33 



who had accepted employment in 1952 as consultant to Ritchie; ^* 

 on July 29, Dr. Laidler, accompanied by O'Connor, met with Dr. 

 Astin to discuss the results of the NBS tests the previous month. In 

 a subsequent letter, August 5, to Ritchie, Dr. Laidler expressed dis- 

 satisfaction with the NBS interpretation of the data. He also mdicated 

 the existence of a hostile attitude that existed between himself and 

 the Director."' Dr. Astin later described "proponents of AD-X2" at 

 this time as "lookino- for minor flaws in the report and the testing- 

 procedure ***."-« 



The proponents of AD-X2 continued to press for further action 

 by NBS to validate the product. As a residt of the conversations 

 between Dr. Astin and O'Connor, a meetmg was convened, September 

 29, in Dr. Astin's office at the Bureau. 



Its purpose, according to O'Connor, was to "clear the air." In attendance were 

 Dr. Astin, O'Connor, Ritchie, Laidler, two representatives of the Post Office 

 Department, a representative of the Department of Justice, and several NBS 

 scientists. Also present was Dr. Harold C. Weber, the chemical engineering 

 professor from ^IIT, who reported favorable results from some lareliminary 

 tests of AD-X2 he had run on his own initiatives^ 



The mterest of the Justice Department related to an antitrust case 

 in preparation against the Association of American Battery Manu- 

 facturers for consph'acy to prevent resale of used battery lead. Dr. 

 Weber's interest appears to have derived from his contact with Nor- 

 man Goodwhi, president of Guaranteed Batteries, Inc., of Boston, 

 and local sales representative for Ritchie's product. ''^ Laidler's role 

 at this time seems to have been as consultant to the Small Business 

 Committee.'^ 



According to a memorandum of that meeting, circulated hj the 

 chairman of the Senate committee, and a[)parenth^ prepared by 

 O'Connor, it was agreed that additional tests of AD-X2 would be 

 desirable, that jjreferably such tests should be held elsewhere than in 

 the NBS, and that NBS would agree to i)articipate. (Dr. Weber's 

 recollection was that Dr. Astin did not agree to partici[)ate, but merely 

 said "it could be arranged" or something of thesort.)^" Dr. Astin's own 

 explanation was that no definite agreement had been made, and that 

 in view of Ritchie's attitude toward tlie Bureau, "* * * we concluded 

 that it would be better if MIT carried out its tests completely inde- 

 pendently." He added that at the September 29 meeting Ritchie had 

 said that "* * * he would believe no results which were not favorable 

 to his product and that he did not believe Bureau personnel could be 

 depended on to give a fair test." ^' 



O'Connor wrote NBS, September 30, suggesting that Bureau liter- 

 ature critical of AD-X2 not be circulated by the Bureau until conflict- 

 ing technical points of view were resolved. On October 8 he wrote 



'* According to Lawrence, p. 17, in late 1952 Laidler was "the Committee's unpaid consultant, who had 

 until recently been Ritchie's scientific adviser and would be again in 1953." 

 "5 Hearings, op. cit., p. 150 (where the letter is reproduced in full). 

 '6 Hearings, op. cit., p. 224. 

 " Lawrence, op. cit., p. 14. 



78 Hearings, op. cit., p. 380. 



79 In the hearings, Senator Humphrey asked Ritchie how Dr. Laidler had become acquainted with the 

 committee. Ritchie replied, in part, that: "Dr. Laidler had been helping me with tliis situation, and due 

 to some difficulties with the Duector of the Bureau of Standards, he reached the conclusion that he had 

 better not work for me any more, and the committee was just entering into the tiling then, and * * * really 

 taking an interest in the situation, and they had no technical help. I believe that tlie committee felt at that 

 time that possibly Dr. Laidler's academic freedom was threatened, and they asked him. To the best of my 

 knowledge, they knew at that time that he had been helping me (p. 207)." 



'0 Hearmgs, op. cit., p. 384. 

 81 Ibid., p. 225. 



89-044—69 4 



