23 



That NBS would not do any commercial testing at the request 

 of an individual or business firm; 



That NBS would not identify tested products by name or 

 company affiliation. 



However, Ritchie's dissatisfaction with the status of his product 

 under this policy encouraged him to generate pressure on NBS to 

 test his product before condemning it. Similar pressure was exerted 

 on NBS by the National Better Business Bureau (NBBB) in an ef- 

 fort to counteract Ritchie's promotional claims that his product was 

 different from those found worthless by NBS laboratory tests, and 

 that the various warnings on the subject issued by NBBB, based 

 on NBS findings, did not apply to AD-X2. 



"When, in response to these pressures, NBS tested the product, 

 assured the NBBB that the product had been tested, and then allowed 

 the fact to be made public by NBBB, Ritchie's status as a political 

 plaintiff became a special one. Summary action by the Post Office 

 made his problem exphcit and urgent. 



By selecting the Senate Select Committee on Small Business as 

 the forum in which to present his case, Ritchie was assured of a friendly 

 hearing, if he could estabhsh (a) that his was a small business, (b) that 

 his product had a reasonable claim to utility, and (c) that he had been 

 obstructed in the marketplace by "big business" and bureaucratic 

 regulation. Ritchie was able to document these points. 



Bureau oj Standards Involvement with AD-X2 



The first Federal agency to encounter Ritchie and his company 

 in connection with the controversy was the National Bureau of 

 Standards. Professor Randall's letter of April 23, 1948, wTitten by 

 Randall as consultant to Pioneers, Inc., called attention to the 

 favorable response of batteries when treated with the additive. He 

 said it improved the service and restored the condition of batteries 

 to an extent quite different from that produced by adding equivalent 

 amounts of sodium sulfate and epsom salts.^^ 



The Randall letter was apparently the opening gun in a campaign 

 to secure an exception for the product of Pioneers, Inc., then known 

 as Protecto-Charge and later called AD-X2. The NBS in 1931 had 

 issued Circular 302 which had recommended against the use of any 

 battery additive, and had named sodium sulfate and magnesium 

 sulfate (respectively known as glauber salts and epsom salts) as 

 worthless additives.^* The National Better Business Bureau had long 

 carnpaigned against battery additives as fraudulent, and had relied 

 mainly on the NBS for technical data and support. During World 

 War II, the NBBB had issued "Facts About Battery Dopes" to 

 further its campaign, and "to help the war effort." ^" Ritchie sought 

 to advance the contention that Circular 302, having antedated his 

 product by 16 years, could not be considered to apply to it. 



His success in gaining the support of the local Better Business 

 Bureau of Oakland, Calif., was shoun by a "confidential memoran- 

 dum to all bureau managers," circulated by Jack A. Harris, general 

 manager of the Oakland BBB, February 21, 1949. It recapitulated 

 the state of affairs regarding Ritchie's campaign, as follows : 



23 The Randall letter, cited earlier. Hearings. Op. cit., pp. 44-45. 



2« Text of NBS Circular 302 was reproduced in Ibid., p. 515i 



2S The text of "Facts About Battery Dopes" was reproduced in Ibid., p. 41. 



