Historical Account on Non-Conventional Lightning Protection Systems and Their Impacts on Developing Countries: With Special Attention to ESE Technology

ESE devices are marketed as superior because they claim to initiate an upward leader earlier than would occur under natural conditions. However, the scientific validity of their performance is highly controversial. Despite claims of larger protective radii, independent studies have consistently failed to demonstrate a significant advantage of ESE systems over conventional lightning rods. Key concerns about their effectiveness stem from the lack of reproducible field data, insufficient validation through high-voltage laboratory testing, and non-compliance with fundamental principles of lightning physics. In many developing countries, regulatory frameworks for lightning protection are often weak or nonexistent. As a result, ESE systems have been widely installed based on aggressive marketing rather than scientific credibility. This has led to significant economic losses due to ineffective protection, especially in critical sectors such as power distribution, and telecommunications. The misallocation of limited financial resources toward unverified technologies has also hampered the adoption of scientifically sound protection methods, worsening the damage caused by lightning. Furthermore, the ongoing promotion of ESE technology in these regions has eroded trust in national regulatory bodies and scientific institutions, as endusers eventually recognize the shortcomings of these systems. This paper critically examines the historical development of ESE lightning protection, the scientific arguments that refute its effectiveness, and its disproportionate impact on developing nations. The paper highlights cases where unconventional air termination systems have led innovators in developing countries to create unscientific lightning protection systems that are often unacceptably inadequate. Such devices often place public safety at a significantly high risk.