NO ROOM FOR

FRAUD IN UNIVERSITIES

A LETTER PUBLISHED IN A MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPER IN JULY 2010 SPARKED AN

EXCHANGE BETWEEN A UTM PROFESSOR AND A LIGHTNING PROTECTION ENGINEER CONCERNING THE PROFESSOR’S EARLY

STREAMER EMISSION (ESE) LIGHTNING ROD. [NOTE: THE PROFESSOR COMMERCIALISED HIS ESE LIGHTNING ROD IN

JANUARY 2011.]

Posted on 15 July 2010 - 05:43pm

EFFORTS by the Higher Education Ministry to attract excellent foreign post-graduate students andoffering them jobs as lecturers after graduation is a very good move. However, the ministry mustmonitor these foreign students, and their supervisors.

One recent case involved a foreign student who obtained his doctorate degree in engineering froma Malaysian public university even though his research project had been exposed as a fraud. Thestudent from a neighbouring country had been awarded a scholarship and was involved in thedevelopment of a lightning rod in 2004 that included the use of a laser device.

While the appearance of the lightning rod was new, its theory of operation was based on atechnology, known as the early streamer emission (ESE) technology, that had been discredited bywestern scientists 10 years earlier.

Although the nature of the laser device was not made public at the early stages of its development,it was finally exposed as a fraud by the student’s supervisor, a senior professor and director of aninstitute, when he was questioned about it by a lightning expert during a Lightning Location Seminarin Port Dickson in 2007. This was revealed in the post-seminar record made by the host, TNBResearch Sdn Bhd.

Before this exposure, the student had been involved with exhibiting the lightning rod with hissupervisor in Kuala Lumpur, Germany and Switzerland. The lightning rod won several gold andbronze medals at these exhibitions because the foreign and local judges were not experts inlightning protection and were not aware of the discredited status of the ESE technology or the truenature of the laser device.

Although the invention had been publicly exposed as a scientific fraud, the supervisor and thestudent were never disciplined by the university authorities, by the Higher Education Ministry or bythe Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry which funded the project.

The student managed to get his doctoral degree in engineering from the university but his thesiswas not posted on the university’s website like other doctoral theses.

The student was recently recruited by the university as a senior lecturer and posted to the sameinstitute where he had conducted his research.

Although it is commendable that the Higher Education Ministry attracts talented foreign students withscholarships and qualified foreign lecturers with teaching assignments in local institutes, it shouldreject students shown to be dishonest and lacking in intellectual capacity. It should also rejectforeign lecturers who had obtained their doctoral degrees through dubious means.

If this country is to become a magnet for foreign post-graduate students, then the ministry shouldensure that there is no hanky-panky research in our public universities and that our post-graduatesupervisors are people of high academic standing and integrity. It should also investigate theuniversity’s top management who allowed these dubious activities.

Otherwise our universities may just become degree mills that churn out dubious masters anddoctorate degrees to the gullible public.

ZaharKuala Lumpur

Today's Most Viewed

Ling trial: Letter to Dr M failed to follow VPSDvaluation

MCA: Tee Keat and Ka Chuan did not makecandidate list?

Pakatan Rakyat: Permanent residents onelectoral roll

Honeymoon over, Yingluck treads Thaipolitical tightrope

Police hunt result in a syabu-filled tiger headand dried fish

Download FREE E-paper

Local World Business Sports Lifestyle Columns theSun Says Media & Marketing Fashion & Beauty Photos Community

Home About Us Follow Us RSS Login Register free account SearchAugust 4, 2011

No room for fraud in universities | theSundaily http://www.thesundaily.my/news/letters/no-room-fraud-universities

1 of 2 8/4/2011 3:26 PM

1

Response to Prof. Dr. Hussein’s article: “HARTONO’S MISSION”

By Z. A. Hartono & I. Robiah

Senior Members IEEE Phone: 6012-3059971

E-mail: zahartono@gmail.com

1) INTRODUCTION This paper was written in response to the article “Hartono’s Mission” which

was written and sent by Prof. Dr. Hussein Ahmad of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, his deputy, several other Members of Parliament and professional bodies via e-mail on 18th October 2010. Dr. Hussein’s e-mail and original article are attached at the end of this paper.

Dr. Hussein’s article (which did not include his name, affiliation and date) seemed to be in response to a letter written in the news media by Zahar which cautioned the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) to be aware of fraudulent research undertaken by local academics and foreign scholars who are working against the interest of this nation.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/letters/no-room-fraud-universities

(Click this to download)

2) RESPONSE TO DR. HUSSEIN’S ARTICLE “HARTONO’S MISSION” Dr. Hussein: 1) The first claim by the writer that the research is a fraud is baseless and highly regrettable. The research, which was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) on the topic ‘Study on the Early Streamer Emission Mechanism Aided by Laser Ionization’ Reference no: 02-02-06-1-57 EAR had undergone stringent monitoring and reporting right from its inception until completion. The research team and panel of evaluators at every stage of the study consisted of engineers and scientists renowned in their discipline. Questioning their expert judgement is tantamount to undermining their intellectual capacity, academic faculty and credibility.

We are indeed questioning the “expert judgement” of the research team and panel of evaluators since their expertise may not be in the field of lightning air terminal (i.e. lightning rod) technology or in lightning protection at all. As engineers and scientists, their judgment must be based on sound scientific principles that have been published and not on hearsay.

The basis of the early streamer emission (ESE) lightning protection technology is the claimed velocity (V) of the streamer, a faint electrical discharge emitted by objects on the ground in response to the approaching down leader, a precursor of the

2

lightning return stroke (i.e. flash). The ESE vendors had claimed that V has an assumed constant value of 1x106ms-1 i.e. one million metres per second. This figure is usually found (in small print) in the ESE product marketing brochures and no scientific reason has been given for this value in the past 20+ years.

The scientific community rejected the claimed value of V since this figure is not supported by published papers on natural or laboratory observations of streamers. The initial value for V in published scientific literature is between 4x104ms-1 to 2x105ms-1 i.e. at least ten times lower than the figure used by the ESE vendors.

The value ∆T gives the time advantage of the “early” streamer. Its value of between 50 to 100 microseconds is accepted by both ESE vendors and the scientific community since it has been demonstrated in some laboratory experiments.

When applied in the formula ∆L = V x ∆T, i.e. Distance (∆L) = velocity (V) x time advantage (∆T), the claimed protection radius of the ESE air terminal is between 50 to 100 metres. That is why most ESE vendors usually sell one ESE air terminal to “protect” one large building by installing it at the center of the roof (Fig. 1).

However, the scientific community rejected this claimed protection zone because it has no scientific basis since the value of V applied by the ESE vendors is just hearsay. According to them, the protection radius (if any) should be between 5 to 10 metres only which is insufficient to protect even a typical bungalow.

Fig. 1: Comparison between claimed and real protection zones

Since 1995, technical and standards organization like CIGRE, IEC and NFPA have rejected the ESE technology for this reason. They have mentioned the streamer velocity issue several times in scientific publications and standards meetings, some of which can be found in books and journals in the UTM and SIRIM library. We obtained a copy of the minutes from the same library since our contribution to the IEC meeting was recorded in the minutes. The copy of the 1995 CIGRE statement that can be found

ESE air terminal

ESE claimed protection zone

Real protection zone (if any)

Large building

3

in the SIRIM library is also attached at the end of this document (if it has not been removed by ESE proponents).

A widely read paper published in 2002 by the University of Florida, which is renowned for lightning research, also highlighted the ESE streamer velocity problem. Hence, Dr. Hussein cannot claim that he is unaware of this matter if he considers himself an expert on lightning protection.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Uman_Rakov.pdf

What MOSTI and MOHE should do now is to question the research team and the panel of evaluators and see if any of them have found firm scientific evidence that the scientifically recognized value of V is the same as that claimed by the ESE vendors. Just who among the “engineers and scientists renowned in their discipline” is willing to step forward and say that they have found this evidence? Will Dr. Hussein himself make the claim if the others will not?

If there is no new value of V, then the research conducted by Dr. Hussein and his research team is based on the old value which they already knew have no scientific basis. Then their research is just to duplicate those already conducted by the ESE “scientists” a decade earlier with the objective of misleading the government and the public. Hence this is clearly a case of fraud, which was committed by the UTM research team and “assisted” by the panel of evaluators.

Dr. Hussein: It should also be noted that in the world of lightning protection, both categories of conventional and non-conventional methods are applicable.

This statement is unacceptable and held only by the ESE vendors and their proponents like Dr. Hussein. Engineering is based on standards and sound scientific principles for public safety. If the Malaysian lightning protection standard (MS-IEC62305), like other national and international standards, does not recognize the ESE technology, then engineers must comply with it and not make silly excuses to introduce other non-scientific technologies.

Since France is a part of the EU, they already have a conventional lightning protection standard based on the EU standard (CENELEC). The French ESE vendors knew that their product was not in compliance with the CENELEC standard, hence they came up with their own standard, NF C 17-102. This “standard” was formulated by ESE “scientists” themselves and was not subjected to independent scientific scrutiny like other national and international standards.

Unfortunately, industry groupings in France, like the ESE vendor association, can come up with their own standard and this will be recognized by some local technical agencies even though it clashed with the CENELEC standard. Having made their own standard themselves, the French ESE vendors went around the world and informs unsuspecting clients that their product complied with the “French ESE standard”. This is a deception.

Similarly in Australia, the former Australian lightning protection standard (AS1768:1991) contained a new and untested method in its appendix which is called the collection volume method (CVM). The CVM was only used for installing the

4

Dynasphere ESE air terminal. Since the CVM was classified as “information only”, it should not be applied to real protection systems but the ESE vendor informed unsuspecting clients that the CVM is “in the Australian standard” thus giving the impression that it is a valid method. This is another similar deception.

The ESE technology is popular in this country because it is accepted by mostly unsuspecting clients (architects, engineers, general public) who were unaware of the above deception. Unlike in the western countries, the ESE vendors here were able to easily deceive the government and the public since 1995 because they were assisted by Dr. Hussein and his colleagues at UTM.

In 2000, Dr. Hussein and the ESE vendors in the SIRIM lightning protection working group proposed to include the ESE standard and CVM method in the revised Malaysian lightning protection standard. Fortunately, SIRIM rejected the proposal by Dr. Hussein when the SIRIM president and technical committee were informed about the ESE scam (by us). Since then, SIRIM have adopted the IEC standard to replace the old standard.

Dr. Hussein: It should be highlighted that research in lightning protection is still of relevance and has potential. This is due to the fact that the conventional Franklin Rod is still subject to weaknesses such as corrosion and lacking the capturing power of lightning ‘leaders’. To pass criticisms of the validity of research studies using non-conventional methods is not justified as the studies done have contributed significantly to the field of lightning protection although still challenged by the conventional method ‘school of thought’.

We agree that research in lightning protection is still relevant since this is being carried out around the world. However, the research must be on some new scientific principles and not based on principles that have already been disproved.

If corrosion is an issue, then all Franklin rods can be made out of stainless steel like the ESE rods. Stainless steel Franklin rods have already been marketed by some western vendors. Hence local manufacturers of Franklin rods should make them too at a cheaper cost than western producers.

As for “lacking the capturing power of lightning leaders”, this is utterly nonsense since the Franklin rod is a passive device i.e. it does not attract lightning. Like an ordinary member of the public, Dr. Hussein still believes that a lightning rod should attract lightning since he wrote about this twice in his 1998 book, “Kilat dan Perlindungan”. That is why he and many of his students and fellow lecturers are in favour of the ESE technology where the air terminal can “attract” lightning.

In the last 15 years since the ESE technology was rejected by international lightning scientists and standards bodies, there is not a single independent study done that can positively show that the ESE technology is viable. If there was, can Dr. Hussein identify the papers that were published?

The research done by Dr. Hussein and his colleagues on the subject of air terminals have not contributed anything new as he claimed since they were published in journals where there were no relevant experts to evaluate them. If he was serious about his research, he should have published those papers at the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility or IEEE Power and Energy societies where there are experts ready to

5

evaluate the research and give it credibility. After all Dr. Hussein had submitted other papers to the IEEE, so why the difference this time? Was he afraid that they will be rejected if evaluated by real lightning experts?

Dr. Hussein: 2) The second accusation that the theory of operation in the development of lightning rod using the technology known as the Early Streamer Emission (ESE) had been discredited by western scientists 10 years earlier is highly debatable. This is because the western scientists are divided into two ‘schools of thought’ when it comes to lightning protection; one which is the proponent of ESE, while the other the proponent of the conventional Franklin Rod. As such, the two opposing teams are in constant debate and dispute, which is part and parcel of a vibrant academic discourse. However, studies in lightning protection should not only be confined to the conventional method (200-year technology)

Again this is non-sense. The ESE technology had been thoroughly debated and rejected twice by international lightning scientists, the first by CIGRE/IEC/NFPA in 1995 and the second by the NFPA in 2000. The debate and rejection were well documented and have been posted on-line and Dr. Hussein knows this. However, he and the ESE proponents would want the public to believe that the debate is still on-going to give the illusion that the ESE technology is still viable. This is a deception.

The two “schools of thought” hypothesis was invented by the ESE “scientists” in order to create an illusion of an intellectual debate. In reality, the “pro-ESE school” consisted of ESE inventors who are mainly in industry or academics who have commercial interests in their inventions. Dr. Hussein belonged in the “pro-ESE school” since he has commercial interest in his ESE invention, the LAT.

The scientists in the “anti-ESE school” belonged to universities and most have no commercial interest in the conventional Franklin rod or a competing technology. They are mainly professors and researchers with a long history of distinguished research in lightning and lightning protection.

The ESE “scientists” always highlighted the fact that the conventional method of lightning protection is more than 200 years old (and cannot provide 100% safety). This is one way of saying that the ESE technology is modern and more reliable. However, numerous failures have been recorded worldwide since the technology was applied in the last 20 years.

Dr. Hussein: 3) The claim that the nature of the laser device used was a fraud when the issue was raised during the Lightning Location Seminar in Port Dickson in 2007is unfounded. What the researchers under question have done involving the use of laser device in lightning protection relates to contributions in two areas. One was the finding by Mr Kwan Ghee Sin, which was presented at a seminar on Laser and Electro-Optics on 28 – 29 June 2006. Another contribution was by Muhammad Abu Bakar Sidik who published his findings in the International Review of Electrical Engineering Journal, Praise Worthy Prize Publishing, Jan – Feb 2008 (Scopus Ranking Journal). The writer of the letter, ZAHAR(Hartono Zainal Abidin), raised the issue about a lightning expert who questioned the invention research outputs of the study done by Kwan Ghee Sin. Kwan’s project was for concept proving and the test was conducted in the High Voltage Laboratory using laser device of low power. Nevertheless, results shown by Kwan’s research were very encouraging. There was a trend showing that by using a laser gun, the capturing of lightning of the air terminal improved.

6

Both Kwan and Muhammad were postgraduate students and co-authors of the papers with Dr. Hussein. Both papers were submitted to and accepted by organizations that have no relevant expertise on lightning protection, hence the claimed efficiency of the laser device is yet unproven in spite of Dr. Hussein’s claim.

Furthermore, the experiment by Kwan using the laser pointer had the beam pointed to the tip of the air terminal to create an “ionized path” that he and Dr. Hussein claimed can “attract” high voltage discharges to it. The experiment involved separation distances between the source (HVDC supply) and tips (lightning rods) that were mere centimeters long (Fig.2).

On the other hand, the LAT which was co-invented by Muhammad had the beam pointed vertically up (into the cloud) that he and Dr. Hussein claimed can “attract” lightning discharges (Fig. 3). This involved a distance of several kilometers since the lightning is developed deep within the cloud. Dr. Hussein and Muhammad were extrapolating the results of Kwan’s experiment to justify the invention of the LAT.

Fig. 2: Kwan’s experimental set-up.

Fig. 3: Muhammad’s LAT project set-up.

7

In addition, western scientists used high powered terawatt (1x1012) lasers to try to induce a lightning discharge in the clouds but Dr. Hussein had admitted that he used the low powered nanowatt (1x10-9) laser pointer. This extremely large power difference between the two laser systems, 1 followed by 21 zeros, is too large for Dr. Hussein to convince any lightning expert about his invention.

This fraud was revealed when Dr. Hussein was queried by Dr. AC Liew of the National University of Singapore on the nature of the laser device during the Port Dickson seminar. No expertise is actually required to know the large physical (size) difference between the terawatt laser and the laser pointer if one has read something about laser experiments on lightning discharges.

In fact, before the fraud was exposed by Dr. Liew, we had already questioned the validity of this invention in a paper published by the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM). We suspected that the palm-sized laser device was a laser pointer but Muhammad refused to answer us when he was questioned about it, citing research confidentiality.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/ACEM_Journal_Q1_2007.pdf

We were also puzzled as to why other local professors did not query Dr. Hussein about his invention when it was exhibited locally since some of them were known to have expertise (or at least have written) on laser-lightning experiments in journals. If we could see the anomaly, why didn’t they? Was there a conspiracy of silence among academics as far as fraudulent research is concerned?

Furthermore, since the late 1990s, western scientists have rejected all tests on lightning air terminals using high voltage equipment because the characteristics of lightning and laboratory discharges are very different and the data have been abused by the ESE “scientists” to mislead the public. An example of this is the display of pictures of the ESE air terminals being struck by high voltage discharges in marketing brochures.

Dr. Hussein knew that laboratory tests on lightning air terminals have already lost their relevance but he chose to ignore this fact so that he can conduct the tests and use them in his reports to mislead the panel of evaluators (and government). This can be clearly seen in his 2007 report about the ESE air terminal that he invented and which he successfully misled the panel of evaluators who are “renowned in their discipline”.

Dr. Hussein: It is worth noting that the lightning expert mentioned by ZAHAR is currently promoting an ESE device in Malaysia and Singapore, which is a non-conventional lightning protector known as Semiconductor Lightning Eliminator (SLE). Many of PETRONAS chemical plants and oil refineries are installed with SLE and the cost is exorbitant. The writer himself personally condemned SLE as evident in his email sent to LightningProtection@yahoogroups.com. Prof. A C Liew, who is the promoter of SLE (ESE type) was being referred by ZAHAR, who at the same time condemned the UTM research and PhD graduates involved in non-conventional lightning Research. ZAHAR’s inconsistency in opinion reflects his lack of credibility in judgement on the issue raised.

The SLE device is not an ESE device as claimed by Dr. Hussein since it operates on a different non-conventional technology. It is surprising that he still could not differentiate this technology after all these years. There is no inconsistency in our

8

opinion as claimed by Dr. Hussein since we have already opposed the SLE technology in several local seminar and conference publications since 2003. Dr. Hussein knew this since he had read the report that we sent to the PM in 2003 which contained our opposition to the SLE technology.

Unlike Dr. Hussein, Dr. Liew opposed the ESE technology while he headed the Singapore lightning protection working group in 1996 i.e. before the SLE technology was introduced in this region. His continued opposition to the ESE technology is commendable but his support for the SLE is not.

With regards to the SLE technology which has been applied at several Petronas plants, we have already pointed out the data errors generated by the system’s lightning counters to the supplier and the project engineer during a seminar. Most of the Petronas engineers have realized that the claims made by the SLE suppliers and the project engineer were false and that the device is nothing more than an exorbitantly priced “bunga manggar” with no extra-ordinary protection ability like the ESE technology.

Furthermore, had the project engineer understood the standards properly, then Petronas need not have spent millions of Ringgit on the SLE since robust metal structures do not require direct strike protection but good grounding only.

Dr. Hussein: The next issue put forth by the writer which raise doubts as to the recognition received by the student and the supervisor through various accolades won in prestigious exhibitions and competitions locally and internationally shows a blatant accusation and unfounded judgement made by the writer. The writer openly condemned the foreign and local judges saying they were not experts in lightning protection and were not aware of the discredited status of ESE technology or the true nature of the laser device. Is the writer questioning the credibility of the judges who are highly reputable and experts in their field in events of international standing such as in IENA 2006, Nuremberg and in MTE in Geneva 2007? Has the writer been to UTM’s High Voltage laboratory to see for himself the HV facilities provided by the government which is deemed sophisticated and of international standard?

Yes, we are questioning the credibility of the judges. It seems that Dr. Hussein is claiming that the judges were experts in lightning protection and hence he is trying to transfer the blame onto them for giving him the gold medals rather than him misleading them with his unproven claims. Can he prove that these judges were experts in lightning protection?

MOSTI and MOHE can verify this matter by finding out the identities of the local judges who awarded the gold medal to Dr. Hussein at the MTE2007 exhibition in KL (not in Geneva as claimed). The event organizer, Protemp, and UTM should have the official records and pictures of the event held just three years ago. Are those judges really experts on lightning protection as Dr. Hussein claimed and do they know that the ESE technology has been discredited then? Do they really believe in Dr. Hussein’s claim that his laser device can attract lightning to his air terminal, the LAT?

I have not been inside UTM’s high voltage laboratory but have seen pictures of their equipment from their website and those taken by their students and posted on their social webpages. However, I have been inside other similar laboratories in the country and in foreign countries too. Even if the laboratory is sophisticated and of international standard, it is only as good as the people who use them honestly.

9

Dr. Hussein: What is obvious is the writer’s unwillingness to accept the fact that innovation and continuous improvement of the conventional method of lightning protection is necessary. Research in lightning protection in UTM or anywhere else is still relevant and valid.

This must be the most ridiculous comment made by Dr. Hussein. He knew that we had developed a new conventional air terminal placement method in 1995 since he was the chairman of the conference where we presented our paper, but he had repeatedly rejected our innovative ideas since then. Did he fail to understand our ideas or was he motivated by the ESE vendors to ignore them?

The method we developed had been taken up by an Australian lightning expert in 1998 after Dr. Hussein refused to include us in his SIRIM working group. After it was subjected to analysis by lightning experts in Australia and IEC, the method was included in the Australian and IEC lightning protection standard, making it the first method to originate from a non-western country in 200 years and now used worldwide.

Even after the method has been included in the new Malaysian-IEC standard in 2007, Dr. Hussein still refused to recognize it simply because it is based on the conventional method that he condemned in his book and because it was discovered by locals. So who is Dr. Hussein referring to in his statement except himself?

The ESE principle is invalid for the past 15 years after it was rejected, hence any research based on that very same principle by UTM researchers is logically irrelevant and invalid too. Does anyone need a course on logic to work out this answer?

Dr. Hussein: Another issue raised is the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the supervisor and his student despite the fact that the invention was declared as a scientific fraud. With regard to this, it is worth mentioning that the writer had lodged a number complaints before this on the same issue. This was sent to two former Prime Ministers …... The questions raised related to this issue concerning the non- conventional method of lightning protection and about the research done in IVAT (Institute of High Voltage and Current) have been answered before and found to be valid and justified. The main aim of the research in question is to contribute to knowledge in the area of lightning protection. Thus the claim made that no disciplinary action was taken does not apply as the issue has been resolved earlier.

It is true that the complaints have been raised with the two former PMs and other ministries before. However, being non-experts, the staff at these ministries were unable to decide on the complaints and hence had no choice but to send them to the handful of MOSTI registered lightning experts i.e. Dr. Hussein and his colleagues at UTM. He and/or his colleagues were believed to be behind the rejection of our complaints by the PM’s Science Adviser who replied that the ESE technology is viable and posed no danger to the public.

[In 2005, the International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP) declared that the non-conventional lightning protection technology is dangerous to the public. Ironically, we had made the same declaration in our 1995 paper too which was given to the PM and MOSTI at that time.]

10

If the complaint was sent elsewhere for evaluation, then those “experts” who had evaluated our complaints must be made accountable for their “expert opinion”. If they had gone beyond their capability to answer to the PM or Minister, then it is another serious case of fraud committed by them and should be investigated as well.

Unfortunately, MOSTI and MOHE did not allow us to have a copy of the answers given by Dr. Hussein which he claimed to be “valid and justified”. It seems to be a one sided answer where Dr. Hussein and/or his colleagues had the golden opportunity to mislead the PM, MOHE and MOSTI about the ESE, just like he misled the judges in the exhibitions and attempted to mislead SIRIM during the 2000 lightning protection standards review. No wonder he got away with it every time.

Dr. Hussein: The last issue highlighted by the writer is the need for the government to reject students shown to be dishonest and lacking in intellectual capacity. The government should also reject lectures who had obtained their doctoral degrees through dubious means. This should be the practice definitely, but the PhD research in question had been done professionally and has fulfilled proper academic procedures. In the context of UTM, the process involved in awarding a Master or PhD by research is a stringent and rigorous exercise to ensure quality and validity of the degree awarded. The process fulfils the requirements set by MQA with a rigid procedure in place including the engagement of external examiners who are experts in the field and fully qualified for the task.

We have several examples from his institute and faculty to show that the post graduate degrees were awarded under dubious conditions. Two are shown here:

a) Masters degree awarded to Ngu Eng Eng in 2004.

Ms Ngu did a thesis on the ESE technology under Prof. Dr. Ahmad Darus and she “proved” that the technology was correct. However, unlike other theses which were posted on-line soon after they were published, her thesis was not posted until three years later in 2007, citing “confidentiality” matters with an ESE vendor.

Dr. Ahmad is not known to have conducted any research on lightning protection nor published any paper on the subject; hence he seemed to have no expertise in this subject and should not have supervised her research (for ethical reasons). So who actually supervised her research? Was it Dr. Hussein or an ESE vendor? Ngu’s thesis were unsigned by her supervisor.

Ngu’s “proof” was actually based on the lightning strike counter devices that she applied to an ESE air terminal and a Franklin rod. She claimed that the ESE technology had been “proven” because the lightning counter attached to the ESE rod registered a higher reading (2) than the one attached to the Franklin rod (0). However, it is already common knowledge by then that these commercially made counters were very inaccurate and should not have been used as a scientific measuring device.

Although several of the ESE-protected buildings in the UTM Skudai campus have been struck and damaged by lightning and could easily be seen, she did not include them and had instead mentioned of cases outside the campus where no damages were detected on ESE- protected buildings. This is a case of selective data collection (cherry picking) and another clear cut case of fraudulent research that had resulted in a

11

Masters degree being awarded. Hence this research seemed to have been designed to mislead the government and the public about the ESE technology.

[Note: Before her thesis was posted, we thought she was involved with another research done on the Dynasphere air terminals where the data was huge and used by the ESE vendor in Australia. However, the actual field research done by her was worse than we thought since it only involved two air terminals.]

b) Doctoral degree awarded to Muhammad AB Sidik in 2007/8

Muhammad’s doctoral thesis was based on the fraudulent ESE air terminal, LAT, invented in 2004. The fraud was exposed in 2007, the same year that he completed the PhD course and hence he could not change the subject. While some PhD theses had been posted on-line at UTM’s website soon after publication, his thesis has still not been posted two years after his graduation when we checked the website earlier this year.

Is there a need to keep his thesis a secret after an unpublished report on the invention had been posted? Who were the “external experts” that confirmed the validity of the research and were they aware about the fraud exposed by Dr. Liew? Does UTM fear that his thesis will be exposed as a fraud if read by other experts?

The MOSTI, MOHE and MQA should investigate this matter since Muhammad’s doctoral degree was based on a fraudulent research and he is now employed as a lecturer at UTM. We have enough problems with local academics misleading the government and the public on the issue of the ESE technology, now it seems that they are being assisted by foreign ones too since Muhammad is from a neighbouring country.

Dr. Hussein: Questioning the credibility of the academic faculty of a university which has a reputable standing and has made a strong impact to the nation since 1904 in churning professionals in the field of science, technology and engineering is a serious indictment.

The engineering faculty at UTM may have a long and distinguished history but the high voltage institute (IVAT) seems to be relatively recent and involved in questionable activities for the past 15 years. We are questioning the credibility of IVAT rather than the university. However, we are also going to question the credibility of the faculty and the top management too since they (current and former Deans, VCs) are aware of this fraud for more than a decade and seemed to have covered up the problem to the detriment of public safety.

3) SUMMARY In our response/rebuttal to Dr Hussein’s article, we have highlighted that

• His research on the ESE technology is fraudulent since the basis of the technology, the speed of the streamer, is unproven.

• He had used similar arguments that have been used by the ESE vendors to justify his reasons.

12

• He had also attempted to revive the ESE technology as “debatable” when the debate is already over in the western world for nearly a decade.

• He had used a simple laser pointer in his invention when others had used larger and more powerful lasers in their experiment.

• He had won medals in invention exhibitions because the judges were not experts in the matter and were unaware of the fraud involved.

• He had escaped disciplinary action for his fraudulent activities because he and/or his colleagues may have been involved in the investigation or else those without the relevant expertise may have undertaken the investigation.

• The doctoral degree awarded to his student was based on the fraudulent research and invention conducted since 2004.

We have been opposing the sale and use of the ESE and other non-conventional lightning protection technologies since 1991 when we photographed the massive lightning caused damages to the roof of the Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad in Jalan Sultan Ismail.

We raised this issue in The Star newspaper, “Dubious devices that found their way here”, on June 23, 1993 to warn about this new technology which posed a danger to the public.

13

We initially regarded Dr. Hussein’s opposition to our work as just a mere nuisance when he criticized our photographs during a lightning seminar in 1993 and a technical conference in 1995. However, we realized that he and his team had become a danger to society when he had joined forces with the ESE vendors to include the non-conventional systems into the new Malaysian standard. To do this, he and the ESE vendors had prevented us from participating in the SIRIM lightning protection working group in 1998 when he knew that SIRIM had invited us to join the working group in 1995 after they attended our lecture in the conference.

There was no intellectual thrust on the ESE technology by Dr. Hussein during the working group stage, only profit making by the ESE vendors and their proponents. We again highlighted this fact in The New Straits Time on 5th April 2001 after stopping Dr. Hussein and his working group from including the ESE in the standard.

14

After Dr. Hussein and his colleagues failed to get the ESE technology into the Malaysian standard, they tried other means to prevent the government from heeding our advice to ban the technology. These included conducting research on the ESE technology in 2002 and then inventing an ESE terminal with a laser in 2004 to give the illusion that the technology was viable when it is not. With the basis of the ESE technology still being unfounded, the research and invention was nothing but a fraud.

With the management of UTM apparently behind them since 2000 and supported by other agencies that are sympathetic towards the university, Dr. Hussein and his colleagues managed to escape being scrutinized in detail about their research and invention. The lack of expertise among other academics on this subject worked in their favour also.

With the facts now laid bare in the preceding pages, the MOSTI, MOHE and other relevant agencies responsible for public safety (eg. BEM, IEM, FOMCA etc.) should re-open the case of fraud against Dr. Hussein and his colleagues and get down to the bottom of the matter. As long as they are regarded as experts in lightning protection when the facts show that they are not, the ESE vendors will continue to sing all the way to the bank while more Malaysians will end up living, working and studying under ESE air terminals that provide little protection against direct lightning strikes.

We would like to suggest that a Royal Commission be formed to investigate this matter thoroughly since the victims also include members of the royalty. Many of the royal palaces around the country were also installed with the ESE technology. The Royal Commission will hopefully overcome the present problems where public agencies and prominent persons were involved in the past investigations.

In the meantime, those interested to read more about the dubious performance of the ESE technology can read some of recent articles that have been posted on lightning safety websites locally and around the world: http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com/documents/Putrajaya%20minaret%20incident.pdf

http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com/documents/Sigolsheim+bell+tower+incident_rev1.pdf

http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters.php?action=display&letterID=823

http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com/documents/acem_air_terminals.pdf

http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com/documents/streamer_emission.pdf

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/misconceptions-about-lightning.pdf

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/early-streamer-emission.pdf

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/ACEM_Journal_Q1_2007.pdf

Thank you.

Hartono & Robiah

22.10 2010

Quota Usage: 173.40MB/200.00MB (86.70%) 0% 100%

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:12:04 +0800

From: hussein ahmad <hussein@fke.utm.my>

To: abdullatiff@moh.gov.my, husni@treasury.gov.my, rhclau@kpkt.gov.my, chkong@treasury.gov.my,abuseman@mod.gov.my, ksyong@kkr.gov.my, chor@moha.gov.my, wee.kasiong@moe.gov.my,jelaing@kpdnhep.gov.my, fadillah@mosti.gov.my, idrisharon@mohe.gov.my, houkcg@mohe.gov.my,hamzah@kpkt.gov.my, hanan@mosti.gov.my, hartono@pc.jaring.my

Subject: Hartono's Mission

Part(s): 2 RESPONSE TO THE LETTER.doc application/msword 49.95 KB

1.2 unnamed text/html 0.51 KB

Dear Sir

Please find the attachment for your perusal and information.

--Yours sincerely

Hussein Bin Ahmad, Ph.D., MIEEE Prof. / . Dir.UTM Institute of High Voltage & High Current (IVAT)Universiti Teknologi Malaysia81310 Johor Bahru, Johor

Tel. +(6) 07-5535860/35452Fax. +(6) 07-5578150e-mail: hussein@fke.utm.mywebsite: ivat.com.my

JARING Webmail :: INBOX: Hartono's Mission http://webmail.jaring.my/jaring/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mail...

1 of 1 10/21/2010 5:48 PM

HARTONO’s MISSION

1. The first claim by the writer that the research is a fraud is baseless and highly regrettable. The research, which was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation on the topic ‘Study on the Early Streamer Emission Mechanism Aided by Laser Ionization’ Reference no: 02-02-06-1-57 EAR had undergone stringent monitoring and reporting right from its inception until completion. The research team and panel of evaluators at every stage of the study consisted of engineers and scientists renowned in their discipline. Questioning their expert judgement is tantamount to undermining their intellectual capacity, academic faculty and credibility.

It should also be noted that in the world of lightning protection, both categories of conventional and non-conventional methods are applicable. Of course, the 200-year old Franklin Rod, which is the conventional method of lightning protection, has gained compliance recognition for protection of building structures by IEC, BS and others. Nevertheless, there are many existing non-conventional lightning air terminals which have been patented by many inventors and currently in use on a wide scale. In Malaysia for instance, most of the government buildings in Putrajaya are equipped with the non-conventional lightning air terminal.

It should be highlighted that research in lightning protection is still of relevance and has potential. This is due to the fact that the conventional Franklin Rod is still subject to weaknesses such as corrosion and lacking the capturing power of lightning ‘leaders’. To pass criticisms of the validity of research studies using non-conventional methods is not justified as the studies done have contributed significantly to the field of lightning protection although still challenged by the conventional method ‘school of thought’.

2. The second accusation that the theory of operation in the development of lightning rod using the technology known as the Early Streamer Emission (ESE) had been discredited by western scientists 10 years earlier is highly debatable. This is because the western scientists are divided into two ‘schools of thought’ when it comes to lightning protection; one which is the proponent of ESE, while the other the proponent of the conventional Franklin Rod. As such, the two opposing teams are in constant debate and dispute, which is part and parcel of a vibrant academic discourse. However, studies in lightning protection should not only be confined to the conventional method(200-year technology)

3. The claim that the nature of the laser device used was a fraud when the issue was raised during the Lightning Location Seminar in Port Dickson in 2007is unfounded. What the researchers under question have done involving the use of laser device in lightning protection relates to contributions in two areas. One was the finding by Mr

Kwan Ghee Sin, which was presented at a seminar on Laser and Electro-Optics on 28 – 29 June 2006. Another contribution was by Muhammad Abu Bakar Sidik who published his findings in the International Review of Electrical Engineering Journal, Praise Worthy Prize Publishing, Jan – Feb 2008 (Scopus Ranking Journal). The writer of the letter, ZAHAR(Hartono Zainal Abidin), raised the issue about a lightning expert who questioned the invention research outputs of the study done by Kwan Ghee Sin. Kwan’s project was for concept proving and the test was conducted in the High Voltage Laboratory using laser device of low power. Nevertheless, results shown by Kwan’s research were very encouraging. There was a trend showing that by using a laser gun, the capturing of lightning of the air terminal improved.

It is worth noting that the lightning expert mentioned by ZAHAR is currently promoting an ESE device in Malaysia and Singapore, which is a non-conventional lightning protector known as Semiconductor Lightning Eliminator (SLE). Many of PETRONAS chemical plants and oil refineries are installed with SLE and the cost is exorbitant. The writer himself personally condemned SLE as evident in his email sent to LightningProtection@yahoogroups.com. Prof. A C Liew, who is the promoter of SLE (ESE type) was being referred by ZAHAR, who at the same time condemned the UTM research and PhD graduates involved in non-conventional lightning Research. ZAHAR’s inconsistency in opinion reflects his lack of credibility in judgement on the issue raised.

4. The next issue put forth by the writer which raise doubts as to the recognition received by the student and the supervisor through various accolades won in prestigious exhibitions and competitions locally and internationally shows a blatant accusation and unfounded judgement made by the writer. The writer openly condemned the foreign and local judges saying they were not experts in lightning protection and were not aware of the discredited status of ESE technology or the true nature of the laser device. Is the writer questioning the credibility of the judges who are highly reputable and experts in their field in events of international standing such as in IENA 2006, Nuremberg and in MTE in Geneva 2007? Has the writer been to UTM’s High Voltage laboratory to see for himself the HV facilities provided by the government which is deemed sophisticated and of international standard? What is obvious is the writer’s unwillingness to accept the fact that innovation and continuous improvement of the conventional method of lightning protection is necessary. Research in lightning protection in UTM or anywhere else is still relevant and valid.

5. Another issue raised is the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the supervisor and his student despite the fact that the invention was declared as a scientific fraud. With regard to this, it is worth mentioning that the writer had lodged a number complaints before this on the same issue. This was sent to two former Prime Ministers Tun Dr Mahathir and Tun Abdullah Badawi, former Minister of Education Tan Sri Musa, former Vice Chancellor of UTM, Tan Sri Prof Ir Zulkifli Bin Tan Sri Ghazali, and the current Vice Chancellor of UTM, Dato’ Prof Ir Zaini Ujang, including others of authority on this matter. The questions raised related to this issue concerning the non- conventional method of lightning protection and about the research done in IVAT (Institute of High Voltage and Current) have been answered before and found to be valid and justified. The main aim of the research in question is to contribute to knowledge in the area of lightning protection. Thus the claim made that no disciplinary action was taken does not apply as the issue has been resolved earlier.

6. The last issue highlighted by the writer is the need for the government to reject students shown to be dishonest and lacking in intellectual capacity. The government should also reject lectures who had obtained their doctoral degrees through dubious means. This should be the practice definitely, but the PhD research in question had been done professionally and has fulfilled proper academic procedures. In the context of UTM, the process involved in awarding a Master or PhD by research is a stringent and rigorous exercise to ensure quality and validity of the degree awarded. The process fulfils the requirements set by MQA with a rigid procedure in place including the engagement of external examiners who are experts in the field and fully qualified for the task. Questioning the credibility of the academic faculty of a university which has a reputable standing and has made a strong impact to the nation since 1904 in churning professionals in the field of science, technology and engineering is a serious indictment.