the first half of 1951 to be between $130,000 and
$140,000.(20) Ritchie's subsequent marketing difficulties
came from several sources, one of which was his initial
success.

The National Bureau of Standards had performed numerous
tests on storage battery additives dating back to 1919, and

had published their effect, or lack of effect, as early as

to abattery condition allegedly treatable with AD-x2
(sulfation: see Appendix A).

The Chairman: And when a battery is highly sulfated you
can't give it a charge?

Mr. Blum: When they get too bad you cannot.

The Chairman: You cannot, and you have had to jerk
those batteries out of that brandnew equipment and put in a
new battery?

Mr. Blum: Yes, sir; that's right.

The Chairman: And they go to the junkyard?

Mr. Blum: That's right.

The Chairman: Do you think that the brandnew battery
with an application of this compound would become
serviceable?

Mr. Blum: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: You know you are under oath, sir.

Mr. Blum: I don't care; I still believe it.

The Chairman: You still have that strong knowledge and
conviction?

Mr. Blum: I have.

The Chairman: Because of your years of experience?

Mr. Blum: That's right.

The Chairman: That if you could make an application of
this powder, that battery would come back into service?

Mr. Blum: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: And you have asked for the powder?

Mr. Blum: I have.

The Chairman: And they say it is not on your standard
equipment and they deny it to you?

Mr. Blum: No; they didn't say it wasn't on standard
equipment. I have a boss. I work under a boss like anybody
else, and I put my requisition in to him. He said they
cancelled it up on the hill; that's all I know.

20. Hearings, p. 189.

-19-


Washington Post attempted to educate the public and Bid. at
of its misconceptions. (12) The article included a photo
layout showing acoustical, optical, and radiation
experiments as well as materials testing and structural
analysis. The history of the Bureau was sketched with

technical highlights such as the development of the

alternating current radio set, "a feat that put radio into
the homes." But before the Eisenhower administration had
even taken office, attention was turned toward the Bureau of
Standards by a very unlikely man, Jess M. Ritchie, and his
invention, AD-X2.

Jess Ritchie listed himself in the 1953 Oakland ,
California phone directory as a psychologist and specialist
in alcoholism, as well as an expert in prolonging the life

of electrical batteries. (13) At other times he portrayed

Secretary of Commerce suggested in 1964 probably more
accurately reflects the real nature of its work." (National
Bureau of Standards Review of its Organization and
Operations, p.115. A study prepared by the Science Policy
Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library
of Congress, G.P.O., 1971). Allen Astin(then Director
Emeritus) addressed the topic of a name-change for the
Bureau in a prepared statement before the House Subcommittee
on Science, Research, and Development. "I have viewed such
suggestions with mixed thoughts. I can definitely see
several advantages to a broader name. On the other hand,
the present name is held in high regard by the Bureau's
specialized clients and there is danger of losing some of
this with a new name." (National Bureau of Standards
Oversight Hearings, Sept.16, 21, 22, 23 and 28, 1971,
U.S.G.P.0., 1971.)

12. Nate Haseltine, "Atom is Mightier than Additive at
Bureau of Standards," The Washington Post, June 28, 1953}.

13. Newsweek, July 6, 1953, p.ll.

ac


the class of additives of similar composition which LC 302
considered worthless. (26) Vinal recognized the information

was published quite a few years before, but as late as July,

1948 was not convinced that an updated version of the old
circular was a pressing item for the Bureau to undertake,
particularly at the expense of important defense work.
Nonetheless, Vinal did seem to understand the
usefulness of a more current technical summary. By February,
1949 such a statement was still forthcoming, and Willson was
becoming more anxious. "The persistent promotion of battery
compounds to the public for use as additives to the battery
electrolyte pose a serious problem, and we respectfully ask
whether it will not be possible for the National Bureau of
Standards to give us an up-to-date statement which we may

use for the information and guidance of the public."

26. The primary constituents of AD-X2 were sodium and
magnesium sulfates (glauber and epsom salts, respectively).
There was no evidence of a compound or alum structure (as
suggested by Randall) and the trace element content, which
Ritchie held so secret and considered so crucial, was "for
the most part...the same trace elements usually found in
varying amounts in commercial grades of sodium sulfate or
magnesium sulfate or in the normal battery electrolyte. It
is also pertinent to note in connection with the claim of
the uniqueness of the composition of AD-X2 that [NBS[
analyses have shown variations between samples as high as 19
percent in the ratio of sodium sulfate in AD-X2 to the
magnesium sulfate. The ratio of the quantities of trace
elements also vary appreciably." (Hearings, pp.218-20,
testimony of Allen Astin) See Appendix A for a brief
technical discussion on the operation of lead-acid
batteries, and the purported action of AD-X2.

-23-


The NBS Style Before Reorganization

Secretary Wilson was not simply being diplomatic when

he expressed his satisfaction with the defense work of NBS.

Edward U. Condon (Director of NBS between 1945 and 1951)

summarized this relationship at the end of his tenure at the

Bureau.

"Work in this field [defense] has always been an
important part of the program of the laboratories of
the National Bureau of Standards. The Bureau has a
long history in meeting such military needs, having
first developed the optical glass industry in World
War I, having initiated the atomic bomb project in
World War II, and also having played a large part in
the development of proximity fuzes, having developed
the only fully automatic guided missle to be used in
warfare thus far, and having done much to improve
knowledge of long-distance radio transmission on
which the continuity of military communications
depends." (2)

The military and the Bureau were quite amicable.

Defense had long found its needs serv

ed at the Bureau with efficiency and imagination, and the

particular strength of the Bureau in the research and

2.

Edward U. Condon, “Some Reflections on Science in

the Federal Government," Physics Today, April, 1952. This is
a transcript of a talk given by Condon at the National
Academy of Sciences on Sept.25, 1951.


1925. They tested additives for the Federal Trade
Commission, Post Office, and Navy, and in 1931 issued Letter
Circular 302, "Battery Compounds and Solutions."(21)

These circulars, available upon request for a nominal
fee, were issued from time to time on a variety of subjects
as a public service. They might cover information from
reports of the American Society for Testing Materials and
the American Standards Association, or they might cover such
diverse topics as "Metric and English distance equivalents
for athletic events," Porcelain and pottery," and "The
legibility of ledgers." (22) It was the Bureau's policy,
however, not to endorse or condemn any product by name.

Ritchie's account states that business was going nicely
in 1948 until the Bureau's Letter Circular 302 began to be
widely circulated among battery users. (23) Repeated

correspondence from Peofessor Rnadall to the Bureau (to both

Edward Condon and George Vinal, Chief of Electrochemistry
Division) seemed to get no response. Condon at last replied
to these enquiries of the previous 9 months in September,

1949.

21. Hearings, p.218.By March 1952, NBS had tested a
host of battery additives on 48 different occasions, dating
back to 1919. Table of tests, NBS Archives, box 205.

22.  Rexmond C. Cochrane, Measures for Progress: A
History of the National Bureau of Standards (U.S.G.P.0.,

1974), p. 251 (note).
23. Hearings, p.485.



Was ther anything to the case Randall and Ritchie were
making, that in a direct or indirect sense the Bureau was
involved in an aggressive campaign to close off the market
for AD-X2? After all, while the Bureau did make technical
information available to those who were interested, it was
not in the business of vigorously promulgating such
information among those who had not requested it.

The active agent responsible for the wide distribution
of information on battery aditives turned out to be the
National Better Business Bureau. A considerable
correspondence among the NBBB (mainly in the person of
K.B.Willson, Operating Manager), the Bureau of Standards
(Condon, Astin, George Vinal and Paul Howard; the last two
of the Electrochemistry section), and the Oakland,
California Better Business Bureau (Jack Harris, General
Manager) between 1948 and 1952 reveals some very arcane
maneuvering. (25) At one level, the National Better Business
Bureau was simply doing its job, responding to requests for
information about battery additives. And if it is a
technical question, who better to provide the necessary
scientific judegement than the National Bureau of Standards?
The was difficulty in simply harkening back to Letter
Circular 302. Ritchie and Randall were asserting a

significant differnce in effect existed between AD-X2 and

25. Hearings, pp.61,78,769-784.

299-


acid-solution electrolyte in an effort to restore their
charging capacity. An encyclopedia article acquainted him
with the name of Merle Randall, a professor emeritus of
physical chemistry at the University of California and
resident of Berkeley. A letter to Professor Randall was
answered two weeks later by telephone, and the two were soon
collaborating. Between April and October of 1947
experimentation on over 1600 different formulas culminated

in the particular additive known as AD-X2. (18)

, 18. This is the basic account from the magazine
interview found in the Hearings(pp.483-4). In an interview

with The Washington Daily News (April 21, 1953), the story
is pared down to: "When he got back to Oakland in 1947, he
experimented on batteries with Dr.Merle Randall, professor
emeritus at the University of California. In late 1947 they
came on AD-X2 'purely by accident,' Mr. Ritchie said." This
last statement is actually not in contradiction to Ritchie's
testimony that "after we got this thing, Dr.Randall assured
me that we had done it backward, that all of our reasoning
and all of our work, from what he could determine on the
product, had been a waste of time, for the simple reason
that what we had done was illogical and could only have
happened as an accident." Hearings, p.18.

The more disturbing difficulties concern Ritchie's
association with another battery additive named
Protecto-Charge. In a letter from Randall to Dr.George WwW.
Vinal (head of electrochemistry) of NBS dated April 23,
1948, Randall speaks of Ritchie purchasing equity ina
patent application by one Donald E. Keifer for Protecto-Charge.
(Hearings, pp. 21 and 44-45) Upon examination by Senator
Hubert Humphrey, Ritchie owned up to running into a fellow
in New York (possibly Keifer) and buying a half-interest in
a business, though it turned out to be "a tremendous amount
of trouble." (p.20)

The letter was the first by Randall to the Bureau
extolling the virtues of Ritchie's battery additive. It
describes the physical effect on the battery plates,
suggests the processes at play, and finally lists commercial
operations which had been having great success with the
treatment. "Reductions of 85, 90, and in one instance 95

= Je


Committee member, head of NDRC's Division 5 and NBS
consultant! Jacob Rabinow recalls this conversation.
"I once stopped Dr.Dryden on the street and asked
him, ‘Just how is this organized? Who works for
whom?'
"And he said, ‘Jake, I don't know.'
"I said, 'Well, if you don't know, then I won't
bother.' And I never did. We didn't get organized
until after the war. We then had the usual
organizations of sections, divisions, and so on."
(8)

The vast majority of the Bureau's operating funds came
from the Department of Defense under the rubrik of
"transferred funds." This placed the Bureau in the status of
sub-contractor, and effectively removed it from the
Congressional budget process. This was not illegal in any
sense, and provision for such work was explicit in the
legislation affecting NBS.

Congress first addressed the problem of transferring
funds to the Bureau from outside agencies during the
Harding administration. The Appropriation Act of (May 20)
1920 provided for any Government agency requiring scientific

investigations within the scope of NBS functions to transfer

8. Rabinow transcript, op.cit., p.7.


Defense Department imagined no problems would attend the
transfer, and that work would continue as usual with simply
a different authorization appearing on the paychecks. The
following episode is instructive in this regard.

"One day (Harold) Goldberg, (Myron) Domsitz, and I

(Jacob Rabinow) were called in to meet with Astin

(Allen V. Astin succeeded E.U.Condon as Director of
NBS inl951) and General Simon. (4) General Simon was
head of Army R&D. We were told that we would be
split from the Bureau and become a Class 2 civilian
installation in the Army. That was the highest type
installation they could have. And I said, ‘But,
General Simon, I heard you tell the story once that
if you want original work you cannot do it in an
Army installation, that you have to do it outside.
Is that correct?'

"He said, 'Yes, but unfortunately I have to do it
for political reasons.'

(At this point, Rabinow explains that, prior to

this meeting, he had tried to lobby

4. “Effective April 1, 1952, NBS restructured the
Ordnance Development Division, responsible for research,
develpment and engineering of electronic ordnance devices.
Domsitz, Rabinow and Goldberg became chiefs of Ordnance
Development Programs A,B and C, respectively (also
designated Divisions 13, 16 and 17). In the same
reorganization, the Corona Ordnance Branch (see p. below)
was designated Branch D. Bureau Order 52-22, March 20,
1952. NBS Archives, Administrative History File, Box l.

=6-


development of advanced electronics fit hand-in-glove with
the military's post-war agenda.David Noble sees the work of
the Bureau during World War II as transcending the
particular hardware, and contributing to a broad base of
creative talent in electronics. Speaking with special
reference to the Bureau of Standards, Noble feels "...the
war had generated a wide range of components and devices,
greater understanding of electronic technology, and an army
of electronics enthusiasts." (3)

Electronics at the Bureau was almost entirely
defense-related, and was largely defined by the four
divisions to be removed: Ordnance Development, Electronic
Ordnance, Electromechanical Ordnance, and Missle
Development. If we are to find an explanation for the
seeming ready acceptance by the Secretary of Defense of this
radical restructuring of the Bureau of Standards, it is not
that of technical inadequacy. In April, 1953, the Research
and Development Board reported to Wilson that the proximity
fuse program (a prominent NBS project) was a "most important
function" for defense, and there was "no other group in
existence with the necessary team experience and diversity
of skills which are required to manage proximity fuse

developments for guided missiles, rockets, mortars and

bombs." (3a) Neither is it sensible to assume the
3. David F. Noble Forces of Production (New York,
1986), p.47.

3a. New Republic, May 25, 1953, 9.11

=5is


By any standard, Ritchie soon found great success by
very aggressive and savvy marketing. He personally visited
concerns where storage battery maintenance constituted a
major outlay. He gave AD-X2 to a battery foreman at the
Army's Benicia Arsenal to try in any batteries he wished.

The foreman was skeptical about any ‘battery dopes,' and

chose batteries which were considered hopeless. Nonetheless,
the batteries became usable, and thereafter the Arsenal
became a steady customer until regulations prevented further

procurement of AD-X2. (19) Ritchie estimated his sales for

percent in annual battery expense during the past year has
(sic) been reported by large firms, some of which have
always had an intelligent battery-service program." Even
reading back just one year from the date of the letter puts
these ‘user field-tests' at the very beginning of the
collaboration of Ritchie and Randall, nowhere close to the
time Ritchie asserted for the final formulation of AD-X2,
let alone the time needed to get the product in the field.

It is not problematic that Randall is discussing
Protecto-Charge rather than AD-X2, for Ritchie readily
admitted that the name change came later (1948). But ne’
there is any merit to the user success being claimed by
Randall, it is purchased at the expense of all the
collaborative laboratory work. Randall (coauthor with
G.N.Lewis of Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical
Substances, 1923) died in March of 1950.

Allen Astin mentioned a similar discrepancy in his
testimony. (Hearings, p.219) Referring to another letter
from Randall, Astin noted : "...in one of Randall's letters
of July 1948 was a statement that in one experiment with
these additives, treated batteries had remained in service
without a single failure for as long as 17 months. This is
interesting in the light of more recent statements that the
additive was not invented until the fall of 1947."

19.Hearings, p. 485 and pp. 359-365. The testimony of
the foreman, Emerson Blum, is characteristic of users. The
following is part of an extended (and highly repetitive)
examination by the Chairman (Sen. Edward Thye) concerning
the discard of new batteries on new government vehicles due

=18=


free-wheeling approach, as a project was much less prone to
be bottle-necked by a single step waiting for administrative
due-process, or the sluggish work-docket of an isolated and
disinterested third party.

Robert Huntoon, who later headed Division 15, the
Missile Development Lab at Corona, Calif., recalled the
plasticity of administration during the war. There was no
formal project structure, and therefore work was not billed
to a specific project. "The Director was essentially given a
pot of money," which was then distributed to the various
working groups. "The organization was changed about every
two weeks."

An organizational chart from 1943 reveals very little
line authority. (7) "Division D-General" was the heading for
the NBS defense-related work. Its stated purpose was "secret
and confidential defense projects for Division 4, National
Defense Research Committee," and cooperation with other NDRC
divisions. The NBS technical staff of Division D was divided

into Groups 1 through 5. Scattered about were NDRC

assistants and administrators, with NDRC's Division 5 tacked
on as an addition to the Bureau's technical groups.
Hugh L. Dryden was an NBS staff member, though his

organizational duties were as National Defense Research

ls "NBS Functional and Personnel Organization
Charts," Jan.1, 1943, NBS Archives, Box 349.

-8-


The reader may well wonder just what "public" this is,
which beieges NBBB with technical questions and is not
satisfied with the considerable information already
available. The answer is found in a letter from Keystone
Batteries, Inc. to The Association of American Battery
Manufacturers, Inc., dated February 2, 1950. Sections of the
letter are as follows:

"When the AD-X2 first came out, we thought they
would kill themselves off in short order like most
of the other battery additives in the past, but they
seem to be getting stronger and reaching out further
all the time, and they will probably reach midwest

and east unless something is being done...

"We heard that they sold the Army Ordnance
Department in California $25,000 worth of AD-X2, but
the Ordnance Department in Washington has since
issued a bulletin to all departments stating this
AD-X2 to be of no benefit to batteries and
instructing them to stop using same. Is there any

way we can verify this?

“We think it will be of benefit to all members if
the association came out with a bulletin quoting
Bureau of Standards pamphlet, part of Geo.W.Vinal's
letter dated December 7, 1949, and this Army
bulletin (if available).

-24-


STANDARDIZING THE BUREAU

The Battery Additive Controversy and

the Reorganization of the National Bureau of Standards

Nelson R. Kellogg

March 23, 1987

The Johns Hopkins University


Eisenhower took office the Bureau was putting most of its
effort into the last of the recently outlined functions,

which was supported almost entirely by the ‘ancillary'

transferrance of funds. In terms of budget and research
commitment the Bureau of Standards was out of balance.
Still, it is all too easy to consider the ‘corrective
reorganization' of the Bureau as inevitable. It is true that
the emphasis on defense was exacting a cost on basic
research at NBS, but the trend had been to expand the
military work rather than attempt any limitation, and that
aggressive growth appears to have been attractive to the
Department of Defense and the Bureau of Standards both. It
may be mentioned as well that there is no evidence to
connect this reorganization with the political turmoil
surrounding the previous Bureau director, Edward Condon, who
came under the scrutiny of the House Un-American Activities
Committee, except the siege mentality which infected some of

the participants.

==


appropriate sums (with the approval of the Secretary of
Commerce) to the Bureau. Public Law 212 (1932) extended the
policy of transferred funds and services to all branches of
the Govenment, assuming such services cannot "be as
conveniently or more cheaply performed by private
agencies..." One more piece of legislation of interest here
is Public Law 619 (1950), which at long last amended the
Bureau's Organic Act of 1901. This Act allowed for functions
NBS had been vigorously pursuing over the years, but which
were difficult to reconcile with its original purpose.
Section 2 of P.L.619 outlines six broad areas of work
suitable for the Bureau of Standards. The first four
included the maintenance of physical standards and
scientific constants, development of codes and standard
practices, and the testing of materials for Government and
independent use. The fifth provision permits NBS to advise
Govenment agencies on scientific problems, and the sixth
allows for the "[i]nvention and development of devices to
serve special needs of the Government." (8a)

In fiscal year 1953, the direct appropriations to NBS
were approximately 8 million dollars, and the transfer funds
amounted to more than 40 million dollars. Of those 40
million, nearlt 39 million came from the Department of

Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission. (9) By the time

8a. Cochrane, op.cit., Appendix C.

De "A Report to the Secretary of Commerce by the Ad
Hoc Committee for Evaluation of the Present Functions and
Operations of the National Bureau of Standards," submitted
Oct.15, 1953, Sec. IV, Table 2. NBS Archives Box 199.

-10-


against the removal of the ordnance divisions at
high levels of the Army and the Air Force.]

"When we were told this [that the divisions would
join the Army], my immediate comment to Astin and
Simon was to say, ‘Well, I have had a wonderful
time. I loved the work and the people, and now I am

going to quit...'" (5)

It is quite reasonable that the staffs of the ordnance
divisions would be chary of the working conditions to which
they had grown accustomed, and would fear the loss of such
under military supervision. Personal interviews with

alumni of the laboratories reveal a high degree of

collegiality and informality which was also expressed in a
very liberal administrative style. (6) Research during the
war and afterward was characterized by a fluidity of work
associations. An engineer or technician might be formally
assigned to one branch, but perform a test or draw a
template for a project in a different branch or division as
needed, with no concern of strict accounting for time and

materials. Division chiefs greatly enjoyed this

5. Jacob Rabinow, unpublished transcript of personal
recollections (taped 1982), p.15. NBS Archives.
6. Robert D. Huntoon, interview at his home, Nov.5,

1986; Jacob Rabinow, interview at NBS, Nov.3, 1986;
Lauriston Taylor, interview at his home, Dec.11l, 1986.

i.


Randall, consultant to Pioneers, Inc. (Ritchie's
company whose additive was their only product), had been
trying to get the Bureau to make an exception for AD-X2 by
not classifying it with the welter of battery dopes deemed
of no value to storage batteries. (24) Randall had supplied
testimony and some technical arguments to establish AD-X2's
merits. Condon's reply was a refutation of the evidence
adduced, stating that nothing indicated AD-X2 was in any way
different from a general class of additive which had shown
no merit in laboratory tests. He also tried to convince
Randall of the relatively passive role played by the Bureau.
"Other agencies of the Federal government are not obliged to
‘ultimately require an approval by the U.S.National Bureau
of Standards.' The Bureau issues no formal ‘approvals' in
the sense that the word is used, for instance, by the
Underwriters Laboratories. We merely report the results of
each of our experimental tests to the government agency
which requested it and that agency is free to make such use
of it as it desires. This is one of the reasons why we
consistently decline to make tests of commercial products
for private concerns, except for calibration tests which
serve to disseminate the units of measurement."

This all sounds innocent enough, and very circumspect.

24. Condon's reply of Sept. 12, 1949, Hearings,
pp-.80,81. Randall's letters, ibid, pp.46,92 (Dec.1, 1948 to
Vinal, Aug.17, 1949 to Condon).



that the decision to sever the ordnance divisions found its
genesis, and an understanding of these events is a window on
the Nation's peculiar ambivalence for its scientists and

scientific institutions in the early Cold War period.


himself in more ingenuous tones. One newspaper interview
reported he "said proudly he had only a sixth-grade
education. He's been a bulldozer operator, a construction
worker, a contractor." (14)

It was Ritchie's interest in storage batteries (e.g.
automobile batteries), and his vision of the fortune to be
made from them which brought him to the attention of certain
large business interests. But it was his skilfull and
zealous response to what he felt was the unjust persecution
of a citizen by his government which propelled him to the
national spotlight. What follows next is an account of the

main elements of the controversy.(15)

14. The Washington Daily News, April 21, 1953.
Ritchie's claim to the title of "psychologist" stems from a
certificate of Doctor of Psychology he received from a
correspondence school called the College of Universal Truth
(cited in The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 1953).

15. The story of AD-X2, Ritchie's battery additive
powder, is chronicled in several sources.

i. An interesting, prosaic account from Ritchie's
point of view is a magazine interview entitled "My Battle
for Battery AD-X2." This was entered into the record of the
Hearings before the Select Committee on Small Business,

United States Senate, Investigations of Battery Additive AD-X2,

United States G.P.0O., 1953, pp.482-491. The entire body of
these hearings, comprising 785 pages, is the single most
complete collection of relevant documents. NBS Archives, box
199,

ii. A very brief account is included in the" Report
of the Committee on Battery Additives of the National
Academy of Sciences," (to the Secretary of Commerce,
submitted Oct.30, 1953). NBS Archives, box 682.

iii. Technical Information for Congress, Report to
the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, U.S.
House of Representatives, Ninety-First Congress. U.S.
G.P.O., 1969. This work summarizes a number of
issue-centered case studies, the first being AD-X2: an
intelligent analysis of policy.

aiid


in 1947-49. Return of WWII scrap was small, and domestic
requirements very great, including batteries for resumed
domestic auto production, lead-sheathed cable, bearing
bronze (10% lead), atomic shielding, and leaded gasoline.
During the years of suspended automobile manufacture
(1943-45), car owners had sought ways to prolong the life of
these 'irreplaceable' vehicles, and battery life was
commonly considered to be on the order of 2 years. As
Ritchie himself told the Senate committee: "Batteries were
as scarce as hen's teeth; you couldn't get them in 1947."

Although Ritchie insisted that the majority of his business

was with the users of large, industrial storage batteries,
and other professional concerns, the shortage of lead would
have an economic impact throughout the battery industry.
(17)

The events immediately following Ritchie's return from
the Phillipines constitute the most obscure part of the
story. In one account Mr. Ritchie was inspired by a nagging
suspicion that something could be done to reduce battery
failure and the challenge of critics that nothing, in fact,
could be done. He set up shop in an old furniture store,
tearing apart old batteries, rebuilding them, and

experimenting with various chemical additions to the

17. Technical Information for Congress, 1969, op.cit.
pp. 15, 16. Ritchie is quoted from Hearings, p.19.

-16-


character of the organization," and that over 50 percent of
the Bureau's fifty million dollar operating budget during
the previous fiscal year was devoted to these activities.

The statement summarized the mechanics of the transfer and

emphasized the satisfaction of the Department of Defense
with the work done by the Bureau of Standards. Every effort
would be made to maintain the quality of staff in the
ordnance divisions being transferred, and the esprit de
corps which they enjoyed while part of NBS. Both Wilson and
Weeks supported the continued use of NBS by Defense for
suitable work in areas other than weapons development. In
addition, "Secretary Weeks believes that the transfer will
be the means of strengthening the Bureau's basic program, an
accomplishment which has been one of his primary objectives
in administering the Bureau."

The ramifications of this carefully worded press
release would be great indeed for the federal institution
most representative of basic research in the physical
sciences. And yet, the announcement caused little debate in
and out of government. This is not to be attributed to
public ignorance or apathy. Indeed, the Country and its
government were more acutely aware of the National Bureau of
Standards in the fall of 1953 than at any time before or
after. But there was good reason for this decision to be
eclipsed by other events in the minds of scientists,

politicians and the public at large. It was in these events


"We are informed that the 'Tire, Battery and
Accessory News' (published by the Trade Press
Bureau, Kansas City, Mo.) are (sic) endorsing this
preparation probably on the strength of receiving an
ad from the AD-X2 people, and we think it might be a
good idea if the association brought some pressure
to bear on this magazine and made them retract this
endorsement. If they refuse to do this, I feel sure
that they would lose most of their subscriptions and

ads from battery manufacturers, etc.

"This is a serious situation. We know that we have
lost a considerable amount of business for last
month alone and the loss of business to large

manufacturers must have run into thousands.

""We feel sure that with the cooperation of the
association and all its members we will be able to

lick this thing..."(27)

27. There is evidence that the battery manufacturers
were indeed a constituency, and that the fears voiced by
Keystone Batteries were not those of a rogue outfit. A
letter dated Oct.19, 1951 from the advertising manager of
Commercial Car Journal to the advertising firm representing
Pioneers, Inc. explained, with great embarrassment, why a
half-page spot for AD-X2 had to be denied. "...I was
summoned to the office of the President of Chilton Company,
who had at his desk a representative of the advertising
agency handling the Exide Battery account.

"This gentleman was protesting the acceptance of
Pioneers, Inc. advertising in Commercial Care Journal on the

=252


STANDARDIZING THE BUREAU

The Battery Additive Controversy and
the Reorganization of the National Bureau of Standards

On July 24, 1953, the United States Department of

Commerce released the following statement:
Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson and Secretary
of Commerce Sinclair Weeks jointly announced today a
plan to transfer from the National Bureau of
Standards to the Department of Defense the major
ordnance research and development activities,
including staff and facilities, now located at NBS.
This transfer is in accordance with recommendations
made by Dr.Mervin J.Kelly, Chairman of the special
committee established by the Secretary of Commerce
to evaluate the present functions of the National
Bureau of Standards in relation to the present
national needs.(1)

The statement went on to justify and particularize the basic

decision. The press release pointed out that the ordnance

program at the Bureau had grown so as to "change the

1. Press release, Dept.of Commerce, July 24, 1953.
NBS Archives, Box 202.


AD-X2: An Opportune Catalyst

There were those, in 1953, who would find the Bureau of
Standards an attractive target for ideological warfare, both
in Congress and the in the new administration. But for most
of its history, the Bureau has not been very prominent in
the public consciousness, or in the minds of elected
officials. Condon recalled the following incident from a
hearing before the House Appropriations Committee.

"I remember one time one Congressman had me quite
upset because he was scowling through the whole of
my presentation. When it came his turn to ask
questions he asked me, ‘Doctor where is the National
Bureau of Standards?' I told him it was out on

Connecticut Avenue and he said excitedly, 'Is that

what that place is?' and he became quite friendly."
(10)
It is not at all surprising that a public, largely
ignorant in scientific matters, would find it especially
difficult to comprehend and remember the various activities

of NBS. (11) A special article in the Sunday edition of the

10. Condon, op.cit., p.ll.

ll. A study in 1971 submitted that the nature and diversity of
Bureau's work are obscure to the average citizen. "While
much of what the Bureau does or does not do can directly
affect the lives of the average citizen, the diversity and
technical nature of its work tends to discourage interest in
the NBS by him...The Bureau in a real sense has become more
than just a Bureau of Standards. The alternative designation
as the Institutes for Science and Technology which the

a1 Qe

the


Jess Ritchie first entertained the idea of an elixir
for improving the performance of standard lead-acid storage
batteries while working construction in the Phillipines in
1946. As "one of the men in charge of an $80 million
construction project for the United States Army Engineers"

he was constantly plagued by battery failure in trucks and

heavy equipment. Having recalled seeing someone squeeze a
lemon into a failed storage battery that subsequently took a
charge, Ritchie tried a similar approach. There were no
lemons available, but plenty of fresh limes, and in short
order he was keeping "a small army of men busy squeezing
lime juice into the dead batteries and with a rapid change
program got enough use out of them to keep [his] machines
going on schedule. {He] not only saved countless thousands
of dollars in lost time, but kept Uncle Sam from getting
slapped with a fat bill for new batteries." (16)

Ritchie returned from the Phillipines with no
particular plans to pursue battery additives, but the idea
that something might be found to effectively prolong battery
life was still on his mind. There was good reason why such
an agent would find a ready and lucrative market. The

shortage of lead was particularly acute in the United States

_16. Senate Select Committee Hearings on AD-X2,
op.cit., p. 483, (referred to hereafter as Hearings).

—[5=