Mr. Mindes said his company tested many batteries for a year and a half, some untreated and other treated with the additive. His testimony was admitted over Government objections that he had not personally conducted all the tests.

Mr. Mindes testified that AD-X2 “increases the charging and discharging efficiency, reduces the internal operating temperatures, does not harm lead acid batteries, and reduces shedding of active material."

[The Washington Post and Times Herald, Friday, April 8, 1955]

VIRGINIAN BACKS AD-X2 BEFORE FTC

(Associated Press)

Complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that battery additive AD-X2 fails to benefit battery performance were challenged yesterday by an Arlington, Va., expert.

F. A. Harrell, who told a Commission hearing he has been rebuilding and servicing batteries for 34 years, said the controversial additive "significantly" lessens some of the causes that impair battery functions.

He testified in opposition to the Commission's complaint against Pioneers, Inc., Oakland, Calif., manufacturer of the additive, and Jesse M. Ritchie, its president, that they have misleadingly advertised the product.

Harrell, in his testimony, said that AD-X2:

Lessens the harmful effects of sulfation, a major cause of battery failure, and also helps to prevent its formation.

"Definitely" extends the life expectancy of new batteries as well as those that are sulfated but otherwise mechanically sound.

Causes batteries to operate with less heat, thereby lessening water loss through evaporation.

Lessens danger of plate buckling and increases the charging speed of sulfated batteries.

"It's difficult to find a sulfated battery that AD-X2 won't bring back (to operating efficiency)."

He said in maintaining and servicing batteries for fleets of cars operated by corporations he found AD-X2, in many cases, doubled the life expectancy of batteries and cut repair bills in half.

The hearing will now move to Wichita, Kans., and later Oakland and San Francisco for further user testimony in behalf of the product.

[The Battery Man, the exclusive business paper of the Automotive Electrical Industry, April 1955]

ANOTHER LETTER ON AD-X2

Question: Since I undertook to sell AD-X2 about 3 years ago I have dug into every phase of the AD-X2 question-I thought you would be interested in hearing some facts instead of talk. I have put in considerable time and money as I have some facts that can't be read in the various reports.

When I first atempted to set up distribution I contacted small battery manufacturers. Most of them were skeptical so I agreed to match my time against theirs. In several cases they picked out batteries they had attempted to rebuild that would not take a charge because of heavy sulfation. In every instance these batteries took a charge and gave good capacity. In two cases these men installed these batteries in their cars and in each case these batteries lasted over 15 months. These men still use and sell AD-X2 but not in volume because of the controversy. I have many more examples such as our company truck which I bought over 3 years ago and treated with AD-X2 when the battery was 6 months old. After using this truck to move from Chicago I stored it for about 9 months before opening the Florida Battery Co. In Florida most batteries last about 12 months, the exception 25 months, this battery will still take a new battery capacity test and is 31⁄2 years old.

We have been selling treated batteries for about 2 years and have most of the tough-use companies in this area. They tell us they are getting better battery service than ever before. Which brings up a point about the Jefferies report. When they first started, our local better business bureau received a

letter from the New York office asking them to conduct a field inquiry about user experience, stating they had been asked to help the Jefferies committee. I supplied our local man with the names of all our customers-several stated they had not used AD-X2 long enough to form an opinion, several others including the largest operator (about 500 units) wrote letters stating their costs were cut about 50 percent and better operating experience. When the report was issued no mention was made of this survey which must have been made in many areas. I have disposed of my initial AD-X2 purchase and have been buying in small lots for about a year, so the reason I am still selling AD-X2 is I believe in it and I feel that justice will prevail one of these days, and then I will have a good business selling a product I know will save people money.

P. S.: My hat is off to you for your column in the Battery Man. If you wish you can use this letter as you see fit.

I don't see how Jess Ritchie stands up under the pressure of the fight. If more small business folks understood they would fight by his side like you have in presenting facts for people to read-surely right will win.

Comment: The preceding letter was recently received from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., giving some personal experiences with battery AD-X2. This letter gives added evidence that there is really some merit to battery AD-X2.

To those of you who might be critical of our frequent mention of this controversial material in these columns, we have just one question “Have you tried the material yourself?"

[San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco, Friday, April 29, 1955]

QUIZ OPENS ON ADDITIVE

The Federal Trade Commission's hearings on the controversial battery additive, AD-X2, which have been held in 10 States for nearly a year, opened in Oakland yesterday.

The hearings, being held before Examiner William L. Peck, were ordered by the Commission after it issued charges that false and misleading advertising claims were made for the product.

Those named in the charges are Pioneers, Inc., of Oakland, the manufacturers, and the firm's president, Jess M. Ritchie. The hearings are expected to continue for a month or 6 weeks.

TWO WITNESSES

At the first day's session, Ritchie, who is handling his own defense, called two witnesses to the stand to challenge the Commission's charge that the battery additive fails to benefit battery performance.

Gordon Jaeger, master mechanic of the Dinwiddie Construction Co., testified that he has used AD-X2 on the batteries in company trucks since 1947.

He said that on the basis of 396 treatments on 200 batteries, it was his opinion that the life expectancy of the batteries had been extended 3 times above normal with a 70 percent saving in battery-maintenance cost.

CITY TESTS

Ross B. Lohry, city radio engineer of Oakland, told the hearing he had tested the additive on 70 police department auto batteries. It increased the life expectancy of each battery 21⁄2 times above the manufacturer's warranty, he said. He, too, said he had been using the product for years.

Ritchie said his witness today will be Olin Rossell of the Naval Supply Annex of Stockton.

The dispute began with a charge by a San Francisco battery company, filed with its national association, that it had lost business because of the product. The hearings were ordered last July. Attorney R. P. Bellinger, of Washington,

D. C., is representing the Commission.

[The San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, April 29, 1955]

BATTERY ADDITIVE CASE COMES HOME TO ROOST

(By Donald K. White)

Jess M. Ritchie's battle with the United States Government over the powder that he claims gives new life to batteries started up again on his home grounds yesterday.

The Federal Trade Commission opened hearings in Oakland on charges that Ritchie and his company, Pioneers, Inc., are using false and misleading advertising in connection with battery AD-X2.

Hearings started last July in Washington, D. C., and have slowly worked their way across the country, with stops in 10 States, before getting to Ritchie's hometown.

HIS OWN ATTORNEY

A bulky, graying man, Ritchie acted as his own attorney at the start of yesterday's hearings.

The first witness was Gordon Jaeger, master mechanic of Dinwiddie Construction Co., who has been using AD-X2 in the batteries on the company's equipment as well as in his own cars.

He told Hearing Examiner William L. Pack that his experience with the battery additive showed it increased the life of batteries by as much as three times.

An afternoon witness, R. B. Lohry, electrical engineer with the radio division of the city of Oakland, gave similar testimony about batteries used in the city's communication systems.

Ritchie indicated he expects the hearing to end soon. He said a report written by the acting chief of the Commission's Litigation Division, stated: "We do not have evidence of dissatisfied users."

* **

A later report said, according to Ritchie, "* among the apparent weaknesses of the case in support of the complaint was the complete lack of consumer testimony tending to condemn or even criticize the product, AD-X2."

Ritchie's product, which he sells for $3 a package, first came on the national scene in March 1953, when Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks asked Dr. Alan V. Astin to resign as head of the National Bureau of Standards following a Bureau report that the additive did not work.

SCIENTIFIC TEST

After a group of scientists brought out a report backing up the Bureau and following a hearing by the Senate Select Committee on Small Business, Dr Astin was reinstated.

Ritchie maintains his product still has not been given a fair scientific test.

The report issued by the group of scientists has been refused as evidence in the Federal Trade Commission hearing, while one prepared by Massachusetts Institute of Technology-a favorable report-has been accepted by the hearing examiner.

Main constituents of AD-X2 are magnesium sulfate and sodium sulfate, plus other ingredients which Ritchie won't discuss.

[Oakland Tribune, Friday, April 29, 1955]

TWO MORE WITNESSES BACK BATTERY ADDITIVE

Two more persons summoned by the defense today joined the parade of witnesses who are extolling the virtues of AD-X2-the controversial battery additive manufactured by Oaklander Jess M. Ritchie.

They appeared before William L. Pack, Federal Trade Commission hearing examiner, who is looking into charges that Ritchie and his firm, Pioneers, Inc., used false and misleading advertising in promoting the product.

Olin Rossell, a battery mechanic at the Naval Supply Center branch at Stockton, testified he had used the additive in more than 2,800 batteries since 1948. He said that AD-X2 had increased the life of the batteries from about 12 to 15 months to 3%1⁄2 years.

"I still would be using it in rundown batteries if the Government would let me," Rossell said.

Ritchie, who is acting as his own attorney in the hearings in the Tribune Tower, then asked Rossell if he hadn't used the compound to prolong the life of a $2,700 battery on a forklift truck.

"I did," Rossell replied "Before that, it's life expectancy was nil."

The hearings by the Commission have been held intermittently in Washington, D. C., and 10 States since July 1954. Ritchie, who lives at 1818 38th Avenue, and manufactures AD-X2 in a plant at 2411 Grove Street, has become involved with almost every branch in the Government in his battle to promote the product. His final witness today was B. Charles Wansley, manager of the better business bureau, who testified that Pioneers, Inc., had been a member of the bureau since 1947, and that there had never been a complaint filed against the additive nor against the firm.

Ross B. Lohry yesterday told the hearings being held before Examiner William L. Pack that he has tested the additive on 70 police-car batteries and that it increased the life expectancy of each batery 21⁄2 times above the manufacturer's warranty.

[Oakland Tribune, Thursday, April 28, 1955]

WITNESS BACKS AD-X2 BATTERY ADDITIVE HERE

Testimony on beneficial effects of the controversial battery additive AD-X2 marked the opening of Oakland hearings of the Federal Trade Commission today.

The first witness in the hearings, expected to last here throughout next month, and which already have been held in 11 cities, was called by Jess M. Ritchie. president of Pioneers, Inc., the Oakland firm manufacturing the additive, which is accused of false and misleading advertising.

Ritchie, acting as his own attorney, called Gordon Jaeger, 16122 Via Paro, San Lorenzo, who is master mechanic for the Dinwiddie Construction Co. here. Jaeger testified as to his experience with 396 packages of AD-X2 used since 1947 in company trucks and equipment and passenger cars.

LIFE TRIPLED

"After I treated batteries it increased their life expectancy three times." Jaeger said. "The battery terminals didn't corrode as badly. The cells held up better." He said a battery he knew to be partially defective was treated and used a year afterwards in a pickup truck. He said a group of 17 batteries that wouldn't take a charge were treated and 15 of them "were saved."

He said batteries in equipment left in the field, in instances where no water was added, became sulfated. The additive, he said, "restored those batteries." Jaeger said for the last 3 years he has stopped buying new batteris and instead gets rebuilt batteries for $8. The rebuilt batteries are treated with the additive "and last longer than new, untreated batteries."

BEFORE UNITED STATES OFFICIAL

The hearings are being held before William L. Pack, examiner of the Federal Trade Commission, and have been in progress since July 1954. Counsel for the Government is R. P. Bellinger.

Ritchie, who lives at 1818 38th Avenue, became entangled first with the United States Bureau of Standards over the product's merits. A fraud order subsequently brought by the Post Office Department was later dismissed, however. Ritchie said he can present "between 1,000 and 1,500 witnesses" in behalf of the additive in this area. The hearings are being held in Room 1104, Tribune Tower, at 13th and Franklin Streets.

[Chemical Week, May 28, 1955]

IN 11-STATE HEARING, THE FINAL CURTAIN

At long last, the 5-year feud between the Federal Government and a small chemical specialties concern appears to be coming to an end. And it looks like peace with honor for California's Jess Ritchie and his battery additive AD-X2, while the governmental agencies now seem to be chiefly concerned with facesaving.

The hearing that started last autumn in Washington and has continued off and on in 11 States across the country now is winding up in Oakland, Calif.— right where the dispute started. Oakland is Ritchie's home base, and it was at nearby San Francisco that a local battery manufacturer set off hostilities by complaining about how AD-X2 was affecting business.

Since then, AD-X2 has been blasted by the Association of American Battery Manufacturers, National Better Business Bureau, the United States Bureau of Standards, the Post Office Department, and the Federal Trade Commission. The hearing expected to be concluded this week in Oakland's Tribune Tower is on FTC's charges that AD-X2 doesn't live up to its advertising claims.

Decision next month: Hearing Examiner William Pack is expected to make his decision by late next month, and his decision can be appealed first to the Commission and then to the United States Court of Appeals. But observers are predicting that-on the basis of the testimony going into the hearing recordthe Federal agencies will have to let Ritchie walk off with general clearance for his product claims.

In presenting its side of the case, FTC produced 9 witnesses who had used a total of 43 packages of AD-X2; but their criticism of the product was weakened by the fact that either they hadn't kept records on battery performance or else Ritchie was able to argue that they hadn't used the additive according to instructions. On the other hand, Ritchie has called in 40 witnesses, all of whom have praised AD-X2 as doing all that's claimed for it. For example, a battery mechanic at a naval supply center testified that AD-X2 had more than doubled the useful life of lead-acid batteries, and that "I'd still be using it if the Government would let me."

One possibility: that Ritchie might accept a ruling that he should drop one or two minor claims-an order that would save face for the Bureau of Standards, which has called the product "worthless."

[Oakland Tribune, Monday, May 2, 1955]

ADDITIVE GETS NEW BACKING

The manager of an Emeryville industrial equipment firm testified today that use of AD-X2, the controversial battery additive, had saved his company 50 percent on battery costs in the past 5 years.

In addition, Frank I. Guilford, manager of the California Tractor & Equipment Corp., testified, the use of AD-X2 has resulted in reducing "down time" on rented equipment.

Guilford was the first of this week's witnesses for the respondent to appear before Federal Trade Commission Hearing Examiner William L. Pike, who is holding sessions in room 1104, Tribune Tower.

Jess M. Ritchie, president of Pioneers, Inc., 2411 Grove Street, manufacturers of the additive, said he planned to call about 40 more witnesses at the Oakland hearings-scheduled to end May 13.

Guilford said his firm bought some war surplus batteries that had been stored in the tropics and could not be normally charged.

"In December 1947 we bought 108 packages of Battery AD-X2, treating the batteries as directed and charging them," Guilford said. "These batteries came to full charge after treatment.

"Your method of handling our battery problems has saved up to 50 percent on our battery costs over the past 5 years, even though we can get batteries at dealers' prices."

Ritchie said he may ask the FTC to hold hearings in Eureka and San Francisco before Pike leaves California. Pike said he hoped to bring the hearings to a close with Government rebuttal in about a month.

[Oakland Tribune, May 4, 1955]

WITNESSES OK AD-X2 at Quiz

More than 60 percent of the batteries used by the port of Oakland on the city's fireboat, at the airport and in other installations have been treated with AD-X2, the controversial battery additive.