This article was posted 01/13/2010 and is most likely outdated.

Response to ESE Advertorial
 

 

Topic - Lightning Protection
Subject - Response to ESE Advertorial

January 13, 2010
This newsletter was sent to 19253 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Weekly Code GraphicQuizzes |  Free Stuff InstructorsOnline Training Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ] Web Page Version [Printer-Friendly]    

ESE – The Device for a Modern Answer to Lightning Protection?

 

An advertorial ESE: The device for a modern answer to lightning protection placed in The Sunday Star on October 4, 2009 by an anonymous proponent of the early streamer emission (ESE) lightning protection system prompted the attached response by Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah.
Image1
Their response states that some of the content of the advertorial was found to be misleading and seemed to be targeted at the general public who are largely uninformed about lightning protection matters. It is a well known fact that people are terrified of lightning, especially when it strikes very close to them.

The article calls the advertorial an attempt to defend and promote the ESE air terminals (i.e. lightning rods) which have already been scientifically discredited and regarded as dangerous to public safety more than a decade ago. They believe that the government should stop the sales of ESE air terminals by vendors and their proponents, who knowingly expose people to lightning by promoting, recommending and/or selling their safety challenged air terminals. This danger was highlighted again in a warning issued by the International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP) in 2005.

Their article addresses some of the misleading statements and claims made in the advertorial and also highlights some of the recent and past failures of the ESE air terminals that have not been reported before.

Complete article: ESE - THE DEVICE FOR A MODERN ANSWER TO LIGHTNING PROTECTION?
Authors: Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah
E-mail: zahartono@gmail.com ; hartono@pc.jaring.my

Related article: International Conference on Lightning Protection Warning Message

 

Click here to post a comment
[ View More Newsletters ] [ Send to a Friend ] [ Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]

Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

Experiencing a Problem? Click Here

 
Comments
  • Marty, since you're in Reno, go talk with the PolyPhaser folks in Minden. They have good info on lightning protection in general and Early Streamer Emission (ESE) devices. In short, a Franklin Rod attempts to divert a strike to a seleced spot (the rod) which is in turn well is bonded to the earth. Lightning is fickle, but usually this works. An ESE device differs from a Franklin Rod in that the ESE allows a stream of ions to escape and neutralize the potential lightning strike so that the strike doesn't happen. If this is true, why does lightning stike them? Other than creating confusion by mixing terms, the article is a good one. James Mercier, P.E., JW

    James Mercier, P.E., JW

Reply to this comment
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter