Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: 2 x6mm mpb cables in parallel to comply with pme regs.
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02 February 2019 06:28 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 Previous 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.
 03 February 2019 01:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 6735
Joined: 02 December 2004

Originally posted by: perspicacious

The OP title is PME regs so I'd imagine the ESQCR take precedence over BS 7671



You`re probably right Bod (you usually are) .
I was thinking BS7671 rather than "PME regs" I must admit.
I have , on occaision, jointed with crimps and added solder too, as I prefer to keep it as one continuos and merely bared the conductor and u shaped it to hold into the first earthclamp even if it goes slack or alternatively a 3 and a 4 strand x 2 eyelet crimps back to back and soldered giving the same result. Bonding is very important.

Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 03 February 2019 03:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 17795
Joined: 13 August 2003

ESQCR take precedence over BS 7671

But does the ESQCR say anything much about bonding in consumer's installations? I can't seem to see anything (for PME or otherwise): The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002.pdf

John Peckham clarified the requirement on this forum April 2017.

My understanding is that that BS 7430's requirement was intended to ensure that other trades (who might have good cause to remove the 1st clamp - e.g. when replacing pipework) shouldn't be able to accidentally break continuity to the 2nd clamp. Thus the usual interpretation is that where a bonding conductor is 'looped' through a clamp, the conductor at that point should be uncut so even if the connection at the clamp is undone the through connection remains intact. I don't think it was ever intended to mean that the whole conductor must be uncut all the way back to the MET (which wouldn't be achievable anyway in many circumstances - e.g. where bonds are taken to the earth bar in a local DB rather than directly to the MET). Likewise there's no such recommendation when a bonding conductor serves just a single clamp.

So in my mind, having an earth block (earth marshalling terminal) close to the first clamp with all the conductors terminated into it by screw terminals and a single conductor from there to the clamp itself, would be entirely compliant.

Now there's an idea; a main equipotential bonding ring.

Not an entirely new idea! BS EN 50310 already suggests a bonding ring for some circumstances (although mostly from the point of view of reducing the bond's impedance (especially at higher frequencies) and improving reliability. As a means of using reduced c.s.a. conductors, it might be novel though.

- Andy.
 03 February 2019 10:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 503
Joined: 26 August 2007

Originally posted by: Weirdbeard2

Originally posted by: hertzal123

As above,2 cables emerge from the wall,1 to gas and tother to water.Wondered if allowed to link both to gas and then loop to water in 10mm,subject to continuity test from mains and check cables run together in loft.I understand joints are allowed in bonding conductors.


Hi Hz, why do you need to alter this, it sounds fine as is, or is there signs of overheating of the existing arrangement?[/q
Hi WB,
Did,nt want to start the old no signs of burning controversy again.
 04 February 2019 02:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 12039
Joined: 22 July 2004

perhaps a nice way of verifying that the wiring is undamaged. If the loop closing link was from pipe to pipe via clamp, rather than by conductor looping, you could verify the quality of the actual pipe bond as well.

regards Mike

New here?

  • To participate in discussions, please log in and introduce yourself.

See Also:

FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2021 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.