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.