41 



offered exhibits of Dr. Randall's technical writings in support of the 

 additive. He graphically described Dr. Randall's reaction to the 

 discovery of AD-X2. 



He included documentary evidence of Dr. Randall's repeated at- 

 tempts to win recognition from NBS of the unique virtue of his prod- 

 uct. Ritchie also introduced trade literature favorably describing 

 AD-X2, and evidence (including bills of sale for repeated military 

 orders) demonstrating that his product had numerous satisfied cus- 

 tomers. He also gave evidence in the form of correspondence to show 

 that a controversy had occurred between the Oaklaiid Better Business 

 Bureau and the NBBB concerning AD-X2. 



The scientific aspects of Ritchie's testimony were largely evidential, 

 as he did not represent himself as technicall}^ qualified. In addition 

 to the documents by Dr. Randall, he presented informatioji about the 

 experiences and uncontrolled tests by the Physics Department of the 

 University of San Francisco, reports by the United States Testing Co., 

 various field tests of his own, and an evaluation by Dr. Laidler of NBS 

 Circular 504. 



There were evident tactical advantages to Ritchie in leadhig oft' as 

 witness. For one thing, he was able to enlighten tlie connnittee as to 

 how an electric storage battery worked, couching his explanation in 

 terms compatible with his own explanation of the usefid function of his 

 additi\e. It was also convenient for Ritchie's case for him to be able 

 to mterject his own mterpretation of the results of the tests he reported 

 on to the committee. 



Another 29 pages (482 to 510 of the hearings) were occupied by the 

 testimony of Norman Goodwin, president of Guaranteed Batteries, 

 Inc., of Boston, Mass., and an east coast distributor of AD-X2. 

 His testimony included a nine-page reprint of a trade magazine article, 

 as told by Ritchie ("the exclusive behhid-the-scenes story of the fight 

 for recognition of the battery powder which caused all the trouble"). 

 Goodwin claimed to have lost $40,000 because of the use made bj^ his 

 competitors of NBS Circular 504 to campaign against him. 



Goodwin identified his competitors as "battery manufacturers, 

 the manufacturers and dealers or })eople who were selling batteries." ^" 

 He described a talk he had given on the additive to a group of potential 

 customers at a trade association meeting in Boston, and said that 

 during the 30-minute question period at its close, "the New England 

 rnanager of a large national battery manufacturer stood u]), and he and 

 his assistant took up the whole question period reading the Bureau of 

 Standards 504 Circular, and otherwise fouhng up tlie situation." 

 Goodwin asked why? ^^^ 



Goodwin conceded that "battery additives have, in the i)ast, had an 

 unsavory rei)utation, and with cause * * *." But, "in view of the 

 actual field experience with battery AD-X2, which luis been ]>iled up 

 in all ])arts of the country, it is absurd that the Bureau of Standards, 

 wdth their inadequate laboratory tests, would even dare to ignore the 

 excellent results obtained from tlie wealth of field experience over a 

 period of years * * *." ^^ jj^ d(!scribed a number of favorable experi- 

 ences by his customers and c( Qchided bj^ recounting the favorable 



':i Ibid., p. 492. 

 "2I)Mfl., p. 497. 

 "3 Ibid., p. 404. 



