These alternative air termination systems are a triumph of marketing over physics.
I'll quote what I can easily find on the net, you will find a lot more with a bit of digging.
These statements are quite reserved, but the meaning is clear - there is no evidence that there is any system that works to dissipate, preferentially attract or repel lightning. The only proven solution is an air terminal on every exposed corner, and a downconductor system to carry the strike to ground.
STATEMENT OF CIGRE TASK FORCE 33.01.03
“LIGHTNING INTERCEPTION”
• The components of the Task Force during the meeting held in Milano on May 18th 1995, have examined the problem related with the use of non conventional lightning air terminals (e.g. Early Streamer Emission).
• From the discussion it arise that up to now there is neither sufficient
theoretical analysis, nor substantial field data which support conclusive improvement in interception efficiency of these kinds of devices with respect to the conventional ones (metallic air terminals).
• Main technical reasons
– 1 – Even if a streamer from a non conventional active terminal can be launched at an earlier time than a streamer from a conventional air terminal, once launched, it will require the same conditions of field strength to propagate as for a leader from a conventional air terminal.
– 2 - The assumed constant velocity of 106 m/s for upward leader propagation is in
contrast with the field records which show an initial channel speed of about 0.04
to 0.2 106 m/s and it increases as the gap between the upward and downward
leaders diminishes.
CIGRE 95 SC 33 (WG 01) 17 IWD, 24th May 1995
• The members of the Working Group during the meeting held in South Africa on 23rd and 24th of May 1995, have examined the problems related to the use of non-conventional lightning air terminals (e.g. Early Streamer Emission, ESE, terminals).
• From the discussion it was concluded that up to now there is neither sufficient theoretical analysis nor substantial field data which support claims of significant improvement in interception efficiency of these kinds of devices, with respect to the conventional ones (metallic air terminals).
Furthermore, the theoretical basis for the Early Streamer Emission technology appears technically incorrect for the following reasons:
– 1 - Even if a streamer from a non-conventional terminal can be initiated at an earlier time than a streamer from a conventional air terminal, once initiated it will require the same field strength to propagate as a leader from a conventional terminal.
– 2 - The assumed constant velocity of 106 m/s for the upward leader propagation is in contradiction with the available data for both natural lightning and long laboratory sparks which show an average velocity of one order of magnitude lower.
• Therefore the early initiation of streamers cannot be translated into an increased length of the ESE terminal as compared with the conventional one.
• In conclusion, at this time, any use of such non-conventional lightning protection technology cannot be supported by CIGRE WG
33.01 “Lightning”.