46 



Dr. Astin had said: "If it affects the performance of the battery, it 

 does something to it that can be measured." '^*) 



Other technical evidence presented to the committee 



The rest of the hearings were occupied Math three military tech- 

 nologists reporting on military tests, a battery shop operator, and 

 seven users reporting favorable experience with the additive. (These 

 included three persons from military field establishments.) The aj^pen- 

 dix to the hearings contained data of three sets of military tests (adding 

 up to an inconclusive picture), the full text of the MIT report and test 

 data, affidavits of satisfied users, and correspondence between NBS 

 officials and other persons concerning AD-X2 and battery additives 

 generally. 



Typical of the experience reported by the technologists was that of 

 Kenneth W. Binding, experimental and developmental engineer, 

 Market Forge Co., Everett, Mass. His report occupied five pages of 

 the hearings (pp. 421-426). Binding had no special experience with 

 batteries, but designed and developed industrial equipment using 

 them. He testified that he had had one i)articular battery 5 years 

 old, hea\^ duty, costing between $500 and $600, used continuously 

 for 3 years, then left idle 1 year, because it had begun to operate un- 

 satisfactorily. The battery was then (November 1951) inspected by a 

 battery salesman who recommended its discard. It was ordered junked 

 at scrap lead salvage value of $29. The battery was then treated with 

 AD-X2, repeatedly charged and discharged in accordance with the 

 instructions provided along with the battery additive, and at the end 

 of the week was put back into service. The cost of the treatment was 

 $36. The battery was still in service in June 1953. Binding was now 

 using the additive in his other batteries and had not required a re- 

 placement battery in the previous 6 months; according to his past 

 experience he would have expected some necessary replacement 

 during this period. 



Recapitulation: A plethora of data 



From the political point of view, the committee had been provided 

 with more information about batteries, battery tests, and battery 

 experience than was really needed. The testimony brought out the 

 fact that Ritchie had gone to the trouble of working with NBS, 

 engaging the services of U.S. Testing Co., and contesting the Gov- 

 ernment's position regarding his additive. It established that the 

 product was associated by many users with an improvement in battery 

 performance. 



Voluminous test data had been collected from military field in- 

 stallations (pp. 618-757), that yielded inconclusive residts. There 

 were data and reports of NBS tests, with controls, that uniformly 

 showed an absence of beneficial results. There were the data of the 

 MIT tests, indicating differences in battery behavior with and without 

 the additive, but which the testing institution declined to identify as 

 benefits. 



The question was: What did all this evidence prove? How did it 

 bear on the issue? What action should the committee take? Was there 

 conflicting evidence or did it merely look that way? 



Despite the advice of Dr. Astin that field data should be looked 

 askance unless they were substantiated by quantitative data in 



134 Ibid., p. 335. 



