PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 64, NO.
9, SEPTEMBER 1976
The Damnable Alternating Current
TERRY S . REYNOLDS AND THEODORE BERNSTEIN,
Abmcr-While the stru&e over the use of alternating current (LC)
versus direct current (dc) in the United States lasted fim 1886 to
1895, the aitialyear was 1888. J?ady in 1888 the Edison dc interests
h t launched public attacks on the techid rspects of ac. Later they
redirected the controversy,from a p e d considerrtion of complrr-
tivemerits,toconcenlrateonmlythesafetyisstle. Thedecisionofdc
mtenscs to launch public attacks on ac waa probably caused by the
actus of a French copper 8 y d a t e m comering much of the w d ’ s
copper supply and forcing @tea slurply upward in 1887. This mde
the lower coppet cods of ac sy*m an atbnctive selling point rad
forced dc proponents to react Thus the e d y months of 1888 saw a
number of WeU-rOundeddbcudms on the comparative merits of the
two systems. The d e d o n m mid-1888 to focps the debate on the
d e t y issue was related to the discovery, in the s p h g of that yeas, of
8 workable principle for an ac ampere-hour meter (sh.llenberget) and
an ac motor (Teala). The Edisoa interests were lprgely succesfd m
focusing the polemics on thesafety issue and achieved n e4. major
publicity coups (such as the use of sc for the first le@ etectrocution),
but they were unable to match the technid imp~ovementsthat by
1895wereclerrfytom~sc~fnbettersystemofpowerf * * . authorized the development of equipment for an experimental
T HE PERIOD FROM 1885 t o 1895 witnessed anexplo-
sive growth in the electric power industry in the United
States. New types of equipment were invented to gen-
erate, transmit, and utilize electric power. A fascinating foot-
note in these developmentswas the heated controversy between
the advocates of direct current(dc)and alternating current
(ac). This controversy, though brief in time, was of consider-
able significance in the development of the power and light
industry.Theultimate victory of ac signaled the end of
Thomas Edison’s effective influence on the electrical industry
and the emergence of the Westinghouse Electric Company as
a major force in thefield.
The leading protagonists in the struggle were Thomas A.
Edison and the Edison Electric Light Company (after1888
the Edison GeneralElectricCompany), favoring dc,and
George Westinghouse, Jr., and the Westinghouse Electric Com-
pany, supportingac.
Edison was first in the field with his dc system. By the early
1880’s he had developed a complete incandescent lighting sys-
tem, and in September of 1882 put the first successful central
station into operation in New York. The central powersta-
tion business grew rapidlyandsteadily. By mid-1886 there
were some 58 Edison central stations with a capacity of almost
150 000 lamps, and by late 1887 there were 121 in operation
or under construction with a capacity of some 325 000 lamps.
The Edison system relied on dc transmitted at 120 V in Edi-
son’s early feeder-main system or at 240 V in his later three-
wire network. Consumption circuits operated at 110 V. Some
competition from other companies developed early, but the
rival dc systems were, for the most part, inefficient imitations
and never serious threats t o the Edison company’s domination
of the field.
Manuscript received December 26, 1975.
T. S. Reynolds is with the Departments of General Engineering and
History of Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
T. Bernstein is withthe Department of Electricaland Computer
Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
1339
MEMBER, IEEE
Ac had been used previously for arc lighting, but the later
application of the system t o general powerdistribution for
incandescentlights was hindered by the lack of efficient
transformers. Westinghouse initially moved into the electric
power field with a dc system, little better than that of any of
Edison’s other rivals. But in 1885 he read of the use of ac in
Europe in conjunction with transformers displayed in England
by Lucien Gaulard and John D. Gibbs. The transformer
configuration patented by Gaulard and Gibbs utilized multiple
one-toane turns ratio transformers with the primary windings
connected in series across the high-voltage primarycircuit.
The secondarycircuit then suppliedindividual low-voltage
(50 V) secondary loads. Voltage regulation for varying second-
ary loads was a serious problem with this type of transformer
connection. In the summer of 1885, Westinghouse bought an
option on American rights to the Gaulard-Gibbs patents and
power plant at Great Barrington, MA. Under the direction of
William Stanley, experimental work with ac progressed rapidly.
The transformers Stanley developed by 1886 were designed so
thatthe primary windings forthe individual units were in
parallel across the high-voltage primary circuit rather than in
series. He also designed the transformers so that they could
be produced in quantity by ordinary manufacturing processes.
This provided the Westinghouse Company with a way t o trans-
form alternating voltages t o high values for efficient trans-
mission and then reduce them to lower voltages for distribution.
By March of 1886 Stanley had completed the trial central
station at Great Barrington. Tests being successful, Westing-
house marketed the first commercial ac system at the end of
1886. The new Westinghouse central station system grew with
extraordinary rapidity. By September of 1887there were
some Westinghouse central stations in use or under construc-
tion with a capacity of almost 135 000 lamps.’
Unlike the dc systems produced by the early rivalsof the
Edison company, ac offered a clear and definite threat. The
Westinghouse system transmitted power,usually, at 1000 V
while the Edison dc network used 240 V. The higher voltage
of ac meant that, for a given amount of power, much smaller
wires could be used inthe transmission circuits.This was
crucial as copper costsrepresenteda major portion of the
capital needed for establishing acentralpower station.The
large differences in the size of the wire required by the two
rivals are illustrated in Fig. 1,takenfrom a contemporary
paper comparing the systems.’
For accounts of the emergence of the alternating and direct current
systemssee H. C. Passer, The Electrical Manufacturers, 1897-1900.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1953, pp. 78-150; R. Sitverberg,
Light for the World: Edison and the Power Industry. Princeton, NJ:
D.Van Nostrand, 1967, pp. 89-228; and W. Stanley, “Alternating-
Current Development in America,” J Franklin InsfitUte, vol. 174, pp.
561-580,1912.
‘F. B.Badt, “The comparativevalue of the alternatingtransformer
and continuous current systems for central station lighting,” Electric01
Engineer (hereafter E E ) , vol. 7 , p. 3 0 6 , 1888.
1340 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, SEPTEMBER 1976

inFebruary,ac wasagain attacked. W. A. Mottram,super-

intendent of the EdisonCompany’splant at New Orleans,
criticized the Westinghouse system and assured other Edison
central station owners and managers that the “Edison system
hadnothing to fearfromthenewdeparture.”Edison,who
usually attended but did not speak at these meetings, departed
from his usual rule and gave a short address comparing the two
systemsandpointing out the “inevitable deficiencies of the
alternating system.’76
Why did the Edison interests suddenly, in early 1888, after
the Westinghouse system had been on the market for over a
year, decide to take an aggressive course of action? One might
suspect that it was the unprecedented success of the Westing-
houseCompany in marketing itsstations. But this merely
moves the problem back a step further. Why was the Westing-
house alternating system so overwhelminglysuccessful in its
first year on the market? The answerappears to be that ac
came onto the market at a very fortuitous time. In early 1887
a French syndicate succeeded in cornering a large portion of
the world’s copperproduction.Theprice of copper,which
through1886and early 1887 had been fairlysteady at be-
tween94and 104 a pound, began to rise sharply.Between
JulyandDecember of 1887 pricesrose to around 174 per
Fig. 1. Combined cross sectionsof copper feedera (S-percent trans-
mission loss Mumedl needed for hundred 16candle power poundandlaterhit 204. This suddenanddrasticincreasein
1 IO-V h p ~ at adistance of one mile (1.6 km). 1) Lamps in pardel copper Prices put the dc system, with its high copper costs,
across 110-V line. 2) Three-wire system,220 v, according to akula- at somewhat a disadvantage. This was probably one of the
tions of Prof. G. Forbes. 3) Three-wire system, 220 V, according to
calculationsof H.w. Leonard. 4) Five lamps in series (550 major factors behind thetremendous early success of Westing-
5 ) AC system, 1000 V. 6) AC system,
2000 V. house’s system. The
reports, late
in1887
and
early
1888,
that the syndicate’s hold on the market was not likely to be
brokensooncouldonly have created further apprehension
Edison and his associates waged a continuous war against ac for dc proponents.’ Thus it appears that the primary factor
systems. Edison could have been in the forefront of develop- behind the Edison Company’s timing of its initial attacks on
ments in the ac field, for in 1886 he secured an option on the the alternating system was the status of the copper market.
patents of the Hungarian ZBD transformer,developedby The Edisonian attacks on the acsystem created considerable
Karoly Zipernowsky, Otis T. Bltithy, and Max Diri. This interestinthecomparativeaspects of the two transmission
transformer was potentially competitive with Stanley’s design. systems so that in the spring of 1888 this became amajor
But Edisonwouldhave nothing to do with ac and prevailed concerninelectrical circles. The Chicago ElectricClub, for
upon the companies with which he was associated to drop the example, held a series of well-attendeddebates pitting sup-
option on the patents and concentrate their efforts don ~ . ~ porters of the ac system against supporters of the dc system.
While the debate over the comparative advantages and dis- Thepapersthat resulted from theseconfrontations were
advantages of thetwo systemslastedfrom 1886 to 1896, originally published in Western Electrician, but then reprinted
the criticalyear inthe strugglewas 1888.It was earlyin or summarized in the othermajor American electrical journals,
that year that the Edison company first launched serious at- Electrical World and Electrical Engineer.’
tacksontheac system. The volume of technicalliterature
devoted to the subject reached a peak in 1888. It was in that
6EZectrical World mereafter EW), vol. 11, p. 80, Feb. 18, 1888.
summer when the controversy took a significant turn in a new ‘For the concern over the price of coppersee: EW, vol. 10, pp.
direction. 265,332-333,1887; vol. 11, p. 1 , 1888; andvol.12. pp. 63, 297,
The earliest direct attacks on the Westinghouse systemby 1888; Western Electricfan (hereafter WE), vol. 2, pp. 42,66,109,
138, 198, 1888; and vol. 3, pp. 196, 220, 246, 305, 1888; EE, vol. 7 ,
the Edisonforces, as mentioned,cameinearly1888.In p. 186, 1888.
February the Edison Electric Light Company published an 83- ‘The basic arguments used by proponents of the two systems in the
early days of thecontroversy are contaided in theseries of papers
page pamphlet, bound in red and titled A Warning, that at- emanating fromdebates at meetings o f the Chicago Electric Club in
tackedac.Inaddition to a discussion of the comparative sarly 1888. Someexamples are: H. W. Leonard, “The comparative
economies of the systems, it containedalengthy reviewof value of thecontinuous and the alternating current systems for the
commercialdistribution ofelectricity,” WE, vol. 2 , pp.127-130,
the dangers of high voltages and an appendix with a list of 1888, reprinted in EW, vol. 11, pp. 152-153, 1888, and EE, vol. 7 ,
individuals allegedly killed by ac4 The annual report of the pp. 166-168,180-181, 1888; M. M. M. Slattery,“Alternating vs
continuous currents,” WE, vol. 2, pp. 152-154, 1888, reprinted in EE,
Edison Company for 1887 also included a short synopsis of vol. 7, pp. 220-222, 1888; E. P.Warner, “Comparative value of the
the deficiencies of thealternating system.’At the Chicago converter and continuous current systems of electricaldistribution,”
meeting of the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies WE, vol. 2, pp. 175-176, 1888, reprinted in EE, vol. 7, pp. 222-224,
1888; F. B. Badt, “The comparative value of the alternating transformer
and continuous current system for central stationlighting,” WE,
’T. A. E d h n , “The dangers of electriclighting,” North Amerlcon vol. 2 , pp. 205-208, 211-212, 1888, reprintedin EE, vol. 7 , pp. 305-
Review, vol. 149, pp. 625-634,1889. 308, 1888; G. Cutter, “The continuous current, limited, vs. the alter-
‘ E d h n Electric Light Company, A W m i n g f i o m rhe E d h n Elec- Mtingcurrent,unlimited,” WE, vol. 2, pp. 234-237. 239, 1888; G. H.
tricLtghrCo.,n.p.,n.d. I l 8 8 8 j . Bliss, “The continuous current vs. the alternating current,” WE, 2, vol.
Passer, Electrical Manufacturers,166.
p. pp. 285,287-288, 1888, reprinted in EE, vol. 7 , pp. 311-314, 1888.
REYNOLDS AND BERNSTEIN:
DAMNABLE RHE ALTERNATING CURRENT 1341

In these debates the opponents of ac tried to show that ac Brown always denied having met Thomas Edison or having
was not competitivewithdc.Studies were madecomparing a close associationwithanyEdisoncompanyprior to his
three-wiredcsystems to single-phase acsystemswith regard entranceintothe controversy. Heclaimed that he took his
to: stand notto benefit the Edisoninterestsbutthose of the
public; yet his subsequent work on the comparative dangers
1) cost and economy; of acanddc were subsidizedandsupporteddirectly or in-
2) reliability; directly by Edison and the Edison Electric Light Company. In
3) variety and value of the possible sources of revenue; July of 1888, for example, Edison made the facilities of his
4) safety to life; laboratory available to Brown for his experiments, and Brown
5) effects upon existing property. on occasions borrowed
equipmentfromEdison, usually
Thedcproponents, using estimatedcopperconductorand throughthe good offices of F. S. Hastings, Secretaryand
transformer costs, argued that dc systems were less expensive Treasurer of the EdisonElectric Light Company. Moreover,
than ac systems for distances of less than 4000 ft (1.2 km). Edison’schief electrician, A. E.Kennelly, assistedBrown in
They also felt that the ac equipment would depreciate more some of his experimentsandpublicdemonstrations.’2It is
rapidly because of the high voltageused. The edge for sys- therefore clear that Brown’s attempts to reorient the debate
tem reliability wasgiven to dc since the generators could be from a general consideration of the merits of the two systems
operated in parallel while the technique of parallel operation to only the single issue of safety had the support of Edison
foralternatorshadnotyetbeen devised. Thesources of and the Edison Electric Light Company.
revenue for dc wereconsideredgreaterasaccouldonlybe But whydid the Edison interests decide at thisparticular
used, at that time, for lighting and heating, since the ac motor time to concentrate on only the safety issue? The answer to
andefficientrectifiershad not beendeveloped. Dc also had this query can be found in developments that occurred in the
other applications such as electroplating and battery charging. electricpower field in early 1888. While the Edison people,
Anotheradvantage for dc was thatthere was no meter to due to increasedcopperprices, mayhave feltenough of a
measureenergyconsumption for acsystems.It was feared threat from the Westinghouse system to launch an initial at-
that ac would interfere with adjacent telephone and telegraph tack in early 1888, they must have felt sufficiently confident
lines becauseof inductivecoupling.Finally, it was felt that in the overall superiority of theirsystem to submit, in the
the safety of 240 V of dc was “undoubtedly absolute,” while months which followed, to general examinations of the merits
1000 V of ac would “kill a h ~ r s e . ” ~ of thetwo systems.Theyhadgoodreason for confidence.
The advocates of ac emphasized that most forms of energy Thealternatingsystemlackedtwo very importantelements
used by man had some associated hazard. The copper invest- thatthreatened to limit its commercial viability andfuture
mentfordccentralstations was so large thatthey were growthpotential-ameter to measureenergyconsumption
severely limited in the area they could supply; beyond a radius and a practical motor.
of about one mile (1.6 km) copper costs became prohibitive. The absence of agoodenergyconsumptionmeter was a
Moreover, even within that area a dc system was commercially seriouscommercial disadvantage to ac companies.Edison
viable only if there was high consumer density. This created companies had an ampere-hour meter which, while not direct
other problems-high realestate costs and problemsin securing reading,still served the purpose. It was anelectrochemical
and storing fuel and water supplies. Finally, the limited size device whose plates were collected every month, taken to the
of thedistribution area meant high costs due to the small localcentralstation,and weighed to determineenergycon-
size of the generatingunits. All of thesedeficiencies were sumption. This method, of course, was unworkable with ac.
comparatively negligible withthealternating system’s high Thus the early Westinghouse companies had to use a contract
transmission voltages andlowcoppercosts. Ac could serve system, charging astandardrateperlamp. As aresult,ac
suburbs and rural areasas well as the densely populated central customerstended to leave lightsburning evenwhen notin
city.” use. This required the generatingcapacity of Westinghouse
This more or less wellbalanced phase of the controversy centralstations t o be some 40-80 percentgreater forthe
was brought to an end in the summerof 1888 by a self-trained same number of lampsthanEdisoncentralstationswith
electrical engineer, Harold P. Brown, working in conjunction meters. In early 1888, however, 0. B. Shallenberger, Westing-
withthe Edisoninterests. Brown attempted to focusthe house’schief engineer, while conductingexperiments on an
controversy on the single issue of public safety when, on June ac arc-lamp system, accidentally dropped a small spring on a
5, hewroteanopenletter to the New Yolk Evening Post magnetic coil connected to analternating voltage.When he
addressed to the New York Boardof ElectricalControl.In noticed the spring slowly revolving, Shallenberger realized he
this letterBrown condemned ac as being deadly and dangerous, had discovered a principle that mightserve as a basis for an
while referring to low voltage dc “such as is used by the Edi- ac ampere-hour meter to measure energy consumption. Within
soncompanyfor incandescentlights”as being “perfectly a month he had constructed a workable model. And while not
safe as far as life risk is concerned.” Ac, he concluded, “can put into commercial production until August 1888, word of
be described by no adjective less forcible than damnable.” its existenceleaked out as evidenced at ameeting of the
And heproposed,inthe publicinterest,thatthe Board of National Electric Light Association in March 1888, when 0. A.
ElectricalControlprohibit in New York alternating voltages
of more than 300 V.” ”WE, VOl. 3,P. 319, 1888;EW,VOL 12,pp.70,160,312-313, 1888;
Application of Brown for admission to theEdison Pioneers, March
H. Leonard, o p . cif. 1940 (Edison Archives); Letters, F. S. Hastings to A. E.Kennelly,
“G. Westinghouse, Jr., “A reply to Mr. Edison,” North American September 18, 1888; November 20, 1888; November 24, 1888, and
Review, vol. 149, pp. 653-664,1889. November 26, 1888 (Edison Archives). See also the letters from H. P.
The letter is reprinted in EE, vol. 7, pp. 360-361, 1888, and EW, Brown to A. E. Kennelly, August 4,1888, andDecember 6,1888
vol. 12, p. 40, 1888. (Edison Archives).
 1342
Moses of New York remarked in the course of a discussion:
I have lately Seen a meter in the Westinghouse factory which I
wouldtake occasion to particularize here as beingonemost
admirablyadopted to theregistryofalternatingcurrent,and
with this excellent addition, thatit will speak the truth; and with
this corollary to it, thatwe can verify it ourselves;and we do
.
not need inspectors to go around. . . I have to speak guardedly
of this, because I was told at the time that the meter was shown
to me,thatwhile it was shown, still for certain reasons con-
nected with the taking of European patents and such thn i gs, it
was not desirablethatthe particulars concerning it should be
promldgated; butI vouch for its .su~uccessand accuracy.13
Shallenberger’s discovery not only gave the Westinghouse sys-
tem a workable and accurate ampere-hour meter, but also a
direct-readingmeter,ametersuperior to Edison’s chemical
meter.
Another serious deficiency in the early ac system was the
lack of a workablemotor. This was a majorproblem.It
meant that ac could only be used for incandescent lighting or
heating at a time when developments in the electrical field
seemed to point to the rising importance of electricity as a
means of transmittingmechanicalpower. This was apoint
dwelled upon at some length by the proponents of dc in the
debates in the spring of 1888. Though a workable polyphase
ac motor was not to be marketed until 1892, the principles
on which that motor was designed were patented by Nikola
Tesla on May 1,1888, anddescribedindetailin apaper
presented to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers on
May 16.14 Theimportance of
Tesla’s paper was widely
recognized.” It was reprinted in most of the major electrical
journals and convinced many observers thataworkableac
motor was possiblein the very nearfuture. One engineer,
for example, commented:
The development of the alternate current motor as d e s c r i i by
Mr. Tesla, effectuaIlyforgesthe link that has hithertobeen
missing in the chain of applicationof the alternatingsystem.I6
Westinghouse almostimmediatelyenteredintonegotiations
forthe purchase ofTesla’s patents. By July1888, he had
succeeded not only in buying the patents but in securing the
services of Tesla as well.
Hence by June of 1888thestatus of thealternatingand
direct systems showed signs of changing radically in favor of
theformer. Newsof Westinghouse’s development of anac
ampere-hourmeterandtherecognizedpotential ofTesla’s
ideas threatened to upset dc’s last major technipal advantages
over ac. These developments, we believe,largely account for
the decision of Brown and his Edisonian associates in the sum-
mer of 1888 to attempt to focus attention on a singleissue
in the debate, the safetyissue, t o the exclusion of all others.
Brown was to have considerable success in his efforts. Most
of the literature appearing on ac versus dc after mid-1888was
concernedprimarilywithsafety. In themonths which fol-
lowed Brown gained considerable notoriety in his efforts to
demonstrate the deadly hazards of ac. On July 30, 1888, for
” E W ,vol. 11, p. 117,Mar. 3, 1888. For descriptions of the Shallen-
berger meter seeEW, vol. 12,pp. 91, 149, 150, 1888.
4NikolaTesla, “A newsystem of alternating current motors and
transformers,” AIEE Tmnr., vol. 5, pp. 27ff, 1888. reprinted in other
electrical periodicals, e.g., EW,vol. 11, pp. 281ff, June 2, 1888.It is
perhaps signifkant that Brown’s letter t o the Board of Electrical Con-
trol appeared three days after Tesla’s paper was published in Electrfcol
World.
‘5WE,vol. 2,pp. 253,274,1888;EW,vol.11, p. 277,1888.
WE,vol. 3, p. 98, 1888.
SEPTEMBER PROCEEDINGS OF THE
IEEE, 1976
Fig. 2. One of the circuits used by Harold P. Brown in his 1888 experi-
ments to test the comparative effects of ac and dc on dogs.
example, at a well-attended meeting at the Columbia School
of Mines, Brown gave a public demonstration of the effects
of ac and dc upon dogs, using the apparatus as shown in Fig.
2. Accompanying thedemonstration Brown read apaper
in which he attempted to refute the criticsof his June 5 letter
and to summarize the results of his month of experimentation
in the Edison laboratories. According to Brown, voltages of
at least 1000 V were necessary to kiU dogs using dc, while
less than 200 V of acsufficed.”Otherexperiments were
publicized by Brown later in the year including a demonstra-
tionatthe EdisonLaboratory, Fig. 3. An example of the
vehemence of Brown’s opposition to Westinghouse and ac was
his December18,1888challenge to George Westinghouse
published in a numberof newspapers:
..
I . chaIlenge Mr. Westinghouse to meet me in the presence of
competentelectricalexpertsandtake through his body the
alternatingcurrentwhile I take through mine acontinuous
current.Thealternatingcurrentmusthave not less than 300
..
alternations per second [ 150 Hz]. . We will begin with 100
volts and will gradually increase the pressure 50 volts at a time,I
leading witheach increase, eachcontact to be made for fwe
seconds, until eitheroneortheother has cried enough,and
publiclyadmits his error. I will warn Mr. Westinghouse, how-
ever,that 160 voltsalternatingcurrentfor five seconds has
proved fatal in my experiments, and that several men have been
kitled bythelow-tensionJablochkoff[a type of arc light]
alternating current.”
Westinghouse chose to ignore the challenge.
In 1889Edison, himself, entered directly into the contro-
versy, publishing an article in North American Review attack-
ing aconthegroundsofitsgreathazard to life. Edison
stated that his personal desirewas to “prohibit entirely the use
ofalternatingcurrents”; failing this,he would like to see
alternating voltages limited to a maximum of 300 V . This, of
course, would have eliminated the major advantage of ac, its
use for high voltagetransmission.Edison shrugged off this
objection stating, in effect, that ac interestswere making prof-
its at public expense by locating generating plants far from
loads and transmitting the power at high voltages in spite of
the dangers. He favored amultiplicity of powerstations
locatedneartheloadsandfeltthatthehazardsassociated
with ac were such that the gteatly increased costs of land and
conductorsinthedcsystem were worththeexpense.” He
I ‘H. P. Brown, “The comparative danger t o life of alternating and
continuouselectricalcurrents”pamphlet, 61 pp., 1889 (BurndyLi-
brary, Nonvalk, CT). See also H.P. Brown,“Experiments with electric
current on dogs,”EW, vol. 12, pp. 72-73,1888.
1 8 T h e New York Times, Dec. 18, 1888;see also EW,vol. 13, p. 4,
1889.
Pamphlet No. 13, “Thomas A. Edison on electric railway and other
currents.” New York: Sprague Electric Railwayand MotorCo., 30
pp., [ 1890 or 1891 1. (John Crerar Library, Chicago, IL.)
REYNOLDS AND BERNSTEIN: RHE DAMNABLE ALTERNATING CURRENT 1343

Fig. 3. Experiments in kiiling animals using ac in the Edison Laboratory at Orange, NJ. December 5,
1888 [ Burndy Library].

summarized his feeling thus: added, the ac system “has probably advanced too far for this
t o stay its progress at this time.”22 He was right.
There is no plea which wiU justify the use of high-tension alter- The warfare between the two systems turned almost entirely
nating currents, either in ascientitic or a commercial sense.
in favor of ac after thesummer of 1890. In 1892 theWesting-
They are emplo ed solely to reduce investment in copper wire
d
and real estate. house company, after overcoming severe developmental prob-
lems, finally succeeded in marketing the Tesla motor whose
New Yolk State in the late 1880’s had begun to reevaluate patents they had purchased in 1888. At about the same time
itsmethod of capital punishment. Previously hanging had the designers forthe largest hydroelectricplant ever con-
been used. Because of several bungled hangings, it was decided structed, that at Niagara Falls, decided t o employ ac fortrans-
that a new method of execution would be needed. The report mitting energy t o Buffalo, some 20 miles (32.2 km) away. In
of acommission, appointed t o study all forms of capital October of 1893 Westinghouse was awarded the contract for
punishment, advocated the use of electricity. Brown and the the alternators andtransformers. Another important victory
Edison interests managed to turn this development into an- for Westinghouse was the well publicized contract t o light the
other publicity victory for dc. Convinced by the demonstra- 1893 Chicago World’s Fair using ac. In 1895 when Niagara
tions performed by Brown and the testimony of Edison that Falls began t o deliver power successfully using ac the contro-
ac was far more deadly thandc,theState ofNew York versy was effectively over.
decided t o use ac for executions.Inspite of major efforts Edison never really gave up his opposition to ac despite these
by Westinghouse t o prevent its use, ac, generated by a Westing- developments. This was a major reason why Edison’s influence
house alternator secured by Brown, was used forthe f i s t over the electric power industry had completely disappeared
legal electrocution on August 6 , 1890, at Auburn Prison, New by 1895. In 1892, partially t o remedy their weak position in
York.21 the ac power field, the Edison General Electric Company, the
This execution was probably the peak in the attempt of dc company that Edison had helped t o found and direct, reached
forces to focus the controversyentirely on the safety issue. a merger agreementwithThomson-Houston, the company
Executions continued using ac, but dc advocates failed to halt which, after Westinghouse, had the strongest position in the
the expansion of ac systems with their improved transformers ac field.The General ElectricCompany that emerged from
and motors as well as the real necessity for sending electrical this agreement went against Edison’s established policy and
power over long distances.Thus, even while Brown and the moved massively into the production of ac equipment. With
Edison interests managed t o bring considerable public atten- the emergence of General Electric the last cords of the power
tion to the safety issue, their victory was minor and temporary. industry t o Edison were severed. As for Brown, he was one
The editor of EZectncuZ World, for example, conceded that ac of those figures seen occasionally in the course of history,who
appeared t o have greater destructive power than dc. But, he rises suddenly from obscurity, enjoys a few fleeting moments
of notoriety, and then returns fromwhence he came.
’T. A. Edison,North American Review, op. cit., p. 630.
’T. Bernstein, “‘A grand success’: The f i s t legal electrocution was
frought with controversywhich flared betweenEdison andWesting-
houae,”IEEE Spectrum, vol. 10, pp. 54-58, Feb. 1973. aaEW,vol. 12, p. 63, 1888.