43 



Finally, he described the procedure used in the NBS tests during 

 June 1952, the methods used in interpreting the test results, and his 

 OA\Ti conclusions based on these results. He also offered his own con- 

 clusions on the MIT tests, which differed from those dra\v-n by Dr. 

 Laidler. He asserted that "* * * the [major] effect reported by MIT 

 is * * * observable in the batteries only vdth. electrolyte of extremely 

 dilute acid concentration, so dilute in fact that it appears to be of no 

 significance whatever in normal storage-battery operation." "* 



In the interrogation that followed his prepared statement, the 

 committee sought to learn why NBS had conducted no field tests of 

 the battery additive. Dr. Astin explained variously that the field test 

 was less amenable to control of the external variables than was the test 

 in the laboratory, that field tests were employed to explore the practi- 

 cal significance of laboratory findings, and that he knew "* * * of no 

 instance in a field test where something has been demonstrated of this 

 sort which could not be demonstrated in a laboratory test." "^ 

 Moreover — 



* * * We have taken the point of view that if the material performance does 

 anything useful in the operation of a battery, then we should be able to relate it 

 to some performance characteristics that can be measured. That has proved 

 completely fruitless. I mean any pertinent effect, I should say.'^" 



In response to repeated comments by the chairman that the layman 

 found the detailed reports of user-experience persuasive. Dr. Astin 

 agreed that he could understand this. But he suggested that the same 

 results would have been obtained with or ^^'ithout the additive, if the 

 batteries in question had received otherwise identical treatment. In 

 answer to Senator Sparkman's question as to the importance that 

 should be attached to testimony by engineers, on the use of the 

 additive, Dr. Astin suggested — 



Well, I think you should ask them for the type of observations and measure- 

 ments they have made on which to base their decision that the material helps 

 them. You should ask them if they have any control so that they have a base 

 with which to compare their measurements. '^i 



Asked whether Dr. Randall was an "eminent scientist," Dr. Astin 

 said that in the field of battery technology, he was not in a class with 

 Dr. Vinal, and, "I would not endorse him." ^^^ He later explained 

 that Dr. Randall's written submission of his views in an article had 

 been rejected by a scientific journal "as not having adequate technical 

 content." ^^^ 



Dr. Astin acknowledged that the NBBB request was a factor in 

 the NBS initiation of activity on Circular 504, but insisted that — 



* * * our legislation authorizes us to disseminate the information we accumulate 

 when such data is of importance to scientific or manufactiu-ing interest. We had 

 information which has apparent importance to the public. The National Better 

 Business Bureau said it was important. 



Now, since our legislation specifically states that we should appraise the interest 

 of science and manufacturing interest before we publish data, I see nothing wrong 

 with that. * * * If, however, this committee does not think it [a legitimate pro- 

 cedure], then we would like your guidance on that.'^* 



119 Ibid., pp. 225-226. 

 n» Ibid,, p. 224. 

 iMJbid., p. 260. 

 "1 Ibid., p. 228. 

 '22 Ibid., p. 251. 



123 Ibid., p. 321. 



124 Ibid., p. 252. 



