That indicator light only reports a type of failure that even MOV manufacturers define (in datasheets) as unacceptable - catastrophic. That light does not report an acceptable failure mode - degradation. Same applies to that myth about those plug-in protectors. In fact, Dr Mousa demonstrates damage because ESE devices are used. Nothing in that research demonstrated any ESE device as effective.īuilding codes use NFPA standards. Because direct lightning strikes were so frequent. In every case, no damage because lightning was harmlessly connected to and dissipated harmlessly in earth.īoth Westinghouse and General Electric used that ESB to perform much lightning research. Empire State Building suffers about 23 direct strikes annually. As a result, the number of strikes to a building are quite high. In every case, high rise building are protected by connecting lightning harmlessly to earth. I guess many electrical engineers that built high rise buildings in NYC fell for the "scam". The many times longer answers expose that scam and report reality. Then use terms such as 'babble' to justify a near zero grasp. The short and sweet answer promotes the scam. Not justified by any facts or responsible sources. ESE devices are promoted by the same soundbyte logic.
#He need some milk soundbyte how to#
Soundbyte tweets are for those who only understand how to be scammed. Those who know learn do long, tedious work of learning facts with numbers.
Those who know also ignore the short and sweet. In every case, that protection is only as effective as its earth ground. Neither lightning rod nor protector do protection. Protection of his appliances is provided by properly earth 'whole house' protection. Protection of the OP's structure is provided by properly earthed lightning rods. The fewer who actually know reality also say why with facts and numbers.
This is about the so many who all but beg to be deceived because they only want soundbyte (short and sweet) answers. Some ESE products are even made more dangerous by including internal radioactive materials.īut this not about ESE devices. More expensive ESE devices only do what conventional lightning rods do - connect a direct strike to earth. ESE industry exists by hyping speculation to those who only want 'short and sweet' answers. No research was discovered to justify ESE fables. If ESE manufacturers want their product respected, then do some research. That soundbyte says, "Given the absence of reliable evidence that those ESE terminals offer an increased zone of protection over that of conventional terminals it seems clear that a sound technical basis for proposed NFPA 781 has not been demonstrated." Anyone can read a 'short and sweet' (too many long pages) entitled “Report of Third-Party Independent Evaluation Panel on the Early Streamer Emission Lightning Protection Technology,”. When ESE devices were rejected, then Heary Bros filed a lawsuit to bankrupt (blackmail) the non-profit NFPA.
#He need some milk soundbyte code#
NFPA is the non-profit Association that defined the National Electrical Code for human safety. Heary Bros demanded ESE products be listed as NFPA 781. And so the famous story of an ESE manufacturer - the Heary Bros, et al. Reality requires paragraphs and pages with facts and numbers. An earlier version of this study had been submitted to the National Fire Protection Association in 1999 as part of a review on the efficacy f the ESE air terminal.ĮSE devices are recommended to the easily deceived who want short and sweet. The failure of the ESE air terminal to intercept nearby lightning strikes posed an unacceptable risk to public safety. He added that scientists in the United States, Australia and Europe have also found the claims by ESE manufacturers to be false and usage of ESEs have since been banned in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. In fact, he said when ESE devices were introduced in Malaysia in the late 1980s, many buildings in the Klang Valley was struck and damaged by lightning although some had installed the new ESE devices. "Manufacturers also claimed that the device can protect an area within a radius of 100m or more," he said.īut according to Hartono, several studies have shown that the protection is no better than ordinary lightning rods. Lightning expert Hartono Zainal Abidin said manufacturers claimed that the ESEs devices will emit an electrical discharge to respond to oncoming lighting bolts, provoking and triggering an early lightning flash and thus protecting the surrounding areas from being damaged by lightning. The Early Streamer Emission (ESE) device commonly seen on buildings, around sports fields and even at the Sepang GP spectator area may not live up to its promise of protection against lightning bolts.
0 kommentar(er)
