MR. HARTONO’S OVERLOOK OF CONVENTIONAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM’S FAILURES

[Coordinator]

MR. HARTONO’S OVERLOOK OF CONVENTIONAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM’S
FAILURES
(Posting in response to Mr. Hartono’s recent articles regarding Early
Streamer Emission lightning protection systems)

By Trang Bui (1) and Sylvain Fauveaux (2)
(1) International Lightning Protection Association (ILPA)
(2) Indelec S.A. (France), Lightning Protection


Any professional or anyone who have some knowledge about lightning
protection would know that there are two types of lightning protection
systems (LPS). One is the long existent conventional LPS including
Franklin rod and Meshed cage as far back as 200 years ago. The other
is more recently developed LPS including Early Streamer Emission
(ESE).

There are still many debates and disputes going on between the two
technologies. So far, none of the two is scientifically proved better
than the other. It is also not the intention of this paper to do that
job which should be left to researchers and professionals through
their works in the lab and real life experiments.

However, we would like to discuss about conventional supporters’
interesting take on the matter, for instance, Mr. Hartono, a
conventional LPS consultant in Malaysia. For years, he and his friends
have been going around Malaysia and taking pictures of ESE-protected
buildings being struck by lightning. He then would publish these
pictures in international conferences or local newspapers to underline
that these systems are not efficient.

Meanwhile, he purposely overlooks many bypasses of buildings using
conventional LPS.

It is a known fact that there is no 100% of lightning protection until
now, unless you fully cover a building with copper to create a closed
shield (which is not practical and environmental-friendly in real
life.). There is always a small risk of being struck by lighting
despite of a LPS being used.

Here are some failure examples of conventional systems, or in Mr.
Hartono’s words, the so-called more efficient LPS.

Figure 1: The Cathedral of Matagalpa, Nicaragua before and after a
bypass on 29th August 2010
Link: http://www.intlpa.org/images/Nicaragua.jpg


Figure 2: Bungalow in Damansara Idaman, Malaysia 29th November 2006
http://www.intlpa.org/images/damansara.jpg

Figure 3: Hilton Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia- – 30th May 2006
http://www.intlpa.org/images/Hilton.jpg


Conclusion: It is not our purpose to degrade conventional systems in
any way when we publish these pictures. Putting others down does not
raise you up, therefore, we will not pick up Mr Hartono’s method and
get in a childish debate. We only want to point out that it is
extremely easy to expose lightning incidents without any details
allowing the readers to have a complete picture of the site
conditions. A LPS is a complete package which should not only include
the specifications of the air terminal, but also its location, the
system design, the dimensions and number of down conductors, the
resistance of the earthing system and additional measures. Therefore,
the investigation of a LPS failure requires a lot more in-depth than
the premature accusation based on pictures of so-called mal-functioned
air-terminals.

While some “impartial” consultants out there put all of their efforts
in defaming the most recent products; modern manufacturers and their
teams of engineers are spending times to improve their technology to
minimize the risk of lightning to public safety and protect human’s
properties. Let the truth speak for itself and the statistic prove ESE
system’s efficiency.

October 2010.