^4 



The U.S. Bureau of Standards, Circular No. 302, specificaly [sic] condemns 

 battery additives composed of sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate on the inclu- 

 sive condemnation that these products are epsom salts and glauber salts. It is 

 Dr. Randall's contention that these two chemicals when used in certain combina- 

 tions with other elements do not form epsom or glauber salts, but form a new 

 compound which does not possess the harmful qualities of the above-named salts. 

 Numerous attempts have been made by Pioneers, Inc., Dr. Merle Randall, S(!n- 

 ator William Knowland, and I, [sic] to get the Bureau of Standards through the 

 Chief of Electro-Chemistry Division, Dr. George W. Vinal, to give this product 

 a fair test to either prove or disprove the statements made in this circular. In 

 every case, the only courtesy received from the Bureau of Standards has been a 

 statement that further test is unnecessary in that the product is admitted by its 

 manufacturers to contain sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate.^' 



Shortly after receiving the letter from Randall, Vinal wrote Mr. 

 K. B. Willson, operating manager of the NBBB, June 25, 1948, 

 observing that battery componnds "seem to be becoming increasingly 

 numerous and troublesome" and soliciting his opinion "as to the 

 desirability of issuing an up-to-date statement of the problem." He 

 still regarded Circular 302 as valid, but noted that NBS had con- 

 ducted a 2-year program of unsuccessful research to find satisfactory 

 methods of storing war-surplus batteries, and that information 

 acquired in the course of this work might usefully be incorporated in 

 a revision." Willson replied, June 30, that a new statement would 

 be "extremely helpful to American business and to governmental 

 agencies" as there were several such products on the market. He con- 

 tinued: "Perliaps the most aggressive is Protecto-Charge, which is 

 being promoted out of Oakland, Calif." Willson said lie was includ- 

 ing in his letter some corresi^ondence with Dr. Merle Randall, object- 

 ing to the NBBB bulletin on battery dopes. "I do not know Dr. 

 Randall, but he is presumed to have some standing and his vouching 

 for the product lends further support for it in the minds of the 

 inexperienced and tlie uninformed." '^^ 



Dr. Vinal wrote Willson again, Jidy 16, exi)laining that national de- 

 fense work had kept him too busy to spend much time "* * * on 

 these rather troublesome battery compounds." He added: "Tliere 

 seems to be unusual activity at the present time, which is ])robably the 

 result of shortages of lead and finished batteries." He saw no reason, 

 on the basis of the information he had about Protecto-Charge, why 

 any excei)tion could be made for this ]:)rodiu't in the application of 

 Circular 302.-^ Vinal's next letter to Willson, dated December 9, 1948, 

 contained a rough draft of the revised circular and invited comments 

 "with reference to subject matter and any possible legal complica- 

 tions." 2" 



On December 1, 1948, Harris, of the Oakland Bettei'^ Business 

 Bureau, ^vTote Vinal on behalf of Pioneers, Inc., asking NBS either to 

 test the company's additive or to make an excej)tion for it from Circu- 

 lar 302. Vinal rephed, December 22, explaining that NBS had not 

 tested AD-X2 (Protecto-Charge) because he had been informed by 

 Randall that it was merely magnesium sulfate and sodium sulfate, the 

 effects of which were well known by NBS to be useless in batteries. 

 Moreover, tests of the material were being made at the Signal Corps 

 laboratory at Fort Monmouth and at the New York and Mare Island 



26 Ibid., p. 76. 

 2' Ibid., p. 769. 

 2' Ibid., p. 770. 

 2» Idem. 

 SI- Ibid., p. 741. 



