Efficiency and Authority

ANNALS OF SCIENCE, 52 (1995), 49--76
Efficiency and Authority in the 'Open versus Closed'

Transformer Controversy
SUNGOOK H O N G
Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Technology,

Victoria College, University of T o r o n t o , T o r o n t o ,
Ontario, M5S 1K7, C a n a d a
Received 1 O c t o b e r 1993
Summary
In the 1880s, there had existed a series of controversies between the proponents of
open and closed transformers. James Swinburne reopened it in 1889 when he
designed a new type of open 'Hedgehog' transformer, and argued that it had the
highest all-day efficiency. Three years later, John Ambrose Fleming showed that the
Hedgehog was not the best but rather close to the worst. The bitter controversy
between Swinburne and Fleming ended quickly, as Fleming made the unstable AC
power measurement stable by creating agreement concerning the calibration of AC
instruments with the help of Kelvin's authority. Instruments, measurement, and
calibration were intimately bound up with hegemonic issues in late-Victorian
electrical engineering.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. The induction coil in power engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. Efficiency, regulation, and closing the magnetic circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4. Hysteresis, all-day efficiency, and reopening the magnetic circuit ....... 55
5. Measurement and unreliable instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6. 'Exact science'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7. Transformers in theory and practice: Fleming on transformers ......... 65
8. Calibration and closing the controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9. Workshop theory versus laboratory practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
1. Introduction
In the 1880s, two types of transformers were available to electrical engineers: open
and closed magnetic-circuit transformers. If the magnetic circuit that links the primary
and secondary of a transformer was completed with iron, it was called a 'closed'
(magnetic-circuit) transformer, and if not, it was called an 'open' (magnetic-circuit)
transformer. The first practical transformers in power engineering, introduced by
Gaulard and Gibbs, were open transformers, but after they proved less efficient than
closed transformers in the mid-1880s, they were replaced with closed transformers
dcsigned by various engineers. After that time, closed transformers governed AC
engineering.
In 1889, James Swinburne, an outstanding practical engineer, designed a new type
of open transformer called the 'Hedgehog'. He argued that it had the greatest 'all-day'
efficiency ever achieved, triggering a renewed controversy between proponents of open
0003 3790/95 $10"00 ! 1995 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
50 Sungook Hong
versus closed transformers once again. Three years later, John Ambrose Fleming, a
scientist-engineer, refuted Swinburne on theoretical grounds and then with experi-
mental determination. These experiments showed that the hedgehog was not the best,
but in fact rather close to the worst. The bitter controversy between Swinburne and
Fleming ended quickly, as engineers decided that Fleming's results were stable and
were endorsed in the laboratory.
These events raise intriguing questions. Why did Fleming and Swinburne obtain
different results using the same transformers? Why did other engineers trust Fleming's
results more than those of Swinburne? To answer these questions, the history of the
transformers will be briefly traced and then the technique and instruments used in
efficiency measurements to show the instability of the AC power measurement at this
early stage of AC engineering will be examined. It will be discussed how Fleming made
this unstable measurement stable and eventually ended the controversy, and it will be
shown that the central factor for the closure of the controversy was the agreement
concerning the calibration of the troublesome AC instruments with the help of Kelvin's
authority. Finally, it will be argued that this transformer controversy led to the
emergence of the new role of the scientist-engineers and their electrical engineering
laboratories in contrast to practical engineers and their workshops. Instruments,
measurement and calibration were intimately bound up with hegemonic and
professional issues in the late-Victorian electrical engineering community.
2. The induction coil in power engineering

In the case of some artefacts, it is occasionally very difficult, though not impossible,
to identify the inventor and the date of the invention? The same is exactly true of
transformers. The material artefacts and ideas necessary for the production of
transformers had existed during the period 1830s-1870s, but only after the late-1870s
had these elements been brought together in an appropriate way.
As is well known, the antecedents of transformers were induction coils. An
induction coil generally used DC batteries, and with the help of a contact breaker,
generated an intermittent current in the primary. The coupling between primary and
secondary coil increased the voltage in the secondary, and this high voltage was useful
for physical and medical purposes. In later terms, every induction coil was a step-up,
not a step-down, transformer. But the stepping-down property of an induction coil,
that is the transformation of a current of high tension and low intensity into that of low
tension and high intensity by switching the primary and secondary connections, was
well known. Besides this, all kinds of manipulations for example, determination of
static effects, the connection of condensers either to the primary or to the secondary,
and the connection of alternating current machine to them were tried between the
1850s and the 1870s. 2
According to Hugh G. J. Aitkens, this is becausethe essenceof technologyis knowledgeand 'invention is

a process by which informationcomes to be organized in new configurations or gestalts'. Hugh G. J. Aitken,
The Continuous Wave: Technoloqy and American Radio, 1900 1932 (Princeton, 1985), p. 522.
2 For the history of the induction coil, see J. A. Fleming, The Alternative Current Transformer in Theory
and Practice, 2 vols (London, 1893), n, I 65; G. Shiers, 'The Induction Coil', Scientific American, 224 (May,
1971), 80-7; W. D. Hackmann, 'The Induction Coil in Medicine and Physics, 1835-1877', in Studies in the
History o[Scientific Instruments, edited by C. Blondel, F. Parot, A. Turner, and M. Williams(London, 1989),
pp. 235-50. See also [A. M. Tanner], 'The History of Tension-ReducingTransformel's',Electrical Review, 30
(1892), 666-8.
'Open versus Closed' Transformer Controversy 51
The idea of using induction coils for electric lighting had existed since the late 1850s,
but it was Paul J a b l o c h k o f f i n 1877 who first proposed and, in fact, tried such a use of
induction coils for electric lighting. His attempt consisted of connecting the primaries of
the ordinary 'step-up' induction coils in series to an alternating current machine and
then connecting one or more lamps to the secondaries. This scheme prevented the
extinction of one lamp causing the extinction of the remaining others, rendering the
'independent lighting' and the 'subdivision of light' possible. 3 After Jablochkoff,
various electricians, such as C. W. Harrison, Charles Bright, and J. B. Fuller, applied for
patents for use of inducation coils for electric lighting. 4
E m p l o y m e n t of induction coils for the purpose of 'independent lighting' or
'subdivision of light' was, however, just one of m a n y ideas that constituted a
transformer. A m o n g others, the first was the idea of long-distance transmission. This
was introduced in electrical lighting by Charles William Siemens, who, in 1877,
speculated on the possibility of transmitting energy from N i a g a r a Falls up to a distance
of 30 miles by means of electricity. It was soon realized, however, that if low voltage
were used such transmission would be impossible except with a wire of e n o r m o u s
diameter. The practical alternative was an exploitation of high voltages. William
T h o m s o n suggested that 80 000 volts could be transmitted up to 300 miles t h r o u g h a
copper rod of 89 diameter, and with a loss of 20%. At the same time, however, he
knew that '80,000 volts at the civilized end of the wire' were useless unless they had some
way of converting it to a low voltage. 5 There were three possibilities: Faure's secondary
battery; the secondary d y n a m o (motor-generator); and the step-down induction coil.
The first two, conceived by T h o m s o n and Siemens, were for direct current. The third
was for alternating current and was, for the first time, exploited by the French
electrician, Marcel Desprez. In the British patent on the transmission of electrical
power in 1881, he c o m b i n e d both the step-up and step-down induction coils into a
'double transmission system'. 6
The other idea for the transformers was the a d o p t i o n of variable voltages. With
direct current, it was impossible to make the voltage variable both for 50 volt arc lamps
for street lighting and for 100 volt incandescent lamps for domestic lighting. In
addition, as T h o m a s Hughes points out, the Electric Lighting Act in 1882 forced the
3 For Jablochkofl's induction coil, see W. E. Langdon, 'On a New Form of Electric Light', Journal of the
Society of Telegraph Engineers, 6 (1877), 303-16; A. Bernstein, 'Concerning the History of Secondary
Generators', The Electrician, 18 (1887), 565 7; 'M. Jablochkoff's Transformers', The Electrician, 20 (1888),
480-1. Refer also to F. Uppenborn, History of the Transformer (London, 1889), pp. 13-16.
4 Fleming (footnote 2), 66-70.
W. Thomson, 'Presidential Address of Section A', Report of the British Associationfor the Advancement
of Science ( 1881), 513-18 (p. 518). C. W. Siemens, 'President's Inaugural Address', The Journal of the Iron and
Steel Institute, No. 1 (1877), 6-34 (p. 18). Without strict proof, Siemens suggested 30-mile transmission of the
fall's energy by means of a copper rod of 3 inch diameter. Siemens later proposed use of intermediate voltage
(1200 volts) for the transmission. Siemens, 'Address', Journal of the Society of Arts, 31 (1882-1883), 6-13. The
central problem was power loss along the line, which is determined by the product of current C and voltage
drop AValong the line. As AVis the product of current C and the resistance of the line R, the loss of power is
C2R. Thus, as C becomes smaller, the loss becomes smaller. Given the output of a dynamo, only high voltage
transmission made maintaining small current possible. For such recognition, see W. E. Ayrton, 'Electricity as
a Motive Power' [lecture at the British Association], Nature, 20 (1879), 568-71.
M. Desprez, British Patent Specifications, No. 4128 in 1881, in Fleming (footnote 2), 71. Through the
subsequent demonstrations, however, Desprez employed a high tension direct current. See,
W. E. Ayrton, ~Some Notes on the Frankfurt International Electrical Exhibition. II, A Page of Modern
History', Nature, 44 (1891), 521-4.
52 Sungook Hong
electric supply companies to refrain from urging their consumers to choose a particular
kind of lamp. ~ Variation of voltages became a potentially central problem for electric
lighting. Only the adoption of AC with induction coils guaranteed this variation of
voltage.
It was Lucien Gaulard and his British partner, John D. Gibbs, in 1883, who first
synthesized these various ideas. 8 With the help of the 'secondary generators', a new
name for induction coils, they utilized independent lighting, long distance transmission
and variable voltages. Moreover, against unanimous objections and amid strong
hostilities, they exhibited the practicality of their system in the Aquarium Exhibition in
London, and in the Metropolitan Railway demonstration in 1883. Engineers for the
first time 'saw' induction coils really working for electric lighting. At the Turin
Exhibition in Italy in 1884, various tests were made with their new disk-type secondary
generators, and the gold medal of the Italian Government was awarded to them. As one
commenter remarked, Gaulard 'developed [the secondary generator] from a scientific
instrument into an industrial plant, capable of application in connection with all forms
of electrical lighting'. 9
After 1884, the transformer system of AC transmission and distribution of
electricity began to spread and develop quickly. 1~Charles Zipernowsky, Max Deri and
Otto Blathy at the Ganz Company in Hungary, William Stanley and Elihu Thomson in
America, and Sebastian Z. de Ferranti, John Hopkinson, W. M. Mordey and James
Swinburne in Britain contributed not only to the development of transformers but also
to the development of the AC system in general.11 These later systems, of course, had
several distinct features from the earlier inventions of Gaulard and Gibbs. First,
parallel connection of the primaries to the mains, along with parallel connection of
lamps to the secondaries, replaced the primitive serial connection of Gaulard and
Gibbs. Second, various methods of regulating the secondary voltages were devised.
This automatic regulation of the voltages was important for the AC system to compete
with DC, since, for the DC system, the compound dynamo played a similar role. 12
Finally, closed magnetic-circuit transformers were substituted for Gaulard and Gibbs's
secondary generator of open types. This last feature will be examined more closely in
section 3.
3. Efficiency, regulation, and closing the magnetic circuit

When Gaulard first exhibited his transformer, almost all contemporary engineers
thought that its efficiency would be very poor. The result of measurement totally
contradicted first expectations. John Hopkinson first conducted an exact measurement
Thomas Hughes, Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930 (Baltimore, 1983),
p. 87.
8 For Gaulard and Gibbs's secondary generator, see 'Gaulard and Gibbs's System of Electrical
Distribution', Engineering, 35 (1883), 205-6; 'The Secondary Generator of Gatdard and Gibbs', Electrical
Review, 16 (1885), 25-6; Hughes (footnote 7), 86-95; Fleming (footnote 2), 71-81.
9 [Anonymous], 'Distribution of Electricity', Engineering, 36 (1883), 480, Refer also to [leading article],
'The Early History of the Alternate-Current Transformer', The Electrician, 21 (1888), 272 3.
lo In the early stage of power engineering, not every AC system employed transformers. For example, the
Paddington terminus station, one of the earliest terminal stations in Britain, employed Gordon's 'divided
mains' instead of transformers. The divided main system had many troubles and was finally abandoned. See
R. H. Parsons, The Early Days of the Power Station lndustry (Cambridge, 1940), 42-51.
l Uppenborn (footnote 3); Fleming (footnote 2), 119-335.
12 Charles Zipernowsky, 'On Distributing Electricity by Transformers', Report of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science, (1886), 816-17.
Open versus Closed' Transformer Controversy 53
of the efficiency of Gaulard's transformers. The efficiency turned out to be 86.1-89Vo at

full load.t3 But a great many objections to Hopkinson's results were raised, ~'* mainly
due to his remark that:
The measurements were made with a Thomson's quadrant electrometer by the
methods first used some years ago by M. Joubert in Paris... This method is free
from the undoubted theoretical objections to the use of the electro-dynamometer
for determining alternating differences of potential, or work done by alternating
currents... As a check upon my result, a Siemens electro-dynamometer was
introduced into the secondary circuit, and ... [the result] agreed well with the
electrometer measurements, considering the great difference between the prin-
ciples of the two methods of measurement. ~5
He was aware, as were his critics, that the dynamometer used as AC wattmeter could
not mcasure truc watts exactly. Nevertheless, he used it to 'check' his result. More
confusing was the mention of Joubert's electrometer method. Hopkinson's critics
supposed that it was the estimation of watts by multiplying the mean voltage measured
by Joubcrt's electrometer method with the mean current (measured by a dynamometer
or some device), which gives apparent, rather than true, watts. The neglected factor in
lhis measurement was the 'phase difference' between current and voltage.
In fact, Hopkinson, who was well acquainted with AC theory, proved to havc
adopted a workable method.a ~ Hopkinson's electrometer method for the measurement
of AC watts was not what his critics supposed it to be. It was not a method of Joubert,
but a method simultaneously discovered by W. E. Ayrton and George F. FitzGerald
inspired by Joubert. ~ With the help of a non-inductive resistance, this method could
measure the AC power consumed in an inductive circuit by two successive readings of
the same clcctromctcr. This method took into account the effect of the phase difference,
and thus measured true watts. Before 1885, Ayrton and FitzGerald's electrometer
method was the only electrical one that could measure the AC power consumed in an
inductive circuit like a transformer.
After Hopkinson, an Italian physicist-engineer Galileo Ferraris measured the
efficiency of Gaulard and Gibbs's new disk-type secondary generators exhibited at the
1884 Turin Exhibition. By using a calorimeter, hc mcasurcd the heat generated from
the two coils of a secondary generator and estimated the efficiency from this
calorimetric measurement. The result showed an cfficiency of highcr than 9 0~o,o/ under
the most favourable conditions. ~8 Partly because the error in calorimetry was generally
13 j. Hopkinson, 'The Gautard and Gibbs Secondary Generators', Electrical Rel:iew, 14 (1884), 262,
l,t [Editorial], 'The Efficiency of Secondary Generators', Electrical Review, 14 (1884), 277; M. Jules Sacia,
"The Efficiency of Secondary Generators', Electrical Review', 14(1884), 307 8; M. ttospitalier, "The Efficiency
of Secondary Generators', Electrical Reriew, 14 (1884), 372 3; M. Desprez, 'The Efficiency of Secondary
Generators', Electrical Review, 14 (1884), 41(~17: Galileo Ferraris, 'Theoretical and Experimental
Researches on lhe Secondary Generators of Gaulard and Gibbs', Electrical Review, 16 (1885), 343.
5 Hopkinson (footnote 13).
i~, See J. Hopkinson, 'Prof. Galileo Ferraris on Secondary Generators', Electrical Review, 16 (1885),
387-8: Ferraris to Hopkinson, (26 April 1885), in Electrical Review, 16 (1885), 410.
~7 W. E. Ayrton's discussion of Kapp's, Mackenzie's and Forbes's paper on the 'Alternate Current
Transformers', Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians, 17 (1888), 165. Priority of
publication, however, should be given to A. Potier, 'Mesure de l'energie depensee par un appareil ~lectrique',
Journal de Physique, 10 (1881), 445-6.
~ Galileo Ferraris, 'Theoretical and Experimental Researches on the Secondary Generators of Gaulard
and Gibbs', Electrical Review, 16 (1885), 343 6, 366-8, 392 5, 413-16, 435 7, 457 ,60, 480-2.
54 Sungook Hong
regarded as smaller than that in electromagnetic measurement, and partly because

Ferraris gave all the details about his measurement, the high efficiency was finally
accepted as fact. As remarked in the E l e c t r i c a l R e v i e w , 'this result must be eminently
satisfactory to the inventors who have laboured long and incessantly in the face of
considerable discouragement'. 19 In 1885, the construction of the Grosvenor Gallery
stations started with the scheme of equipping Gaulard and Gibbs's secondary
generators.
All Gaulard's secondary generators, be they or original coil-types or modified disk-
types, were of an open magnetic-circuit type. The core, around which both the primary
and the secondary coils were wound, consisted of a copper cylinder and an iron bar that
could be inserted into or extracted from the cylinder. The insertion and extraction of
the iron bar regulated secondary voltage. There were two major reasons for the
adoption of the open circuit. First, almost all of the practical induction coils prior to
Gaulard and Gibbs were of the open type. Second, as Gaulard and Gibbs's open type
secondary generators had a characteristic of maintaining a constant current across the
secondary coil, it was rather suitable to their serial connecting system, z~
Everything seemed satisfactory except for one ominous anomaly. Gaulard made
two different disk secondary generators, one having an iron core and the other having a
wood core covered with a bundle of iron wires. The latter modification was made to
diminish the Foucault current (eddy current) in the iron core. Thus Gaulard must have
expected that the latter had better efficiency than the former. Ferraris also compared
the efficiencies of these two transformers. The result was strange: the substitution of
wood for iron made the power in the apparatus decrease by 16%. The reason was
uncertain, but Ferraris concluded that 'by this substitution of a core with wood for one
entirely of iron, M. Gaulard has distinctly deteriorated his apparatus', el
Several months after Ferraris's report, three engineers in the Hungarian Ganz
Company, Charles Zipernowsky, Max Deri, and Otto T. Blathy, declared that they had
considerably increased the efficiency of the transformer by increasing the action of
magnetized iron. They employed a ring iron core, rendering a closed magnetic circuit as
well as increasing the length of the magnetic circuit. As Zipernowsky was an expert in
the design of AC machinery and the AC system in general, the lesson from dynamo
construction (that the iron armature plays an important role in induction), might have
contributed to their modification. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that the direct
motivation was their examination of Gaulard's secondary generators at the Turin
Exhibition, where they saw and heard about Ferraris's experiment on their efficiency. 22
~9Editorial, "SecondaryGenerators or Transformers', Electrical Review, 16 (1885), 536.

20L. Gaulard and J. Dixon Gibbs, 'SecondaryGenerators or Transformers',Electrical Review, 17 (1885),
508; Hughes (footnote 7), 89.
zl Ferraris (footnote 18), 482.
z2'The Zipernowsky-D6riSystem of Distributing Electricity',Electrical Review, 17 (1885), 92-5, 114-17
(on p. 93 they mention Ferraris's result). Refer also to A. A. Halacsy and G. H. von Fuchs, 'Transformer
invented 75 Years Ago', Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Enoineers , 80 (1961), 121-8.
Zipernowsky was an inventor who made a self-exciting AC generator. For his AC system, refer to 'The
Zipernowsky Systemof Electric Illumination', Engineering, 35 (1883), 551-3. Zipernowsky and his friends
emphasized that what they achieved was not a new transformer but a new system of alternating current. It
comprised not only closed transformers, but also semi-automatic regulations, parallel connections, and so
on, which guaranteed economicefficiencysuperior to DC.
6
At the request of the Ganz Company, Galileo Ferraris compared the efficiency of
Zipernowsky's transformer with that of the best disk-type secondary generator of
Gaulard. His comparison, however, was not directly experimental. Theoretical
consideration suggests that given the resistances of the primary and secondary coils,
efficiency would have been higher if mutual induction between primary and secondary
and self-induction of the secondary were larger. From some electrical measurements
and some known data, he deduced these two values for Zipernowsky's transformer and
for Gaulard's secondary generator. The final result was that the former was nearly 3.6
times greater than the latter. This implied that 'the form of annular transformer [of
Zipernowsky] is much better than that of the disk secondary generator [of
Gaulard]'. 23
A bitter controversy between Gaulard-Gibbs and Zipernowsky-Deri-Blathy
followed in the pages of the Electrical Review, lasting for more than a year. Practice,
however, decided the winner. Gaulard's transformers, installed at the Grosvenor
Gallery station, proved far from satisfactory. In the summer of 1886, Ferranti's
transformers, closed type as well, and his parallel system replaced Gaulard's secondary
generator and serial system at the Grosvenor Gallery station. Gaulard and Gibbs tried
to react to this situation by means of patent litigation, but the final outcome of that
tactic was an annulment of Gaulard and Gibbs's original patent, a result which
accelerated the mental collapse of Gaulard himself. 24 Within a few years, Gaulard's
type of open transformers completely disappeared. Magnetic circuits became closed,
and the world of transformers was ruled by closed transformers.
4. Hysteresis, all-day efficiency, and reopening the magnetic circuit

In comparing Gaulard's and Zipernowsky's transformers, Ferraris made one
assumption, namely that to a first approximation, heat developed in the iron core could
be neglected. 25 He had good reason to do so because eddy current in an iron core,
which had been believed to be the sole cause of iron heating, was reduced to a minimum
by lamination of the core.
Recognition of magnetic hysteresis shook this belief. In Britain, magnetic hysteresis
began to attract the engineers' attention after Ewing's and Hopkinson's papers in the
Philosophical Transactions in 1885. 26 To engineers, its meaning was simple: there was
an unnoticed loss of energy due to hysteresis. The iron armature in the DC and AC
dynamos and the iron core in the transformers, which had been regarded as beneficial
to induction, now began to be seen as doubtful. Rayleigh for the first time expressed
such reservations on the use of the iron core in the transformers.
It seems to me, on the contrary, that a closed magnetic circuit is above all things
to be avoided, as leading to waste of the greater part of the power transferred. A
23 [Galileo Ferraris], 'The Zipernowsky-Deri Transformer', Electrical Review, 17 (1885), 140-1.

24 On the Grosvenor Gallery station, see 'Echoes from the West End', The Electrician, 16 (1886), 335; "The
Grosvenor Gallery', Electrical Review, 19 (1886), 434. On Gaulard's death, see Hughes (footnote 7), 94.
25 [Galileo Ferraris] (footnote 23), 140.
26 j. A. Ewing, 'Experimental Researches in Magnetism', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
176 (1885), 523-640; J. Hopkinson, 'On the Magnetization of Iron', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, 176 (1885), 455-69. For hysteresis, Matthias D6rries, 'Prior history and aftereffects: Hysteresis and
Nachwirkung in 19th-century Physics', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 22:1 (1991), 25-55.
56 Sungook Hong
like objection applies to the use of a closed electromagnet as a 'throttle' in an

alternate-current circuit. 27
The situation was highly paradoxical. Unlike eddy current loss, hysteresis loss
could not be prevented by laminations. Ewing noticed that constant mechanical
vibration could reduce hysteresis, but the only secure way to avoid the hysteresis loss
was to avoid the use of iron. 28 On the other hand, in some senses, hysteresis was 'a
storm in a teacup', because the existing dynamos and transformers having iron
armature and iron core had already displayed high efficiencies, the former being more
than 90yo and the latter as high as 90-96~o. Though several engineers incorporated
hysteresis in the consideration of transformers, 29 the real problem was explaining why
they had such high efficiencies in spite of the seemingly large hysteresis loss.
As transformers were regarded as something doubtful, they became a target of
criticism for DC men. They denied the high efficiency of the transformer itself. J. E. H.
Gordon, who converted from AC to DC, attacked the AC transformer system on the
grounds of the large variation in electric demand, that is, load in a day. The time when
maximum load was necessary was just two hours in a day, but an AC alternator should
run during 24 hours to supply electricity in reference to such a maximum load. For the
remaining 22 hours, output is considerably low in comparison with output at the
maximum or full load. As the efficiency of a transformer was a ratio of output to input,
this implied that the efficiency of a transformer would bc high for only two hours, and
very low for the remaining 22 hours. As a result, the 'all-day efficiency' of a transformer
became poor. As a response to Gordon, R. E. Crompton, an ardent advocate of the DC
storage battery system, argued that the efficiency of transformers during the daytime
was only about 15-20~ In a widely read paper, 'Central Station Lighting: Transfor-
mers v. Accumulators', Crompton developed the argument further. 3~ In fact, falling-
down of the efficiency of transformers at low load had been reported since Hopkinson
and Ferraris had first noticed it, but the proponents of AC had paid relatively little
attention to this decrease, because, with few reliable load diagrams, they had simply
believed that daytime load would not be so small as to require serious consideration.
Doubts concerning transformers existing at that time reached their height when
James Swinburne proposed a return to Gaulard's open type transformers at the British
Association meeting in 1889. 3~ The underlying three ideas in this rebellion were: (1)
iron does not generate lines of force but merely concentrates them; (2) the loss by
hysteresis, which occurs over 24 hours, is often very serious, and in order to achieve
2, Rayleigh, 'Notes on Electricity and Magnetism. 1. On the Energy of Magnetized Iron', Philosophical
Ma~tazine, 22 (1886), 175 83 (p. 179). This paragraph was erased in his Sciemi[ic Papers, 3 vols (New York,
1964}.
2~ Ewing ffootnote 26), 552 5.
29 j. Hopkinson, "Note on Induction Coils or "'Transformers"', Proceedin,qs ~ff'the Royal Society, 42
(1887), 164-7; G. Kapp, 'Induction Coils Graphically Treated', The Electrician, 18 (1887), 502~,, 524-5,568
71 (especially, pp. 570 1).
30 j. E. H. Gordon and R. E. Crompton's discussion on G. Kapp's, Mackenzie's and Forbes's paper of the
'Alternate Current Transformer', Journal of the Society of Teleyraph Engineers and Electricians, 17 (1888),
194-205. R. E. Crompton, 'Central Station Lighting: Transformers v. Accumulators', Journal of the Society of
Telegraph Enqineers and Electricians, 17 (1888), 349 -71 (p. 366).
31 James Swinburne, 'The Design of Transformers', Report of the British A ssociationJbr the Advancement
tfScience, (1889), 741. A full report was published as James Swinburne, 'The Design of Transformers', The
Electrician, 23 (1889), 492 5, 523 6.
high all-day efficiency hysteresis must be cut down; (3) the open magnetic circuit
transformer is the only alternative. It was widely known, however, that ordinary open
induction coils had great 'magnetizing currents '32 and thus had large copper losses.
Simply put, the copper loss became large in open transformers, while the iron loss
seemed considerable in closed transformers. The essence in the design of transformers,
therefore, was a ' c o m p r o m i s e ' b~tween these conflicting factors. F o r this purpose,
Swinburne devised a wire core and let the ends of the wires spread out of the cheeks of
the coils like a sort of thistle-head or hedgehog (refer to the figure of the H e d g e h o g
transformer in Figure 1). By means of this 'hedgehogging', Swinburne reasoned, the
magnetic circuit was closed through air in a s m o o t h e r way. He argued that the
hedgehogging would reduce the magnetic resistance, and then the magnetizing current.
According to Swinburne, the efficiency of the open ' H e d g h o g transformer' proved
higher than most closed type transformers. Did Swinburne perform extensive
experiments to c o m p a r e the efficiencies of various transformers, including his own? No,
on the contrary, he calculated the efficiencies of both the closed type and open type
transformers with the help of some theoretical formulae of his own. Swinburne's
calculation incorporated induction in iron, frequency, hysteresis loss, current density,
copper loss and total output, excluding, however, eddy current loss, which he t h o u g h t
to be only one-fifth of hysteresis loss. 33 It showed that the efficiency and, in particular,
the all-day efficiency of the closed transformers was m u c h lower than usually imagined
by their designers. According to Swinburne's calculation, for instance, the all-day
efficiency of the best closed transformer was 65-76~o.34 He also calculated the efficiency
of his H e d g e h o g transformers under the same conditions. A certain design appeared to
have the highest all-day efficiency of all (86-6~o), and as high a full load efficiency (95~o)
as a closed one. It also had a small secondary voltage drop, and needed the least
material for construction. If his results had been really true, this would have been a 'step
towards the original practice of the pioneers of transformer work Messrs. G a u l a r d
and Gibbs'. 35
Responses to Swinburne were twofold. O n the one hand, there was praise and warm
acceptance of his a r g u m e n t as a new fact. William H. Preece applauded:
I t h o u g h t that was the kind of paper we wanted. In the present day we were
j u m p i n g by leaps and bounds, and improving all our systems of distribution
32The magnetizing current, or, the exciting current meant the primary current with secondary circuit
open (i.e., at no load). More exactly it denoted a 'wattless component' of the primary current, lagging 90~
behind the primary electromotive force.This component was called 'magnetizing' because it merely generates
magnetic fields without doing any work. In an unloaded transformer, nearly all of the primary current is the
magnetizing component, because the transformer does no work. As the secondary load increases, the
magnetizing component of the primary current decreases, while the watt component increases, and energy is
transmitted to the secondary of the transformer. For closed transformers, the decrease of the magnetizing
component was so rapid that it was less than 10% even at 1/10 load. On the other hand, however, the
magnetizing current occupies a considerable portion even at full load in open transformers. How rapidly the
magnetizing component decreased, therefore, determined the efficiencyof the transformer at various loads.
This watt-wattless consideration in electrical engineering had its origin in Swinburne's armature-reaction
theory. See Swinburne (footnote 31), 524. Refer also to M. Dolivo-Dobrowolsky, 'On the Efficiency of
Transformers', The Electrician, 29 (1892), 369-71.
33The neglect of eddy current was criticized by The Electrician. But it admitted that '[Swinburne's]
discussion of the problem is more detailed and in many respects more complete than any of his predecessors'.
See [leading article], 'Mr. Swinburne on the Design of Transformers', The Electrician, 23 (1889), 522 3.
34See the table in Swinburne (footnote 31),494. This was based upon the assumption that the all-day load
was equal to two hours of full load.
35Swinburne (footnote 31), 525.
58 Sungook Hong
~" ][~ G I ~ A I t A N T b3 E THE

A HIGHER
TBTiTR~XS~I~XKKTO iis
EFFICIENCY
8WISBUENE'$ "HEDGEHOG"
Tn.~
~NY CLOSED-CII~CUIT TqANSFORI~EI~ in TRANSFORMER.
PRICESInclude Termtnats,Base,&r Fireproof Cases Extra.
the blarket
NO HEAT. PERFECT INSULATION. , ,~I~ T Lamp~ Vrice : Lamp~. ! H .P Yrice~ I
0o-~.) n..v. ]l ~ __ I _
SWI NE & Co.

I
*25 5 10 0 i 300 12 30 0 0
~o 21 ~,~ol I,oo!lS ~oo
100 i 4 12 15 O 500 90 40 0 0
A L T E R N A T I N G and PRIVATE HOUSE I~O 17 ;7 o//?~o I 3o t "~ o o
CONTINUOUS CURRENT WATT- 200 i 6 20 0 0 I000 40 85 0 0
M E T E R S , MOTORS, I N S T R U M E N T S . INSTALLATIONS.
IRON TESTED FOR THE ~RADE.
9 We do not recommoml this Size,
BROOM I/ALL WORKS, TEDDINGTON, ENGLAND. ~I~T'~ " SXZ]~ TO O~=%~I=)'~:~.
Why pay twice

closed circuit
as much for
Transformer
a
'rhHEDGEH0GTrausf0rmer
when a FIREPROOF CASES EXTRA.
H E D G E H O G I Lamps
,~*,, *~l
fl. I
...... il.......I..... I ......
[
only wastes about a fifth 2 .,. ~ 'I . . . . ~.. aS
200 8 CO 0 0 i
or the power? 3 5 0 250 i0 24 0 0 ]
1~ ::: 4 4 0 300 12 ~OOOl
ONLY TRY IT. I 25 I ~ I ~ x 0 o l . 0 o ~ ~50Ol
I ~o ] ~ d s ~ e 0 ~o0 ~0 ~00Ol
I xoo [ ~ / z~ 15 0 750 30 55 0 0 I
1~0 i ~ ~ 7 ~ 7 0 ~000 r S~0O!
SWINBURNE& CO. a b , ~ ~00 Liguts act .~,,ca~d.
~IZES U.~VER 2 H P BY TII~ DOZENO~LY.
BROOM H A L L W O R K S ,
TEDDINGTON, The Two-Lighter is a epeo/a/ty [De Street Lighting,
saving more Ihan i e whole cost in Secondory
]E: N" G- L 2K N D. LsadJ. Price. wtth Case a~d Brackets. t~. 12s.
THE
From a~l 1 ~ 1 . to A=a eltr~
"HEDGEHOG"
Is rapidl U superseding the
, ,150
~,
60
100
2
4
6
8 18
13 t5
--
8C0
400
6o0
12 84 0
16 410 0
~ . o
C L U M B Y , INEFFICIENT, 22 0 76O 3O 64 0
] ,0ot,o
|I - - - 27 0 1000 40 83 0
CLOSED CIRCUIT TRAN8FORMER.
Now in u s e i n Above 4 0 0 llghm not jtocknd.
1PRANCE, RUB811, 8PAIN, 8WITZER- THE STREET LIGHTER,

Fort o.~ r..em. LaMI', A TRa~?OP.~IItI~
L&IqD, BOUTH IMERICA, &o., be*ides sualm 9 cAsz CO~LrLI~X.
many towns In yaHou* patti of Kng/an& ] ~ l R Z C ~ . - 7 o tsh* l.~0 yolt*, 145 Per tiereD.
., ~oeo volts, lso .
Mot |old In less quantlUe| t b ~ One d o l e ~ 8
SWINBURNE & CO., TEDDINGTON.

Figure 1. Advertisements of Swinburne's Hedgehog Transformer (From the Electrical Review
(1890-1892)).
particularly and all our systems of apparatus very often indeed; and when we
found men deliberately setting to work and studying questions with the
experience and the mathematical knowledge, and with the care of Mr.
Swinburne--why, we could only hail such papers with pleasure. 36
George Forbes commented that Swinburne 'had drawn attention to the fact that such
bad transformers were being made by some people at the present time'. Harris J. Ryan,
36W. H. Preece's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 31), The Electrician, 23 (1889), 526.
an American electrical engineer, soon confirmed the large hysteresis loss in some closed
transformers, substantiating the truth of the 'assumption made by Mr. Swinburne in his
remarkable and valuable paper'. 37
There were, however, as many critics as supporters. All the engineers who had
designed closed type transformers tried to refute Swinburne. There was a criticism
about Swinburne's neglect of eddy current loss and about the impracticality of the
dimension of closed type transformers that he took as his example. 38 Across the
Atlantic, Nikola Tesla and William Stanley of the Westinghouse Company pointed out
Swinburne's overestimation of hysteresis loss and many disadvantages of the open type
transformer. In spite of such criticism, commercial Hedgehog transformers, construc-
ted by the Messrs Swinburne and Co. of Teddington, began to be sold in the market. In
November 1890, Swinburne declared that the Westinghouse would soon advertise that
'it will pay you to throw away our converters and substitute the Hedgehog make'. 39
In early 1891, Swinburne read at the Institution of Electrical Engineers (lEE) a long
paper on the 'Transformer Distribution'. Although this paper dealt with the entire AC
system of Swinburne, special attention was again paid to his Hedgehog transformers.
Swinburne reiterated his prior arguments on the Hedgehog: the iron loss in closed
transformers is very large, especially at low load, and this can only be reduced by
designing open type transformers. He also compared the efficiencies of the two typical,
but ideal, Hedgehog and closed transformers of 1500 watts, by means of an a priori
estimation of the iron and copper loss. It showed a striking superiority of the former
over the latter: the full-load efficiency was 96-15~o for the Hedgehog and 92~o for the
closed transformer, while the all-day efficiency was 83"3~o for the Hedgehog and 51~o
for the latter. The iron loss was estimated as 13.5 watts and 120 watts, respectively. 4~
This analysis provoked a unanimous counter-attack from the supporters of closed
transformers. Criticism ranged from Swinburne's over-estimation of hysteresis loss in
closed transformers and his under-estimation of the effect of a large magnetizing
current in the Hedgehog, which caused large copper loss, to his experimental evidence
of the high efficiency (97~o) of the closed type transformers and finally to the decrease of
hysteresis loss with the increase of load. 4t The last point, which provoked an immediate
stir in the engineering community, will be examined in section 6.
3v G. Forbes's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 31), The Electrician, 23 (1889), 525.

Harris J. Ryan, 'Transformers', The Electrician, 24 (1890), 239~1,263 5 (p. 265).
38 [Leading Article] (footnote 33), 523; L. Duncan and W. F. C. Hasson, "Some Tests on the Efficiency of
Alternating Current Apparatus', Electrical World, 15 (1890), 242 ~ , (p. 243).
39 j. Swinburne, 'Swinburne's Hedgehog Transformer', Electrical Engineer, 10 (1890), 519-20. On the
advertisement of the commercial success of Hedgehog transformers, see 'The Swinburne "Hedgehog"
Transformer', Electrical Enoineer, 10 (1890), 232; 'The Hedgehog Transformer', The Electrician, 25 (1890),
651 2. On its criticism, see Nikola Tesla, 'Swinburne's "Hedgehog" Transformer', Electrical Enoineer, 10
(1890), 332; William Stanley, 'Plant Efficiency with Open and Closed Circuit Transformers', Electrical
Enoineers, 10 (1890), 642 3. See also T. Reid's defence of the open transformer on p. 369 of the same issue and
Swinburne's reply, 'Plant Efficiency with Hedgehog Transformer', Electrical Engineer, 11 (1891), 287-8.
4o j. Swinburne, 'Transformer Distribution', Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 20 (1891),
163 195 (pp. 183-9).
41 Refer to the discussion of Swinburne by Mordey, Fleming, Kapp in Journal of the Institution of
Electrical Enyineers, 20 (1891), 203 11, 227 32. For the influence of Swinburne's paper, see [Editorial],
'Alternating Transformers', Electrical Review, 28 (1891), 321.
60 Sungook Hong
Evidence supporting Swinburne was also put forth. S. Evershed, a self-educated

practical engineer, compared the all-day efficiencies of three different types of closed
transformers with that of the Hedgehog transformer, and maintained that he proved
the superiority of the latter to the former three. 4z His analysis, like that of Swinburne,
was based upon the calculation of hysteresis, eddy current loss and copper loss in both
the closed type and Hedgehog transformers. Theoretically, the Hedgehog certainly
appeared to be better than closed transformers; experimental evidences were vacillat-
ing. The relatively peaceful world of closed transformers became more and more
tumultuous with the introduction of the Hedgehog.
5. Measurement and unreliable instruments

Transformer efficiencies were estimated by several distinct methods. First, as the
efficiency, e, of a transformer is, given by the output/input ratio, it can be derived from
the measurement of input and output power. Galileo Ferraris measured these powers
by means of a calorimeter. Second, as input and output power are IpEp cos 0 and I~E~,
respectively,43 where Ip and Ep are the primary current and voltage (root-mean-square
value), cos 0 is the phase difference between them, and I~ and E~ are the secondary
current and voltage, we can find the efficiency,
IsE~
e=
IpEp cos 0
by measuring these five variables. The output watts could be measured easily, either by
electrical method or by connecting lamps, but the cos 0 in the input side made the
matter difficult. In short, the voltage measured by an AC voltmeter multiplied with the
current measured by a dynamometer only represented IpEp, not IpEp cos 0. As we have
seen, Ayrton and FitzGerald's quadrant electrometer method ingeniously comprised
the effect of the phase difference. After 1888, many engineers devised exact methods to
measure the input power. These methods will be discussed after examining other
methods.
Third, one can find the efficiency from a loss consideration. As the output is equal to
the input minus various losses, the general expression for efficiency becomes
input-loss
e=
input
loss
input"
If the total loss is regarded as consisting of the three different losses, i.e. the copper loss
(Joule heat loss, plus eddy current loss in the coils, if any), the iron loss (eddy current
loss and hysteresis loss in iron), and the loss due to magnetic leakage, 44 the efficiency is
(magnetic leakage + copper loss + iron loss)
e=l
input
42S. Evershed,'The Magnetic Circuit of Transformers:Closed versus Open', The Electrician,26 (1891),
536.
,*3For most central station workingit could be safelyassumed that the secondaryload was non-inductive.
Thus, there is no phase differencebetween I s and ES.
44For magnetic leakage refer to footnote 54 below.
Thus, one could either measure these losses or compute them. The Joule heat loss in
copper was easiest to estimate. The magnetic leakage and eddy current loss in copper
coils were negligible in most well-designed transformers. 45 But the iron loss was
troublesome, because, as an iron core was enclosed by copper coils, it was very difficult
to measure it independently. In addition, it was also very hard to measure the hysteresis
loss and the eddy current loss separately. W. M. Mordey once measured these two
losses for an iron armature by his practical thermometer method, 46 but it was later
severely criticized as inaccurate. Instead of measuring them as discussed, Swinburne
calculated hysteresis loss from Ewing's data and ignored eddy current loss, while
Evershed calculated both.
Finally, there had been two types of AC wattmeters. One was an electrometer-
wattmeter, which combined two separate readings in Ayrton and FitzGerald's
electrometer method into one reading by one instrument. Among these wattmeters,
Blondlot-Curie's and Swinburne's design were most famous. 47 The other was an
electrodynamometer-wattmeter, the prototype of which was nothing other than
Siemens's electrodynamometer. Like an ordinary AC dynamometer, it had two coils, a
thick coil of a low resistance that measures current and a thin coil (shunt coil) of a high
resistance that measures voltage. When the thick coil was made to connect in series to
the primary of a transformer and the thin coil to some external non-inductive resistance
coupled in shunt of the primary, it measured the power consumed in the primary of the
transformer. Unlike the DC wattmeter, however, the AC wattmeter was highly
unreliable, because it sometimes read too little and sometimes too much. Due to this
problem, objection to the use of the AC wattmeter had been enormous during the early
1880s. Around 1888, the source of trouble was revealed as the self-induction of the thin
wire, and it became known that if L/R (self-inductance/resistance) of the thin wire was
zero, the wattmeter would be rendered to read power exactly. 4. Then two methods
were tried by Swinburne: one was compensating for the thin wire's self-inductance, L,
with its own capacitance; and the other was making the thin wire out of some high
resistance material to overwhelm L. On this principle, Swinburne also designed his
dynamometer-wattmeter. 49
None of the four methods mentioned above were entirely satisfactory, because each
method had some defects. The calorimetric method was not suitable for large
commercial transformers. The quadrant electrometer method needed two identical
electrometers, or, otherwise, required that two measures be made. It also needed a non-
inductive resistance, where extra power was spent. Furthermore, its accuracy depended
45The eddy current loss in copper coils that had been practically ignored in the transformer
predetermination played an important role in Fleming's analysis of the Hedgehog transformer as is shown in
section 8 of this paper.
46 W. M. Mordey, 'Alternate Current Working', Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 18
(1889), 616 23.
47 For these electrostatic wattmeters, see 'Notes', The Electrician, 22 (1888), 212; J. Swinburne, 'The
Electrometer as a Wattmeter', Proceedinys of the Physical Society, 11 (1891), 122-5.
4s See, Ayrton's discussion (footnote 17), 172 6; Fleming, 'Notes on Alternate Currents', The Electrician,
21 (1888), 141-3.
49 For a description of Swinburne's dynamometer-wattmeter, see J. Swinburne and W. F. Bourne,
"Testing Iron', (read at the British Association meeting in 1890) The Electrician, 25 (1890), 648-50. Also see,
'Swinburne's Non-Inductive Wattmeter', Electrical Engineer, 12 (1891), 236 7.
62 S u n g o o k Hong
u p o n the ' t e x t - b o o k formula' of the q u a d r a n t electrometer, which t u r n e d o u t to be only

an a p p r o x i m a t i o n . M e a s u r e m e n t of the various losses was at times m o r e difficult t h a n
t h a t of o u t p u t power. Finally, in the early 1890s, the A C wattmeter, t h o u g h m u c h
i m p r o v e d , failed to be a d o p t e d universally, s~
As m e n t i o n e d earlier, electrical engineers (and s o m e physicists) tried to devise a
m o r e reliable method. It caused extensive i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e o r y a n d practice.
T. H. Blakesley's ' s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r m e t h o d ' can be held as a g o o d example. 51 T h e
s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r was the special use of an o r d i n a r y Siemens's e l e c t r o d y n a m o m e t e r
with one coil m a d e to connect to the p r i m a r y , a n d the o t h e r coil to the secondary, of the
transformer. By this simple m e t h o d , the phase difference between the two currents, a n d
thus between the p r i m a r y current a n d p r i m a r y voltage, could be easily measured.
E x p l a i n i n g the m e t h o d , however, Blakesley m a d e one reservation. This m e t h o d , he
r e m a r k e d , could be used only in cases where the p r i m a r y voltage and c u r r e n t were true
sine curves. Since the real form of current a n d voltage g e n e r a t e d by the d y n a m o was n o t
even similar to the simple sine function, o b j e c t i o n s against the use of split-
d y n a m o m e t e r r a n high, in particular, a m o n g p r a c t i c a l engineers. They t h o u g h t t h a t
r e g a r d i n g real voltage a n d c u r r e n t as simple sine curves (and then a p p l y i n g Blakesley's
m e t h o d ) was a typical a t t i t u d e of the ' P r o f e s s o r s ' w h o were i g n o r a n t of the
characteristics of real machinery. 52
The m a t t e r t u r n e d o u t to be m o r e complex. D u e to the F o u r i e r theorem, a n y
p e r i o d i c function can be m a d e as a sum of a series of sine a n d cosine functions with
different frequencies. In o t h e r words, Blakesley's m e t h o d , if it were true of a simple sine
function, w o u l d be true of a n y p e r i o d i c function. In 1891, A y r t o n a n d Blakesley p r o v e d
it simultaneously. 53 Swinburne, who denied the t r u t h of the F o u r i e r t h e o r e m in
a l t e r n a t i n g current, p o i n t e d out that Blakesley's s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r should n o t be used
in cases where there existed m a g n e t i c l e a k a g e between the p r i m a r y a n d the s e c o n d a r y
coils. As every real t r a n s f o r m e r had some m a g n e t i c leakage, this w o u l d have restricted
the use of s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r seriously. But, b a s e d u p o n Maxwell, J. P e r r y a g a i n
s h o w e d that if p e r m e a b i l i t y were a s s u m e d to be c o n s t a n t d u r i n g a cycle, Blakesley's
m e t h o d w o u l d be correct, however great the m a g n e t i c leakage might be. 5'~
50The discrepancies among engineers regarding the iron loss can be seen in [Editorial], 'The Losses in the
Iron Cores of Transformers', Electrical Review, 30 (1892), 312 14. Ayrton's discussion of Kapp (footnote 17),
166; 'Notes', The Electrician, 22 (1888), 212. The so-called textbook formula of the quadrant electrometer is:
d =k(A-B)[C-(A+B)/2], where A and B is the potentials to be measured, and C is the potential of the
charged needle of the electrometer.
sl This method had been first published in 1885, but had been neglected until he republished it in 1888.
T. H. Blakesley, 'Alternating Currents: Upon the Use of the Two-Coil Dynamometer with Alternating
Currents', The Electrician, 15 (1885), 390-2; Blakesley, 'On a Method of Determining the Difference between
the Phase of two Harmonic Currents of Electricity having the same Period', Proceedings of the Physical
Society, 9 (1888), 165-7.
52 Swinburne's discussion of Kapp's 'Alternate-Current Machinery', Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 97 (1889), 61.
53T. n. Blakesley, 'Further Contributions to Dynamometry, or the Measurement of Power',
Philosophical Magazine, 31 (1891), 346-54; W. E. Ayrton and J. F. Taylor, 'Proof of the Generality of certain
Formula published for a Special Case by Mr. Blakesley', Philosophical Magazine, 31 (1891), 354-8.
54j. Perry, 'Mr Blakesley's Method of Measuring Power in Transformers', Proceedings of the Physical
Society, 11 (1891), 164-72. The result however depended upon how magnetic leakage was defined. In this
paper, Perry defined it as the percentage difference between mutual inductance M and two self-inductances L,
N, that is x - 1 M/x/LN. On the contrary, Sumpner defined it as (Ip-I~)/I~. With this definition, Perry's
reasoning proved wrong. See Sumpner's discussion of Perry, The Electrician, 27 (1891), 141.
'Open versus Closed" Transformer Controversy 63
Besides the s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r m e t h o d , some novel m e t h o d s were c o n t r i v e d by the

leading engineers like Swinburne, A y r t o n a n d S u m p n e r , a n d Fleming. As I have
a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , S w i n b u r n e modified the q u a d r a n t e l e c t r o m e t e r m e t h o d a n d
exhibited an i m p r o v e d e l e c t r o m e t e r - w a t t m e t e r at the Physical Society in early 1891. 55
W i t h i n a m o n t h A y r t o n (with W. E. S u m p n e r ) a n d S w i n b u r n e a n n o u n c e d nearly
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a simple m e t h o d of using three voltmeters. 56 As A C voltmeters s7 were
r e g a r d e d as m o r e reliable t h a n A C wattmeters, a n d as there was no need to w o r r y a b o u t
m a g n e t i c leakage, the three v o l t m e t e r m e t h o d was generally r e g a r d e d as m o r e precise
than the s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r m e t h o d . In practice, however, it h a d two serious p r o b l e m s :
first, it required three s i m u l t a n e o u s readings; a n d second, the p o w e r of the g e n e r a t o r
needed to be d o u b l e d to supply nearly the s a m e energy with the n o n - i n d u c t i v e
resistance. T h e second fault restricted the use of this m e t h o d to the engineering
l a b o r a t o r i e s , because d o u b l i n g the input energy was n o t feasible in the real w o r k i n g
situation. J. A. F l e m i n g s o o n suggested a m e t h o d o f three a m p e r e m e t e r s , where such
extra p o w e r was unnecessary. However, Fleming's m e t h o d h a d an inaccuracy caused
by an inductive coil of the amperemeters. 5s
After 1891, these new m e t h o d s b e c a m e available to engineers. In a sense, however,
they increased, not decreased, the confusion. As was c o m p l a i n e d of in The Electrician,
engineers n o w h a d to c h o o s e 'between Ferraris, Blakesley, A y r t o n a n d Sumpner,
F l e m i n g a n d Swinburne', who did n o t agree with one another. M o r e o v e r , these various
m e t h o d s did not i m p r o v e the status of the t r a n s f o r m e r controversy. N o two engineers
still ' h o l d the same view a b o u t various losses by hysteresis, e d d y current, m a g n e t i z i n g
c u r r e n t a n d so on'. 59 W h a t was needed for A C m e a s u r e m e n t was neither a new
i n s t r u m e n t n o r a new method; it was a new a u t h o r i t y .
6. 'Exact Science'
A n o t h e r m y s t e r i o u s p r o b l e m c o n n e c t e d with the t r a n s f o r m e r c o n t r o v e r s y was
w h e t h e r hysteresis loss d e p e n d e d u p o n the s e c o n d a r y external load. It came to the fore
early in 1891 when W. M. M o r d e y , designer of the M o r d e y ' s closed transformer, was
criticizing S w i n b u r n e ' s p a p e r ' T r a n s f o r m e r D i s t r i b u t i o n ' at the lEE. W h a t M o r d e y
s u b m i t t e d in his case a g a i n s t S w i n b u r n e was the e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a o b t a i n e d by
Ayrton, a c c o r d i n g to which the iron loss of the M o r d e y t r a n s f o r m e r d i m i n i s h e d from 69
to 21 watts as o u t p u t increased from 850 to 2700 watts. This 'conclusive' e x p e r i m e n t
p o i n t e d to the c o n c l u s i o n that 'the losses in the iron d e c r e a s e d with the load'. 6~
55 Swinburne (footnote 47).

50W. E. Ayrton and W. E. Sumpner,'The Measurement of the Power given by any Electric Current to any
Circuit', Proceedings of the Royal Society, 49 (1891), 424-39; J. Swinburne, 'The Measurement of Electric
Power by Means of a Voltmeter', Industries, 10 (189t), 306-7.
57 At that time, there were several different AC voltmeters. The most popular one was Cardew voltmeter.
Besides this, William Thomson modified his electrometer to measure AC voltage, and Swinburne designed
the electrostatic voltmeter. See J. Swinburne, 'Electrical Measuring Instruments', Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, 110 (1892), 1-32 (pp. 14-15).
58j. A. Fleming, 'The Measurement of Electric Power given to an Inductive Circuit', The Electrician, 27
(1891), 9 10. W. E. Ayrton and W. E. Sumpner, 'Alternate Current and Potential Difference Analogies in the
Methods of Measuring Power', Proceedings of the Physical Society, I I (1891), 172-85.
59 [Leading Article], 'Alternate Current Difficulties', The Electrician, 29 (1892), 60-1.
6o Mordey's discussion of Swinburne's 'Transformer Distribution', Journal of the Institution of Electrical
Engineers, 20 (1891), 203-1 I.
64 Sungook Hong
This statement aroused an immediate stir in the electrical engineering community,

mainly because no theory seemed to support it. The iron loss consisted of the hysteresis
loss and the eddy current loss, both of which seemed to be independent of the external
load. According to T h e Electrician, various explanations, such as 'difference of phase of
currents, demagnetization by the primary, waves of magnetism running round the core
and neutralizing each other, sheets of magnetism soaking inwards one after the other',
came forth after the IEE meeting. 6~ Engineers came to know, before Mordey, that one
American engineer, H. J. Ryan, had observed the decrease of hysteresis loss with the
increase of the load, and had explained it as mechanical vibration in the iron core. 62 But
of these various explanations, none was entirely satisfactory.
J. A. Ewing, a living authority on magnetic hysteresis, related this phenomenon to
his theory of molecular magnetism and suggested an explanation, namely that the load
in the secondary caused some sort of vibration in the molecules of iron, which again
caused the variation in hysteresis l o s s . 63 But, he soon changed his mind, and so devised
an experiment to determine whether this decrease was really occurring. This time, on
the contrary, experiments showed no difference in the iron loss between full load and no
load. 64 Ewing's experiment had merit because the loss was directly measured, but at the
same time it had fault because small model transformers, instead of real commercial
transformers, were employed.
Since the iron loss consisted of the hysteresis loss and the eddy current loss, the
latter was a focus of attention as well. J. J. Thomson, who had much less interest in
technological matters than others, calculated the eddy current loss in iron and drew the
conclusion that 'the loss of energy by eddy current is inversely proportional to the
square of the number of laminae'. This clearly implied 'the importance of very fine
lamination in the iron. 65 Ewing soon added his own experimental results to J. J.
Thomson's calculation to estimate not only eddy current loss but also hysteresis l o s s . 66
The response of T h e Electrician to their efforts was not warm. It was partly because
the two professors assumed constant permeability in calculating the eddy current loss,
as if the hysteresis loss were not important. Moreover, the importance of laminating the
iron core J.J. Thomson's conclusion--had already been common knowledge among
electrical engineers. In addition, just saying that a fine lamination of iron was important
was hardly meaningful, because lamination was a very expensive process. T h e
Electrician remarked that
the investigation [of J. J. Thomson and Ewing] affords a rather good instance of
the way in which practice and theory tend to diverge from one another. Only
when, as in this case, the chief place is given to economic considerations, can
theoretical work be expected to have a useful bearing. 6~
61 [Leading Article], ~Exact Science', The Electrician, 26 (1891), 607.

62Ryan (footnote 37), especially, a table on page 264.
63j. A. Ewing, 'Magnetism in Iron and Other Metals, LII', The Electrician, 27 (1891), 602.
64j. A. Ewing, 'A Method of Measuring the Heat Developed on Accountof Magnetic Hysteresis in the
Core of a Transformer', The Electrician, 27 (1891), 631-2. This method consisted of comparing the heat
generated fromthe two transformers, one made magneticallyactiveand the other inactive. Ewing'sresult was
mentioned in 'The Dissipation of Energythrough Reversals of Magnetism in the Core of a Transformer', "/he
Electrician, 28 (1891), 111.
6s j. j. Thomson, 'On the Heat Produced by Eddy Currents in an Iron Plate Exposed to an Alternate
Magnetic Field', The Electrician, 28 (1892), 599-600.
66j. A. Ewing, 'On Magnetic Screening, Eddy Current, and Hysteresis, in Transformer Cores', The
Electrician, 28 (1892), 631-4.
6v[Leading Article], 'Eddy Currents in Transformer Cores', The Electrician, 28 (1891), 630-1 (p. 631).
What was important for electrical engineering was a compromise between technical
efficiency and economic considerations, a necessity for which neither J. J. Thomson nor
Ew_ing concerned themselves very much.
7. Transformers in theory and practice: Fleming on transformers

John Ambrose Fleming had been interested in transformers since their early stage.
In 1885, the Edison and Swan United Electric Company, for which Fleming worked as
scientific advisor, made a contract with the Ganz C o m p a n y for the British use of the
Zipernowsky's transformers, and Fleming, with Zipernowsky, worked on the efficiency
of the transformers. Since 1887 onwards, Fleming published, through The Electrician, a
series of articles on alternating current theory. These researches were gathered into his
first volume of the Alternate Current Transformer in 1889, 'the most exhaustive and
comprehensive treatise on the theory of transformers'. 6B After Fleming became
scientific advisor to the London Electric Supply Corporation in 1891, he made an
extensive series of experiments on the Ferranti transformers installed at the Grosvenor
Gallery station. These researches made him one of the authorities on AC transformers
in both theory and practice.
In early 1892, Fleming published three short papers in The Electrician. In these
papers, he presented a graphical method for estimating magnetic leakage, and, by
applying Steinmetz's empirical formula of the hysteresis loss, he obtained a practical
empirical formula for maximum primary current. In addition, he coined the term
'power factor' to represent the cosine of the phase difference (cos 0) between the primary
current and voltage. Before Fleming's naming of the power factor, cos 0 was called the
'cosine of lag' or the 'plant efficiency'. With those theoretical tools, Fleming also dealt
with the problem of transformer design. 69
There were two peculiar points in Fleming's conceptions. Although he was highly
theoretical, he thought that the efficiency of transformers could be determined only
with experiments, not by theoretical calculations. In addition, Fleming did not trust the
AC wattmeter method of measuring AC power without qualification, v~ This distingu-
ished him from Swinburne who thought that the efficiency could be derived from
theoretical calculation of copper loss and iron loss and who also firmly believed that
'there is no difficulty in making a good wattmeter', v 1 In his Electrician papers, Fleming
maintained that there was no theoretical guide as to the best proportion of copper to
iron, and it was to be found only by 'trial'. Also Fleming insisted that as an open-type
transformer usually had a very small power factor that caused the large magnetizing
current, it caused serious copper loss instead of iron loss. In fact, the large magnetizing
current had been frequently cited as a major defect of the open Hedgehog transformer.
In 1891, Swinburne had proposed to use an AC condenser to compensate for this large
magnetizing current, reducing the copper loss. In Fleming's viewpoint, this imperfect
condenser would instead cause another dielectric hysteresis loss. v2
6s Electrical Engineer, 9 (1890), 221.

69j. A. Fleming, 'The Harmonic Analysisof TransformerCurves', The Electrician, 28 (1892), 295 6, 32(~
7; 'Transformer Predetermination', The Electrician, 28 (1892), 635-5, 677-9; 'Transformer Design', The
Electrician, 29 (1892), 56-8. The "cosineof lag' was Blakesley'sand the 'plant efficiency'was Kapp's naming.
70Fleming'sdiscussion of Swinburne's 'Transformer Distribution', Journal of the Institution of Electrical
Engineers, 20 (1891), 229; Fleming's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 57), 41-2.
7j Swinburne's reply, Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 20 (1891), 244-5.
72j. Swinburne, 'The Probable Future of Condensers in Electric Lighting', The Electrician, 28 (1892),
227-8; Fleming, 'Transformer Design', (footnote 69), 58.
66 Sungook Hong
Along with such theoretical considerations, Fleming continuously conducted a

series of experiments on AC transformers in his laboratory at University College,
London. He borrowed several Ferranti transformers, a Westinghouse transformer, a
Kapp transformer, a Mordey transformer, and Swinburne's Hedgehog transformer
from the manufacturing companies along with some precise measuring instruments.
His assistant, J. C. Shields, and several senior students like J. T. MacGregor-Morris in
the Electrical Engineering Department helped him. 73 The experiments were first
mainly concerned with the loss in the iron core in transformers, but during the course of
his experiments, Fleming found a strange anomaly in the Swinburne's dynamometer-
wattmeter that he used. TM Pondering about this anomaly, it seems that Fleming
discovered an important clue that could forcefully close the long controversy between
the open and closed transformers.
8. Calibration and closing the controversy

Fleming read a long paper entitled 'Experimental Researches on Alternate-Current
Transformers' at the lEE on November 24, 1892. 75 In this paper, the results of
Fleming's extensive laboratory experiments were summarized in dozens of graphs and
tables. The paper was truly experimental, leading one practical man to comment that
'another valuable feature of this paper ... [is that] it has been written without much
introduction of mathematics'. 76 Nevertheless, discussions over this paper were held on
four occasions, making them the most lengthy in the history of the IEE. 77 The major
reason for such prolonged discussion was Fleming's argument that Swinburne's
Hedgehog transformer was less efficient than had usually been assumed. As we shall
see, this actually terminated the 'open versus closed' transformer controversy.
Before Fleming's lEE paper, several distinct methods of measuring power were, as
we have seen, competing with one another. What was to be done first was thus to
determine which method was the most reliable and precise. With some preliminary
trials, Fleming knew that Ayrton's three voltmeter method and his own three
amperemeter method, though fit for the closed transformers, were both unsuitable for
open transformers like that of Swinburne. With these two methods, the readings were
too unstable, and the variations in the readings of each measurement appeared too
large. Even though Fleming modified his three amperemeter method to read only one
amperemeter reading, the result was unsatisfactory, as well. Finally, he came to the
conclusion that the wattmeter was the most stable for the Hedgehog. 78
73See the recollection of MacGregor-Morris in J. T. MacGregor-Morris, 'AmbroseFleming His Life

and Early Researches', Journal of the Television Society, 4 (1946), 266--73(p. 268).
74Fleming's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 57), 42.
75j. A. Fleming,'Experimental Researcheson Alternate-Current Transformers',Journal of the Institution
of Electrical Engineers, 21 (1892), 594-686. It also mentions a hitherto unknown phenomena in AC
transformers, that is, the surge of current at the instant of making and breaking of the switch, and some
speculative reasoning on its causes.
76W. Wright's discussion of Fleming (footnote 75), Journal of the Institution of Electrical Enqineers, 22
(1893), 25.
77Thesediscussions were held on December 1and 8, 1892,and on January 12 and February 9, 1893,and
published in Journal of the Institution of Electrical Enyineers, 21 (1892), 694-713, 727~47; Journal of the
Institution of Electrical Engineers, 22 (1893), 2 33, 78-84. Fleming'sreply was made on February 9, and was
published in Journal of the Institution oJ'Electrical Enqineers, 22 (1893), 84-114.
~8Fleming (footnote 75), 602 27.
Fleming was well aware that the AC wattmeter had been a focus of criticism from
electrical engineers, including himself. AC wattmeters had been improved through the
late 1880s, and around 1892 some engineers, Swinburne in particular, began to regard it
as having no sensible self-induction. But Fleming was still cautious. He warned that
'this [zero inductance] must not be taken for granted without investigation'fl 9 Only a
calibration of extreme reliability will make the instrument stable. The first third of
Fleming's long paper was, therefore, entirely devoted to the problem of calibration.
Stated simply, calibration of some instruments is a determination of their scales in
reference to some other more reliable (i.e., standard) instruments. But what guarantees
the reliability of 'some other instruments'? This is similar to what Harry Collins called
the 'experimenter's regress', s~ In the actual situation, however, the endless regress never
does occur.
In our case, it was the comparison of AC variables with D C variables of known
value that prevented the experimenter's regress. In the early 1890s, for DC there was no
doubt that resistance was measured up to + 0.0001 ohm, and current and voltage up to
+0.01 ampere and +0.01 voltY 1 Thus, there were two central elements in the
calibration of AC instruments. First was the preparation of a non-inductive resistance,
where AC power, whose voltage and current were measured by a set of standard
instruments, was consumed. Fleming made six non-inductive resistances by winding
double silk-covered wire around big wooden frames. The total resistance of these six
coils connected in series was 9543-0 ohm, and when these were applied to AC 2400
volts, the resistance was increased to 9591 ohm due to heating. If these were truly non-
inductive, the current would thus be 2400/9591 = 0.250 ampere. The measured current
by the Kelvin deciampere balance was exactly 0.250 ampere. This proved that these
resistances were practically non-inductive within the range of experiments, s2 The result
could possibly be checked with DC power supply, because the Kelvin balance
measured both AC and DC.
Second, and more importantly, one amperemeter and one voltmeter, by means of
which other voltmeters and amperemeters (actually used in the measurements) were to
be calibrated, needed to be to hand. These instruments must be extremely reliable. As
standard instruments, Fleming adopted the Kelvin balance and the Kelvin multi-
cellular electrostatic voltmeter. It was a judicious choice. The Kelvin balance had a
world-wide reputation and was generally regarded as having overcome the defect of
Siemens's electrodynamometer. Furthermore, it was a very familiar instrument to
Fleming, because, in 1887, just before William T h o m s o n announced its construction,
Thomson asked Fleming to calibrate it and then compare the result with his own. At
that time, the difference in calibration between Fleming and Thomson was only
5/111 000. On its announcement, the prefix 'Standard' was attached at the head of its
79 Ibid., p. 624.
80 For the experimenter's regress, see H. M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in
Scientific Practice, second edition (Chicago, 1992). For a historical discussion of calibration, see S. Shapin
and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, 1985),
chapters 5, 6.
81 For Victorian metrology, see Simon Schaffer, 'Late Victorian Metrology and its Instrumentation: A
Manufactory of Ohms', in Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions, and Science, edited by Robert Bud
and Susan E. Cozzens (Bellingham, Washington, 1992), pp. 23 58; G. Gooday, "The Morals of Measurement:
Precision and Constancy in Late Victorian Physics' (unpublished manuscript, read at the History of Science
Society meeting in Washington, t992)_
s2 Fleming (footnote 75), 598 600.
68 Sungook Hong
name. The Kelvin electrostatic voltmeter had several advantages as well. As it did not
use any current, it was free from such errors in electrodynamic instruments as
temperature variations. In addition, these two instruments were used equally for D C
and for AC measurements. 83
Fleming first calibrated four of Swinburne's voltmeters with the help of the non-
inductive resistance and the Kelvin voltmeter. Then, with the Kelvin ampere balance,
Fleming standardized amperemeters such as Siemens's dynamometer and Ayrton and
Perry's ammeters. Finally, with the non-inductive resistance, Kelvin balance and
calibrated Swinburne voltmeters, two different wattmeters, those of Siemens and
Swinburne, were calibrated. To calibrate the wattmeters, an AC power of known value
between the non-inductive resistance was first measured by means of the Kelvin
ampere balance and the standardized voltmeter, and then the same power was
measured by the wattmeter. As Fleming emphasized several times, 'all the measure-
ments were ultimately referred to one Kelvin electrostatic voltmeter and one Kelvin
ampere balance'. 84
As to Siemens's dynamometer-wattmeter, Fleming paid every attention to reducing
the self-induction of the thin (shunt) coil to nearly zero. The original coil was only four
turns, having a very small self-inductance. To increase its resistance, Fleming attached
24 100volt lamps to the coil, rendering the value of L/R extremely small. In
Swinburne's wattmeter, however, the thin coil consisted of a coil of about a hundred
turns. Its resistance was 300 ohm. Then, an external resistance of 100 000 ohm enclosed
in a brass box had been attached to the thin coil. It made the value of L/R small, also. 8s
The input in the primary of the transformer was measured mainly by Siemens's
wattmeter, but it was frequently checked by the three voltmeter method. In the case of
closed transformers, these two values were virtually the same. Secondary output was
measured by the Kelvin balance and the Kelvin electrostatic voltmeter, and primary
current and voltage were also measured by calibrated ammeters and voltmeters. As
artificial load, he employed one series of 24 100 volt lamps of 50 candle power and two
series of 24 100 volt lamps of 16 candle power. The load was made to vary from no load
to full load by 10~o increments. 86 On the grounds of such careful preparation, Fleming
compared the efficiencies of the 5 H P Ferranti transformer (1885 type), two 15 H P
Ferranti transformer (1892 type), the 20 H P Ferranti transformer (1892 type), the 6500
watt Westinghouse transformer, the 6000 watt Mordey-Brush transformer the 4500
watt T h o m s o n - H o u s t o n transformer, the 4000 watt K a p p transformer, and finally
Swinburne's 3000 watt Hedgehog transformer.
There were two distinctive features in Fleming's 'literary technology'. 87 First,
Fleming emphasized that the experiments were made with 'apparatus and instruments
83 Fleming to WilliamThomson, February 4, 1887,in Kelvin Collection, CambridgeUniversity Library,

MS Add 7342. For the Kelvin Balance, refer to W. Thomson, 'On New Standard and Inspectional Electric
Measuring Instruments', Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians, 17 (1888), 540-56;
[Anonymous],'Sir WilliamThomson's New Electric Measuring Instruments', The Electrician, 19(1887),28-
31; "The Electric Measuring Instruments of Lord Kelvin', The Electrician, 37 (1896), 238-40. For the Kelvin
voltmeter, see A. W. Meikle,'Sir William Thomson's Chain of Electrostatic Voltmeters', The Electrician, 24
(1889), 67, 30-1, 59-60, 91.
s4 Fleming (footnote 75), 601.
85 Ibid., pp. 624-5.
86Ibid., p. 613.
s7 For the concept of literary technology, see S. Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's
Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984), 481-520.
obtainable in most electrical workshops' or 'in every testing laboratory', ss He tried to

give an impression that the experiments were practical, replicable everywhere, and far
from esoteric to his laboratory. Second, Fleming did not separate his research from
commercial concerns. The paper shows explicitly which transformer was best or worst.
More importantly, the results strongly suggested that the various transformers tested
by Fleming were not so efficient as to be advertised by the manufacturers, s9 For
example, contrary to general belief, no transformer had 98~o efficiency at full load.
The real importance of the paper, however, lay in the two technical conclusions.
First, Fleming definitely showed that the iron loss was constant irrespective of the
secondary load. 9~ Almost all of the graphs showed that the curves for total loss and the
curves for copper loss the difference being iron loss-'runs sensibly parallel'. Fleming's
laboratory experiments settled one of the most confusing features of AC transformers,
proving Mordey's argument in 1891 to be wrong. Though Mordey raised some small
objections to Fleming, he could not ignore the dozens of contrary graphs.
The second and more important conclusion was that Fleming's achievement
marked an end to the long open versus closed transformer controversy. Measurements
with Siemens's wattmeter revealed that Swinburne's Hedgehog transformer was less
efficient than most closed transformers, not only at full load but also at daytime load.
The Hedgehog transformer had an efficiency of about 73~o at one-tenth load and
94 95~o at full load. 9t However, Westinghouse's transformer showed 86~o and 96~o,
Ferranti's transformers 83-86~o and 95 96~o, and Mordey's transformer 8 0 ~ and 95~o
efficiency at the same loads, respectively. Fleming also measured the efficiency of the
Hedgehog transformer with a condenser, but the result was not so different. These
results showed that the Hedgehog transformer, with or without condenser, was 'no
more efficient or rather not quite so efficient a device as the much more simple closed
magnetic circuit transformer'. 92
Had Fleming stopped here, he would have added another confusing argument to
the state of the transformer controversy, instead of terminating it. Fleming, however,
went further. He provided a reasonable answer to the question of why the Hedgehog
was so inefficient. Fleming's measurements showed that the total loss of the Hedgehog
at no load was 112 watts. But the eddy current loss in iron was not more than 10~15
watts, and the hysteresis loss was about 20-30 watts. In sum, the iron loss amounted to
only 3 0 4 5 watts. The remaining 67-82 watts must be the copper loss, but why was it so
large? Fleming found the reason in the large eddy current loss in 'copper coils'. Due to
the structure of the Hedgehog (the secondary coils were first wound around the core
and then the primary were wound over the secondary), the reversal of magnetism could
certainly generate a heavy eddy current in the thick copper wires of the secondary. This
explanation also invalidated Swinburne's theoretical predetermination of transformer
losses, in which only the iron loss and the Joule heat loss in copper were taken into
account. 93
ss Fleming (footnote 75), 595-6.

s9 W. M. Mordey's and R. E. B. Crompton's discussion of Fleming (footnote75),Journal of the Institution
of Electrical Enyineers, 2l (1892), 729, 73840.
9oFleming (footnote 75), 660-3.
91Ibid., p. 658.
9z Ibid., p. 659.
93Ibid., p. 657.
70 Sungook Hong
That was not the end of the story. Fleming explained why Swinburne had believed
the Hedgehog to be highly efficient. The fundamental error did not, in a sense, lie with
Swinburne; it lay in Swinburne's 'marvellous' instrument, namely his wattmeter.
Curiously enough, but truly, this instrument 'measured too little by nearly 50 per cent
when applied to test his own open type transformer, while [measuring] approximately
the correct power taken up by the closed type transformer'. 94 For example, where the
three voltmeters and Siemens's wattmeter-dynamometer measured powers of 19-26,
and 19.16 watts, respectively, in the small Hedgehog transformer, Swinburne's
wattmeter indicated only 12'61 watts. Fleming confessed that 'again and again they
repeated these experiments, calibrating the wattmeters in various ways, and using every
precaution', but the results were the same. With Swinburne's wattmeter, the input
power of the Hedgehog was always measured too little, rendering the efficiency of the
Hedgehog to appear high. 95
In fact, Swinburne's wattmeter had been intimately related with the Hedgehog. In
1890, Swinburne 'calibrated' his wattmeter with reference to the power consumed in the
Hedgehog by comparing its scale with his theoretical calculation of the iron and copper
lOSS. 96 In spite of Swinburne's conviction, however, the wattmeter was considered as
suspicious. In early 1892, Kelvin pointed out that the current coil of Swinburne's
wattmeter was laminated in the wrong direction. Swinburne neglected Kelvin's
criticism, replying that 'the e r r o r . . , would be too small to be worth eliminating'. 9v In
April, 1892, Swinburne asserted:
The prejudice against the ordinary wattmeter has no real foundation. It is easy to
make calculations involving R and L, and to work out the errors due to L, thus
making out that the wattmeter is not accurate. But if anyone will take a real
instrument, designed with a little care, and substitute the approximate values of R
and L, he will find that he has been straining at a gnat. 98
To Swinburne, Kelvin again warned that the error could only be approximately
eliminated and 'the degree to which it was eliminated could always be ascertained by
experiment'. 99 Several months later, Fleming finally proved that Swinburne's convic-
tion was simply wrong.
Against Fleming's argument, Swinburne's defence was that the iron core of the
Hedgehog that he sent to Fleming was, unfortunately, a very bad one. He emphasized
that the low efficiency was not inherent in construction of the open transformer in
general. Also he contended that the error of his wattmeter was not inherent in the
wattmeter's construction in general, but in the eddy current produced in the brass case
of the particular wattmeter that Swinburne sent to Fleming.l~176Such an objection was
9~ Ibid., p. 667.
9~ Fleming suggested that the cause of this curiosity was due to the capacity of the shunt coil, which makes
the shunt current advanced in phase with the series current. Fleming (footnote 75), 671-5.
96 'The reading was 11 watts, and the calculated loss by copper and iron in the transformer.., was 10-3; so
the wattmeter is practically correct'. Swinburne and Bourne (footnote 49), 649.
97 Swinburne to Kelvin, March 23, 1892, Kelvin Collection, Cambridge University Library, MS Add
7342.
98 Swinburne (footnote 57), 17.
o9 Kelvin's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 57), 54.
10o Swinburne's discussion of Fleming (footnote 75), Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 21
(1892), 695 6.
too weak to invert Fleming's conclusion that the Hedgehog was inefficient and that
Swinburne's wattmeter was unreliable. 1~ The next year, Swinburne sent a well-
constructed Hedgehog to F. Bedell in America. Bedell confirmed a high efficiency of the
Hedgehog by calculating the losses from the shapes of the current and voltage curves,
but neither Bedell nor Swinburne reopened the controversy. While electrical engineers
showed much interest in Bedell's practical method of tracing AC curves, they would no
longer be interested in Bedell's claim that the Hedgehog was highly efficient, l~
9. Workshop theory versus laboratory practice

The conflict between Swinburne and Fleming dates back to the 1880s. In 1888,
Swinburne published a small book, Practical Electrical Measurement, where he
described 'electrical measurement in the workshop as opposed to mere laboratory
practice'. In the workshop, according to Swinburne, 'accuracy in ordinary use,
portability or cheapness, are considered as of more importance than absolute accuracy
under laboratory conditions'. 1~ In the chapter on the calibration of voltmeters,
Swinburne severely criticized 'Prof. Fleming's' potentiometer method as running
contrary to workshop practice. It was 'cumbersome and inconvenient, as well as
inaccurate' in comparison with the simple method of standard cell and resistances.l~
But Fleming had not proposed the potentiometer method solely for calibrating other
instruments in the laboratory. Rather, he had proposed it as a current, as well as
voltage, measuring instrument in heavy power engineering situations such as in the
central stations and in the workshops. It had an important practical advantage because
it was free from the deviant effect of 'magnetic memory' that rendered direct-reading
moving-iron ammeters and voltmeters inaccurate, lo5
The main controversy between Fleming and Swinburne, however, revolved around
AC phenomena. In 1886, Fleming made a famous comment on the difference between
the scientist-engineer like himself and simple 'ohmic men'.
The great simplicity of problems of steady flow, and the wider applications of
continuous currents, serve to keep many of us down in a low level of thought--in
a kind of valley populated chiefly by ohms and volts; but Professor Hughes has
lifted us up to a higher level of thought, and shown us from the summit of his
interesting researches a more varied and lovely prospect, in which the chief object
in the landscape is not mere ohmic resistance, but electrokinetic momentum; and
the suggestive line of thought thus opened up to must make many desirous of
exploring these pastures anew. lo6
1ol See Fleming's reply, Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 22 (1893), 84-115, (pp. 85-94).
See also a comment of The Electrician in 'Dr. Fleming on Transformers', The Electrician, 30 (1893), 446-8 (p.
447).
1o2 Frederick Bedell, K. B. Miller and G. F. Wagner, 'Hedgehog Transformer and Condensers', The
Electrician~ 32 (1893), 15-18; A. E. Kennelly, M. I. Pupin and C~ Steinmetz's discussion of BedelFs 'Hedgehog
Transformer', Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 10 (1893), 519 27.
to3 j. Swinburne, Practical Electrical Measurement (London, 1888), Preface.
1~ Ibid., p. 82.
los Fleming had used the potentiometer in measuring heavy currents in the Victoria Electrical Station
and in calibrating other instruments in the lamp factory of the Edison and Swan Company. J. A. Fleming, 'On
the Use of Daniell's Cell as a Standard of Electromotive Force', Philosophical Maoazine, 20 (1885), 126-40;
'On the Measurement of Large Electric Current', Industries, l (1886), 78-9, 127-8, 152.
o6 j. A. Fleming's discussion of Hughes's inaugural address at STEE in 1886, Journal of the Society of
Teleyraph En.qineers and Electricians, 15 (1886), 65.
72 Sungook Hong
At that time, only scientific men and science-oriented engineers could understand such
curious phenomena as self-induction and the skin-effect. But AC had never been the
sole possession of scientist-engineers because the practical men who designed
machinery began to grasp its theoretical side.In 1889, Swinburne responded to Fleming
and derided his simple dichotomy.
Some time ago, Dr. Fleming divided electrical engineers into two classes; those
who could not get beyond Ohm's law, and those who could think of alternating
currents. We would go further than this, and would sub-divide the last class into
those who try to deal with alternating currents as they really are, and those who
assume the simple sine law ... The latter ... should be accused of making their
data fit their calculations; they should then be convicted of pure mathematics...
Finally they should be condemned to the last penalty of breaking the shunt circuit
of a big dynamo through their bodies. 1~
James Swinburne was a highly theoretical man among practical engineers. He read
Maxwell's T r e a t i s e and had his own opinion on the electromagnetic theory of light. He
employed mathematics in his own research and could solve elementary differential
equations. More important was the fact the Swinburne devised his own theory to deal
with complex electrical machinery. He devised the theory of armature-reactions for
dynamos and motors. He formulated design equations for transformers and, with these
equations, estimated various losses in open and closed transformers. But his theory was
based upon neither Maxwell's T r e a t i s e nor laboratory experiments; it was based upon
his own workshop experience and upon machinery practice, and thus could be called
'workshop theory'. On such a basis, Swinburne explicitly depreciated the role of
experimental physics and laboratory practice in electrical engineering as opposing
mechanical engineering basis and workshop experience.
As the electrical industry develops, the methods employed in all its branches
depart more and more from those in use in scientific laboratories. The vast strides
made during the last ten years in the commercial use of electrical energy are
marked by departures from the practice of experimental physicist, and approach
to that of the mechanical engineer, l~
It would be a serious challenge to the scientist-engineers who stressed the 'scientific'
basis of electrical engineering.
The deep-rooted discrepancy between the scientist-engineers and practical en-
gineers was clearly shown in the theory and design of AC transformers. As the AC
system began to be gradually adopted, the role of the scientist-engineers stretched from
AC measurement to AC theory and AC machinery. They had two powerful weapons--
mathematics and the laboratory. As to transformers, they had James Clerk Maxwell,
107[j. Swinburne],'Induction and Other Things',(reviewof Fleming's Alternate Current Transformer in

Theory and Practice, 1)Electrical Review, 25 (1889),376-7, 410-12, 444-5, 467-9 (p. 410). For evidencethat
this anonymousarticle was written by Swinburne,see J. Swinburne,'TransformerDistribution',Journal of
the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 20 (1891), 187.
io8 Swinburne (footnote 57}, 1.
who gave the first mathematical analysis of induction between two circuits. Hopkinson,
Galileo Ferraris, Fleming and John Perry devised a mathematical analysis for the
closed iron transformers, incorporating, step by step, hysteresis, eddy current loss, and
magnetic leakage. ~09 In the laboratory, they measured and compared the efficiencies of
transformers, hysteresis loss and eddy current loss. Both mathematics and laboratory
measurements were a common feature in academic physics, an area where the scientist-
engineers usually spent their student days. 11~
The construction of transformers, however, had been governed by practical
engineers. Almost all of those who designed early transformers-Gaulard, Zipernowsky,
Deri, Blathy, Ferranti, Mordey, Kapp, and Swinburne were all practical men. 111 The
design was not confirmed by theory, nor by measurement, but by competition in the
market. Kapp once declared that 'the present types of transformers are not mere
experimental machines, but the survival of the fittest, and it would be futile to ignore the
lessons taught by practical experience extending over several years'. 112 The role of
mathematics was not certain either. For most practical engineers, however, AC
mathematics was too abstract and hard to understand. The following comment of The
Electrician reflects the pervading cynicism on mathematics.
It appears that if any one can but hold up a theory, however unintelligible, and
stick to it, he thinks he has a right to rank among alternate-current workers... If
he uses an alternator and a few transformers for practical work, and does not
pretend to an opinion on the relative merits of Fourier's theorem and exponential
functions, he is in danger of being considered a spy. 113
Swinburne once asserted that successful 'transformer makers have worked out their
designs without any reference to coefficients of self and mutual induction, and have
never even thought of the cosine of the angle of lag'. ~14
As for transformers, the confusing situation reached its peak in the early 1890s.
There were several conflicting methods of power measurement. There were different
opinions about the variation of hysteresis loss. Above all, there was a mysterious
controversy between open versus closed types. Underlying this confusion, there existed
a wide gap between theory and practice. In 1891, S. Evershed, a self-educated practical
engineer, summarized the situation as follows:
Future students of the history of the transformer at this time will probably
recognize two entirely distinct types: the ideal or phantom transformer and the
[real] transformer which runs lamps; the phantom being chiefly remarkable for
l oo j. C. Maxwell, 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field', Philosophical Transaction of the
Royal Society, 155 (1865), 459-512 (pp. 473-5). Maxwell put the L, M, N of the circuits as constant. But,
because this could no longer be applied to the closed transformer, Hopkinson employed the magnetic circuit
method in 1887, which became the standard one for the closed transformers. John Perry, however, employed
Maxwell's original method for closed transformers. See Perry (footnote 54).
1~o On the physical laboratories in late nineteenth-century Britain, see R. Sviedries, 'The Rise of Physical
Laboratories in Britain', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 7 (1976), 405 36; G. Gooday, 'Precision
Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain', British Journal for the
History of Science, 23 (1990), 25 51.
1~a John Hopkinson was perhaps the sole exception.
112 G. Kapp, 'Alternate-Current Machinery', Proceedinys of the Institution of Civil Enyineers, 97 (1889),
1 4 2 (p. 29).
113 [Leading Article], (footnote 59).
1~4j. Swinburne, 'The "Drop" in Transformers', Industries, 13 (1892), 139.
74 Sungook Hong
the number of its constant co-efficients and for its usually immaculate iron core...
The phantom and the real have developed side by side without any clearly
apparent relation between theory and practice as cause and effect.~15
In the same year, The Electrician lamented that 'recent papers have raised many
perplexities ... and we are today in the midst of a conflict'. ~16
Seen from Fleming's side, the situation was more complex. In 1891, the laboratory
in electrical engineering was just about to expand. In King's College, London,
following Lady Siemens's donation, a well-equipped laboratory for electrical engineer-
ing was opened under the directorship of John Hopkinson. The laboratory of Ayrton in
the Central Institution, the best electrical engineering laboratory in Britain of the day,
was in full working order.117 In Liverpool, Lodge's physical laboratory was extended
to incorporate electrical engineering. The laboratory of Fleming's University College,
London, marked a sharp contrast. It was small, poorly-equipped and hardly supported
by the University. When Lodge received s for electrical engineering apparatus in
1891, Fleming complained that 'I can't get 1,000 pence at UCL! '118 At the end of 1891,
however, Fleming finally succeeded in persuading the Council of the College to build a
new laboratory for electrical engineering, but, due to the lack of money, he himself had
to collect s for apparatus in 1892.119
During 1892, the scientist-engineers attacked the mysteries of the transformer with
precise experiments and collaboration in their laboratories. John Hopkinson measured
the efficiency of the Westinghouse transformer in his newly-equipped laboratory at
King's College, by means of a delicate and expensive AC curve tracer.~2~ Soon, Ayrton
and Sumpner at the Central Institution published a pair of papers on the efficiency of
the Mordey and the Hedgehog transformers.121 When Fleming was conducting a series
of experiments on various transformers in 1892, he was thus surrounded with double-
sided competitions: first, the challenge from practical engineers like Swinburne, who
stood upon workshops, and second, competition with other scientist-engineers whose
laboratories were just expanding. The person who first settled the mysteries of the
transformer was to win the highest credit. The essence of the transformer controversy
lay in the battle for a new authority in the field of electrical engineering.
Fleming's laboratory experiments solved most of the transformer problems once
and for all. Decrease of hysteresis loss with the increase of load proved to be a myth.
Exact calibration defeated Swinburne's major arguments, such as the high efficiency of
115 Evershed (footnote 42), 477.

116 [Leading Article], (footnote 61), 608.
117 For electrical engineering laboratories and workshops in the early 1890s, see A. Jamieson, 'London
Electrical Engineering Laboratories', Proceedings of the International Electrical Congress held in Chica9o in
1893 (New York: A1EE, 1894), pp. 220-30.
~ls Fleming to Lodge, May 23, 1891, in Lodge Collection, University College London, MS Add 89.
19 'Prof. Fleming's Merho', (January 4, 1892), in Committee Report, University College London, MS; 'A
History of the Chair of Electrical Engineering in UCL, 1885-1903', in Fleming Collection, University College
London, MS Add 122.
120 John Hopkinson, 'Test of Two 6,500-Watt Westinghouse Transformers', The Electrician, 29 (1892),
196-200, 225-7.
121 W. E. Ayrton and W. E. Sumpner, 'The Efficiency of Transformers at Different Frequencies', The
Electrician, 29 (1892), 615-9; idem. 'Open and Closed Magnetic Circuit Transformers', The Electrician, 30
(1892), 87 8.
the Hedgehog transformer and the reliability of Swinburne's wattmeter. Whatever its
nature might be, Swinburne's workshop theory thus turned out to be very un-
trustworthy. Instead, laboratory practice was highlighted. Furthermore, Fleming's
measurements were more practical, exhaustive, and conclusive than those of Hop-
kinson or of Ayrton and Sumpner. The precision in controlled measurement in the
laboratory proved essential to the progress of electrical engineering. The experiments
also foresaw the possibility of a new kind of engineering research and advanced
education in electrical engineering laboratories. 122
10. Epilogue
In January and February, 1893, Fleming gave a series of Cantor lectures at the
Society of Arts on the practical measurement of AC. W. H. Preece introduced Fleming
as 'a past master in the art of electric measurement', and Fleming began his lecture by
saying that, on AC measurements, he would give 'the cream of experience rather than
the skimmed milk of theory'. 123 In this lecture, Fleming suggested that the most reliable
method for AC power measurement was the wattmeter method, and the best wattmeter
was Lord Kelvin's, not Swinburne's.124 The authority of instruments passed from the
hands of 'mechanical engineers' to those of the scientist-engineers.
Three years later, in 1896, Fleming gave the Cantor lecture on AC transformers.
Unlike Evershed who, in 1891, classified transformers into the phantom and
the real, Fleming classified them into three: the mathematician's transformer, the
manufacturer's transformer, and finally the real transformer. 1z5 The distinction
between the second, which was always held as having high efficiencies, and the third,
which had 'all its virtues and vices', was crucial. The real transformer was different not
only from mathematician's but also from manufacturer's transformer. The role of the
scientist-engineers who dealt with the real transformer was thus different from both
that of mathematicians and manufacturers. They should conduct 'critical' researches,
instead of believing naively what manufacturers advertised.
In the same lecture, Fleming again declared that 'the battle of open versus closed
iron transformers was fought out and decided long ago'. He emphasized a small power
factor of the open transformer as its crucial defect.126 Next year, Swinburne for the first
time admitted that the Hedgehog was a failure in a commercial sense, saying that 'it was
never sold much', t27 But, he argued that the failure was not due to inherent defects of
the Hedgehog, but due to the rapid improvement in the closed transformers. Swinburne
122 O n the opening of Fleming's new laboratory, The Electrician commented: 'Useful as the results of a
properly-directed course of applied science may be to the students for whom these laboratories are primarily
concerned, we may confidently expect that valuable original work will be d o n e . . , by the professors and their
staffs'. [Editorial], The Electrician, 31 (1893), 113.
123 [Editorial], 'The Practical Measurement of Alternating Electric Currents', Electrical Review, 32
(1893), 202 3.
124 Fleming, 'The Practical Measurement of Alternating Electric Currents', Journal of the Society of Arts,
41 (1892 1893), 869. See also 'New Kelvin Engine-Room Wattmeter', The Electrician, 30 (1893), 477.
125 'Notes', (on Fleming's Cantor Lecture on Transformer) Electrical Review, 38 (1896), 116.
126 Fleming, 'Alternate Current Transformer', (Cantor Lecture) Journal of the Society of Arts, 45 (1896-
1897), 699-741 (p. 715).
127 James Swinburne, 'Transformers', Electrical Review, 41 (1897), 647-9.
76 "Open versus Closed' Transformer Controversy
reiterated that the core of the Hedgehog tested by Fleming was a very inferior one. By
that time, however, both the magnetic circuit of the transformer and the controversy
over open versus closed transformers had already been firmly closed. Neither of them
was ever opened again,
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was read at the Dibner Workshop (MIT), 'Practical
Electricians, High Science, and The Third Way', in April, 1993. I would like to thank
Jed Z. Buchwald for valuable comments, and Norton M. Wise for helpful discussions. I
am grateful to Steven Baljkas, Yves Gingras, Yung Sik Kirn, Janis Largins and Trevor
Levere for useful comments on the draft of this paper, and to Gerard L'E. Turner for his
effort to make my English more intelligible. 1 thank the IEEE Electrical History
Fellowship (1992 3) for facilitating may research.

Efficiency and Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Efficiency and Authority

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficiency and Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNALS OF SCIENCE, 52 (1995), 49--76

Efficiency and Authority in the 'Open versus Closed'

Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Technology,

2. The induction coil in power engineering

According to Hugh G. J. Aitkens, this is becausethe essenceof technologyis knowledgeand 'invention is

3. Efficiency, regulation, and closing the magnetic circuit

of the efficiency of Gaulard's transformers. The efficiency turned out to be 86.1-89Vo at

regarded as smaller than that in electromagnetic measurement, and partly because

~9Editorial, "SecondaryGenerators or Transformers', Electrical Review, 16 (1885), 536.

4. Hysteresis, all-day efficiency, and reopening the magnetic circuit

23 [Galileo Ferraris], 'The Zipernowsky-Deri Transformer', Electrical Review, 17 (1885), 140-1.

like objection applies to the use of a closed electromagnet as a 'throttle' in an

~" ][~ G I ~ A I t A N T b3 E THE

SWI NE & Co.

Why pay twice

1PRANCE, RUB811, 8PAIN, 8WITZER- THE STREET LIGHTER,

SWINBURNE & CO., TEDDINGTON.

3v G. Forbes's discussion of Swinburne (footnote 31), The Electrician, 23 (1889), 525.

Evidence supporting Swinburne was also put forth. S. Evershed, a self-educated

5. Measurement and unreliable instruments

u p o n the ' t e x t - b o o k formula' of the q u a d r a n t electrometer, which t u r n e d o u t to be only

Besides the s p l i t - d y n a m o m e t e r m e t h o d , some novel m e t h o d s were c o n t r i v e d by the

55 Swinburne (footnote 47).

This statement aroused an immediate stir in the electrical engineering community,

61 [Leading Article], ~Exact Science', The Electrician, 26 (1891), 607.

7. Transformers in theory and practice: Fleming on transformers

6s Electrical Engineer, 9 (1890), 221.

Along with such theoretical considerations, Fleming continuously conducted a

8. Calibration and closing the controversy

73See the recollection of MacGregor-Morris in J. T. MacGregor-Morris, 'AmbroseFleming His Life

83 Fleming to WilliamThomson, February 4, 1887,in Kelvin Collection, CambridgeUniversity Library,

obtainable in most electrical workshops' or 'in every testing laboratory', ss He tried to

ss Fleming (footnote 75), 595-6.

9. Workshop theory versus laboratory practice

107[j. Swinburne],'Induction and Other Things',(reviewof Fleming's Alternate Current Transformer in

115 Evershed (footnote 42), 477.

You might also like