This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Testing if supplementary bonding is required.

I have read some bits stating we can measure between the two metallic parts in question and referring to the formula 


50/ia will give you the resistance needed to keep touch voltage to less than 50v 


my questions can we do the same test to determine if the part has a high enough resistance to not require bonding and what sort of figures we should look for?
Parents
  • We still use the word equipotential - e.g. in reg 411.3.1.2 - although I agree it's not a good description - being more of a zone of reduced or perhaps minimised potential differences rather a zone of truly equal potentials.


    I'd also suggest that the equipotential zone or protective zone or whatever you want to call it isn't just made up of extraneous-conductive-parts and bonding conductors, but also exposed-conductive-parts and circuit protective conductors (they have to be connected back to the MET too) and we tend to have plenty of them still even with all plastic plumbing.


      - Andy.
Reply
  • We still use the word equipotential - e.g. in reg 411.3.1.2 - although I agree it's not a good description - being more of a zone of reduced or perhaps minimised potential differences rather a zone of truly equal potentials.


    I'd also suggest that the equipotential zone or protective zone or whatever you want to call it isn't just made up of extraneous-conductive-parts and bonding conductors, but also exposed-conductive-parts and circuit protective conductors (they have to be connected back to the MET too) and we tend to have plenty of them still even with all plastic plumbing.


      - Andy.
Children
No Data