing the house with respect to letting it
out. If she does so then as landlord she will be responsible for the
electrical installation and AIUI this means ensuring that it is
compliant with the latest regulations.

If the viewers were the other two who were buying a house for themselves
then it's a little more complicated. Although for a private dwelling the
updates aren't retrospective, they could well have problems if their
survey - needed for mortgage approval - comes up with too many notes on
the electrical side saying things like "does not comply". It is possible
(indeed probable) that an unenlightened mortgage company will see this
and insist in work being carried out that isn't strictly necessary
before releasing the full loan.

HTH.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... This is a Tagline mirrorrorrim enilgaT a si sihT

In message ,
"Christian McArdle" wrote:

A bathroom that is piped in all plastic should not have its radiator
bonded.
This has been mentioned in many earlier threads here and is also stated
in
the IEE OSG and on NICEIC newsletters.

Could whoever argued for this last time answer this ? You convinced me to
do so last time. Thanks.

Well I argued that you definitely should NOT bond radiators, metal baths,
taps or metal window frames that would otherwise have no connection to
earth.

These items should only be bonded if they are already earthed, such as
through metal pipework or touching the structural metalwork of the building.


Yes, this is specifically pointed out in the OSG - it makes it very
clear that supplementary bonding of *isolated* metalwork is in fact more
dangerous than leaving it isolated.

What I remember we argued about was the definition of isolated. A very
short length of plastic pipe (less than about 1 meter) does not count
as due to the conductivity of the water the metal item (tap, radiator
etc) could still be said to be "earthy" and therefore should be bonded.
Above 1m or so the resistance of the water becomes sufficiently high for
the item in question to be regarded as isolated from earth.

This figure of 1 meter was IIRC calculated and reported in an IEE
newsletter, and repeated fairly recently.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... Starkle Starkle Little Twink What the hell you are I think?

This figure of 1 meter was IIRC calculated and reported in an IEE
newsletter, and repeated fairly recently.

It wasn't so clear. It said that anything above 1m was safe, but didn't
actually say that anything under 1m was not. They should, perhaps, have
worded it more carefully, although this may have required further testing to
determine a reasonable cut off point.

Also, there was nothing said about the effects of salts such as might be
found in cleaning and beauty products when going down the drain.

Christian.

In message ,
"Christian McArdle" wrote:

This figure of 1 meter was IIRC calculated and reported in an IEE
newsletter, and repeated fairly recently.

It wasn't so clear. It said that anything above 1m was safe, but didn't
actually say that anything under 1m was not. They should, perhaps, have
worded it more carefully, although this may have required further testing to
determine a reasonable cut off point.

Also, there was nothing said about the effects of salts such as might be
found in cleaning and beauty products when going down the drain.


I hadn't considered waste - waste pipe is rarely (never?) "filled" with
water in the way that supply and heating pipe is, and the nature of the
flow is intermittent to say the least. On top of that, waste has been
90% plastic for many years now, and the only metal waste you are likely
to encounter is the odd cast-iron stack...

Contaminants in the supply water are another matter - treatments in the
heating water, salts in softened water and so on. Hmmm :-/

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... A trampoline is for cunning stunts, a truncheon for apprehending criminals