Lightning Protection
Failure of the Collection Volume Method and
Attempts of the ESE Lightning Rod Industry to Resurrect It

ESE (Early Streamer Emission) lightning rods are claimed to have a much larger stroke collection range than that of Franklin rods, so that a single ESE device would be able to protect a whole building.  The economic viability of ESE devices rests on this claim as the cost of an ESE device is more than 100 times larger than that of a Franklin rod.  Independent lightning scientists have repeatedly stated that ESE theory is invalid.
 
Vendors' attempt to get NFPA to issue a standard for ESE devices failed after a decade-long dispute which involved court battles.  Since then, some vendors switched to using the CVM (Collection Volume Method) to justify their claim that a single air terminal can protect the whole building.  The CVM is an air terminal placement method that exaggerates the stroke collection range of an air terminal regardless of its type.  Hence it presumably also applies to Franklin rods but the vendors only apply it to ESE devices.

Vendors previously attempted to get the CVM in the lightning protection standards of Australia/New Zealand and NFPA (National Fire Protection Association of USA), but they failed.  The vendors have since targeted IEEE Standard 998 which deals with protecting substations against direct lightning strokes.  By controlling the voting process within Working Group (WG) D5 which is responsible for Standard 998, the vendors succeeded in getting the CVM in the draft standard. 

The attached paper by Dr. Abdul Mousa (Consultant, retired from BC Hydro) addresses the above issue and is directed to the Vice Chairman of the WG.  It is a new paper which shows the invalidity of the CVM, and is written in basic terms so that almost any person can understand: the contradictions between the CVM and field observations.

Click here to read the full article (314 KB)