Lightning Arrestor & Rods

GA

Don't forget your key!

Can you give us the name of your company? I'm sure that if there are any prospective purchasers of LA equipment on this forum, they would want to steer clear of your company's products.

Super Google to the rescue again

http://www.jmvlps.net/ese-lightning-arrester.html

http://www.indiamart.com/welcomeworldengineeringservices/ese-type-lightning-protection-suppliers-at-new-delhi.html

Here is link for further reading on subject

http://www.erico.com/products.asp?folderid=47&gclid=CMmhxdzzubkCFYWz3godsU0AVA

under the ESE system it says:

approved by French and spanish standards

under the conventional system, it says:

approved by US, Brits, Oz, and the IEC.

well, form you own conclusions as what ya wanna use!

:)

Anyone know a French building insurance company able to compare % ESE installations struck or destroyed by lightning per year with conventional in the same risk locations??

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_streamer_emission#Early_streamer_emission_.28ESE.29_theory

Looks controversial....................

Not only is it controversial it's not accepted science, from the IEEE in 2000:

"...Early streamer emission (ESE) lightning protection systems are a relatively new approach to the perennial problem of lightning damage, and these systems may hold promise for a more effective protection against lightning. However, the scientific and technical basis for this improved performance is far from certain and the efficacy of these technologies remains open to question..."

From the IEEE 11 years later:

"...Since their introduction more than two decades ago, the early streamer emission (ESE) air terminals have repeatedly failed to protect buildings from direct lightning strikes. Although they claimed to provide a large protection zone, most of the ESE equipped tall buildings have exhibited one or more bypasses (i.e. lightning induced damages). After more than two decades of observation, a growing number of buildings have exhibited bypasses that are in close proximity to the air terminals. These close proximity bypasses provide indisputable evidence that the ESE protection zone is just a figment of the ESE proponents' imagination..."

If you're not bored/convinced yet here's more scholarly/scientific evidence:

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/charge_transfer_opp.html

http://www.lightning-risk.org/pdfs/2000NFPAStandardsCouncilDecisiononESE.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1234489&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1234489

Are you happy, Happy??

Maybe can help.