Mike, the 'rebuttal' makes the same mistake as the ad, in that it assumes that I know and understand what they're talking about!

What I'd like to know is:

1) How does an ESE air terminal differ from an Franklin air terminal?

2) What are the differences in installation methods?

3) How can I tell the two systems apart?

Silly? Well, you're not going to persuade the consumer without a little "Lightning 101," in terms a 5th grader can understand!

I never heard of this system

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

The proprietary design of the ESE electrode has multiple sharp tips in multiple arrays on the electrode mast. The claim by ESE proponents is that Early Streamer Emission electrodes offer a larger radius of protection than the ordinary straight Franklin Electrodes (that’s Ben Franklin). The evidence clearly disputes this claim.

The only bias in this market is ESE vendors promoting their proprietary design that has not proven more effective than the ordinary straight electrode. They claim to provide a larger radius of protection and so can reduce the number of electrodes installed and thus justify the inflated cost of the electrodes. ESE vendors further reduce costs associated with cabling attached to the fewer number of installed electrodes.

If ESE vendors were to install their electrodes in the same geometric pattern as required in a Franklin terminal design they would likely achieve an equivalent level of protection. However, the total project cost due to the more expensive proprietary ESE electrode would not win competitive bids. This is the reason the advertorial resorts to distortions and half truths to justify an installation that is recognized as inadequate to the task. The spurious nature of lightning gives ESE proponents the cover to excuse ESE failures in real life incidents.

I have no financial interest in this argument, only a quest for truth. I admit it is possible that ESE electrodes might reduce the incidence of lightning strikes. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. However it is clear the ESE electrode design does not provide a larger radius of protection to justify reducing the number of electrodes in an installation. Money spent on the more expensive and proprietary ESE electrode is likely better spent on improving coverage or cabling in an ordinary Franklin terminal installation.

I can't comment on the effectiveness of this air terminal but I should note that researchers have been in disagreement about the effective radius and even if there is one (requires a direct strike). The Swedish study indicates that because of the electrical field of the leader there are varying effective radii, but no optimum design. Most of these studies almost ignore the grounding conductor size or earth resistance,which I find very difficult to understand. To date, there is no proven MOST effective air terminal/grounding design for lightning protection.

I am from Indonesia as Installer/contractor of ESE lightning air terminal:Until now I no have any problems of my installations (15 years) as long as the grounding is below than 1 Ohm