He was running ten amps over thin wires; of course that doesn't work. The problem there was that he was transmitting significant power at low voltage and high current. That doesn't say anything about the superiority of AC or DC. AC has historically been the more practical choice because you can trade AC voltage for current easily with a transformer, but there are ways to do that with DC now too. Maybe there's an argument to be made that transformers are cheaper or more reliable than boost converters; I don't know one way or the other.

If wikipedia is to be believed, DC is better in terms of conductor material costs and transmission losses than AC, at least for long distance high-power high-voltage transmission lines.

> A long-distance, point-to-point HVDC transmission scheme generally has lower overall investment cost and lower losses than an equivalent AC transmission scheme. HVDC conversion equipment at the terminal stations is costly, but the total DC transmission-line costs over long distances are lower than for an AC line of the same distance. HVDC requires less conductor per unit distance than an AC line, as there is no need to support three phases and there is no skin effect.

> Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...