-
#620 by Notsosureofit on 21 Oct, 2018 20:01
-
Have to go back to axions at this point.
-
#621 by Josave on 21 Oct, 2018 20:35
-
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal
A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.
One of the problems with your theory is that there is no way it can match the data. The data I linked before shows that gravity apparently varies between otherwise comparable galaxies. You fundamentally cannot explain this without having something that we cannot otherwise see affecting gravity, which is basically the definition of dark matter.
It seems your post is nothing more than using an invalid argument (it is a nice to have if a model has less unknowns to fiddle with, but not at the cost of it working) to tear down the best theory we have because you don't like that your theory has trouble competing with in the realm of "can it describe reality." Considering that as I said you essentially lied in the blog post that was linked above, I am not sure how you expect to be taken seriously.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09128
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7719
Reading the above references I tend to think like Dr. McCulloch, considering dark matter as an arbitrary and not falsifiable theory that doesn’t match the dataset of the distribution of the matter in the universe. Reading the references seems to prove that no matter of arbitrary is the dark matter distribution we hypothesize, it is impossible to match the velocity of the Bullet Cluster. Prior attempts to return to dark matter paradigm in cluster simulations https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.7438.pdf are refuted by these references.
BONUS: Is the Buller Cluster a cosmological size EM-Drive? Possibly yes!! The decelerating big mass of stripped gas creates a low inertia area in front: this that we see as dark matter due to the higher lensing effects over the objects seen behind!!! And the stars in this low inertia area are traveling anomaly fast in the direction they were moving because they are inertia-less. Dark matter will never explain the extra velocity but QI does!
-
#622 by Mulletron on 22 Oct, 2018 18:46
-
I'm patiently waiting for the inevitable release of a work such as this, but with a focus on optical or microwave cavities.
While the work below is about laser beams, I think it's useful for a general understanding of how light effects spacetime.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aadc81
There's a lot in the article, but a key takeaway is that beam divergence makes a difference. -
#623 by meberbs on 23 Oct, 2018 02:59
-
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09128
Discussion of the existence of dark matter is off topic as I said before, but since your post has not been removed I'll respond.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7719
Reading the above references I tend to think like Dr. McCulloch, considering dark matter as an arbitrary and not falsifiable theory that doesn’t match the dataset of the distribution of the matter in the universe. Reading the references seems to prove that no matter of arbitrary is the dark matter distribution we hypothesize, it is impossible to match the velocity of the Bullet Cluster. Prior attempts to return to dark matter paradigm in cluster simulations https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.7438.pdf are refuted by these references.
Your statements are completely at odds with the papers you are citing. The first says right in its abstract that the bullet cluster is within expectations, and that it would take more systems with comparable parameters to challenge current cosmology models. This statement also discredits your claim of "not falsifiable" for dark matter, although in this case what would potentially be falsified is a specific form of dark matter, not the concept in general.
The second link you provided is basically irrelevant. It has a fairly weak claim (specific cases with multiple assumptions) They would have to at least show that they could explain a wide body of data without changing the parameters they fit. Even then, it would not be enough to claim dark matter is wrong because of a single not-peer reviewed paper.
The third link has been revised more recently than either of the other 2, and has the conclusion that there is not even potentially a problem. Neither paper is peer reviewed, and it is potentially an open question which paper actually uses statistics correctly, but the available range of conclusions is: "potentially a problem for ΛCDM, if sufficiently more data of certain properties appears" through "no chance of remotely being a problem, completely different data would be needed for there to be a problem"
If you actually read the papers, you would see that your first link references an early version of the third, and it does so with a context of agreement, not disagreement, as both papers counter earlier works that used incorrect statistics to conclude that ΛCDM has almost no chance of producing such a collision. (Note: it sounds like they are dealing with tails of probability distributions which are notoriously difficult to get right, and it is unsurprising if earlier works made bad assumptions.)
In summary, you did not get the dates right on which paper is the most recent, and misinterpreted the claims of both papers.BONUS: Is the Buller Cluster a cosmological size EM-Drive? Possibly yes!! The decelerating big mass of stripped gas creates a low inertia area in front: this that we see as dark matter due to the higher lensing effects over the objects seen behind!!! And the stars in this low inertia area are traveling anomaly fast in the direction they were moving because they are inertia-less. Dark matter will never explain the extra velocity but QI does!
Statements of the form "Maybe <thing unrelated to microwaves or resonant cavities> is an emDrive, because it has <property that it doesn't have>" do not actually make your post relevant. Even worse when followed up by false statements such as claiming that standard physics doesn't explain things that it does (read the papers you linked to start with), and asserting that some other theory does explain those things, but without proof. -
#624 by TheTraveller on 23 Oct, 2018 14:18
-
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
-
#625 by Monomorphic on 23 Oct, 2018 19:28
-
#626 by Mulletron on 24 Oct, 2018 17:11
-
So I took the time to read this in greater detail, instead just skimming over it as before (because I'm also interested in "amplification mechanisms"), and I'm concerned about the quote below:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_FieldsQuoteHence, both Saxl and Woodward experimentally reasoned a relationship between
charge, mass and acceleration. A combination of all these factors to reduce/increase the
weight of a body is described in a patent by Yamashita and Toyama 14. A cylinder was rotated
and charged using a Van der Graff generator. During operation the weight of the rotating
cylinder was monitored on a scale. The setup is shown in Figure 5. If the cylinder was
charged positively, a positive change of weight up to 4 grams at top speed was indicated. The
same charge negative produced a reduction of weight of about 11 grams (out of 1300 grams
total weight). This is an asymmetry similar to the one mentioned by Saxl 11. Also the
relationship between charge, rotation and mass is similar to Saxl and Woodward. The
experimentors note that the weight changed according to the speed of the cylinder ruling out
electrostatic forces, and that it did not depend on the orientation of rotation ruling out
magnetic forces. The reported change of weight (below 1 %) is significant and indicates a
very high order of magnitude effect.
(PDF) Induction and Amplification of Non-Newtonian Gravitational Fields. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_Fields [accessed Oct 24 2018].
The above quote is on page 10 and references the previous 3 pages of the paper. The concern I have is that this kind of thing sounds a little too good to be true, or speculative, and it certainly hasn't been discussed much as far as I can see across the internet. It seems like it would be very big news if true. Does anyone have opinions about the validity of such claims? -
#627 by Notsosureofit on 24 Oct, 2018 17:54
-
Is it Deja Vu all over again ?
Pretty good summary of Lorentz violation in SME here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0287.pdf
-
#628 by spupeng7 on 25 Oct, 2018 01:11
-
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
Thanks TT,
good translation included as text, nice. I can only hope that this work continues, being wrong but trying anyway leaves open the possibility of being right. Assuming that you already know the answer leaves open the possibility that you will miss the best opportunity ever presented to you. I like the way he is unconcerned about the lack of theoretical support for this work, there is a name for that, it's called courage. -
#629 by Peter Lauwer on 25 Oct, 2018 11:31
-
So I took the time to read this in greater detail, instead just skimming over it as before (because I'm also interested in "amplification mechanisms"), and I'm concerned about the quote below:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_FieldsQuoteHence, both Saxl and Woodward experimentally reasoned a relationship between
charge, mass and acceleration. A combination of all these factors to reduce/increase the
weight of a body is described in a patent by Yamashita and Toyama 14. A cylinder was rotated
and charged using a Van der Graff generator. During operation the weight of the rotating
cylinder was monitored on a scale. The setup is shown in Figure 5. If the cylinder was
charged positively, a positive change of weight up to 4 grams at top speed was indicated. The
same charge negative produced a reduction of weight of about 11 grams (out of 1300 grams
total weight). This is an asymmetry similar to the one mentioned by Saxl 11. Also the
relationship between charge, rotation and mass is similar to Saxl and Woodward. The
experimentors note that the weight changed according to the speed of the cylinder ruling out
electrostatic forces, and that it did not depend on the orientation of rotation ruling out
magnetic forces. The reported change of weight (below 1 %) is significant and indicates a
very high order of magnitude effect.
(PDF) Induction and Amplification of Non-Newtonian Gravitational Fields. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_Fields [accessed Oct 24 2018].
The above quote is on page 10 and references the previous 3 pages of the paper. The concern I have is that this kind of thing sounds a little too good to be true, or speculative, and it certainly hasn't been discussed much as far as I can see across the internet. It seems like it would be very big news if true. Does anyone have opinions about the validity of such claims?
This research by Saxl (An Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum, Nature, Vol 203, 1964), is almost certainly due to experimental error. Probably there was a voltage difference between the (conductive) pendulum mass and the shielding around it.
I am a bit familiar with Saxl's research. I visited Dr Mildred Allen in 1986, corresponded with the late Prof. Jay Burns (Florida Inst. of Techn., who inherited Saxl's torsion pendulum). I am in the possession of Saxl's lab notebooks (45).
[No, at the moment I don't have a lot of time to discuss details. I plan to do some more analysis of his data of other pendulum experiments during one of my future sabaticals, digitize them, etc. Eventually, if a university library or so in the USA is willing to have them, they should go there. Some analysis and an unpublished paper by Saxl, Allen & Burns is included in the book by Héctor A. Múnera ]
Btw: it is "van de Graaff generator"
-
#630 by X_RaY on 29 Oct, 2018 20:11
-
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
-
#631 by dustinthewind on 30 Oct, 2018 18:16
-
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
Pardon the errors. I'm using my phone. -
#632 by X_RaY on 30 Oct, 2018 19:09
-
The simulation shows a TE mode driven by a point like magnetic dipole source. Modulated signals (two frequencies at the same time) are not possible with the used solver and program, sorry.Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
Pardon the errors. I'm using my phone.
The idea to excite two modes within the cavity was discussed in the past. Either by tuning the geometry in a way that two different modes are preferred at the same time for the given shape by using a single drive frequency(this single frequency scenario is feasible with the solver) as by using modulated signals for example two separate frequencies to excite different modes of different shapes in the resonator. The problem with this is that the resulting field pattern would form a so called degenerated state, a vector field that try to follow both single vectors(of the different modes) to form an average vector at each position. The time average of the net force should be again a null result.
I can not see a process that is...changing the effective mass of the electrons...
in this way. Please explain it in more detail. -
#633 by RotoSequence on 30 Oct, 2018 20:55
-
Early EM Drive tests used signal sources with large bandwidths, multiple resonance mode cavities, and had multiple resonant frequencies in close proximity to each other. Even though it probably doesn't work, I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's a relationship between two (or more) different frequencies/modes that determines a drive's behavior.
-
#634 by dustinthewind on 31 Oct, 2018 00:01
-
I am not saying this is what they are doing. Just what I would like to experiment with and that their device makes me think of it.
The simulation shows a TE mode driven by a point like magnetic dipole source. Modulated signals (two frequencies at the same time) are not possible with the used solver and program, sorry.Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
...
...
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
...
The idea to excite two modes within the cavity was discussed in the past. Either by tuning the geometry in a way that two different modes are preferred at the same time for the given shape by using a single drive frequency(this single frequency scenario is feasible with the solver) as by using modulated signals for example two separate frequencies to excite different modes of different shapes in the resonator. The problem with this is that the resulting field pattern would form a so called degenerated state, a vector field that try to follow both single vectors(of the different modes) to form an average vector at each position. The time average of the net force should be again a null result.
I can not see a process that is...changing the effective mass of the electrons...
in this way. Please explain it in more detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Transient mass fluctuation
The equation is of the mass fluctuation. They suggest a capacitor is better for storing energy but I am thinking of the ratio of change in mass. The electron when accelerated is an energy storage device. It can also undergo plenty of acceleration and at much higher frequencies (GHz in the cavity). If the electrons change in a ratio with respect to their previous effective mass, the ratio might lead to a larger percent of change in absorption of energy from light. Can a single electron still be thought of as a dielectric with volume and density?
If it's true the bare mass of the electron is negative they can be made on equal effective mass with a photon and should absorb 100% energy from a photon collision in one direction then by change in acceleration re-acquire mass and transfer that momentum more effectively to the object with larger mass. The decoupling from the vacuum and reduction in effective mass of the electron would possibly be the ejection of the vacuum in that direction. The re-coupling would then conserve momentum and the ship would experience the rocket effect in the opposite direction I am guessing.
Now I can understand with the increased metal there is more resistance and so more heat on one side of the cavity. Energy absorbed at one end of the cavity would make for a small traveling wave toward the hot end but not as large as the standing wave. This isn't the energy dissipation I am talking about. The energy dissipation from the light I am talking about would come from pulling on the electron when it is heavy and pushing when it is light which is different. Possibly generation of ultra small gravity waves similar to the energy dissipation in black holes when orbiting and they lose energy and merge. I would suspect some frequency shift in the light as energy is absorbed from it after many reflections. Similar to how in a combustion engine, the more reflections of the atoms off the cylinder wall and with distance increase energy transfer. Similarly the electrons would be the pistons and the photons the atoms. I don't really expect this to come out in the electromagnetic simulations as it involves the mach effect.
Here is a link to my previous post about a simple cavity excited with dual frequencies.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1812364#msg1812364
More frequencies can be used as in here to enhance the mach effect - a sort of Fourier sum:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
If I wanted to be eccentric I could expand on the idea a bit:
One idea to maximize the number of electrons involved is to use a meta-material metal with cavities inside, pumped with near optical frequencies. Fiber optics could carry the light to the ship skin. Cavities could be capped with a semi-reflective material that reflects the resonant frequency and lets in external light. In effect using prisms one could use the external surface of the craft as an eye ball letting in external light and at the same time as exciting the cavities with the resonant light to emulate the mach effect. That is supposing the mach effect works.
Control of the thrust effect is similar to a phased array. Changing the relative phase relation of the injected frequencies flips the acceleration. -
#635 by spupeng7 on 31 Oct, 2018 01:25
-
X_RaY,Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
if reflection is emission following absorption, then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non? -
#636 by X_RaY on 31 Oct, 2018 17:56
-
... if reflection is emission following absorption...
I guess you're confused about the photoelectric effect that doesn't occur at "low" frequencies (2.4 GHz), as discussed for the EM drive, or by Fluorescence (Fluorescence is simply defined as the absorption of electromagnetic radiation at one wavelength and its reemission at another, lower energy wavelength.)
Photons re emitted from atoms will have discrete frequencies governed by the change of the energy state of the corresponding electron. This is why we can get exact "fingerprints" for each chemical element.
Quote from: wikipediaFeynman diagram on the photoelectric effect: An electron electrically bound to an atom {Z} interacts with a photon and changes its energy.
In contrast the reflection of microwaves at conductive boundaries is well described in the link below and elsewhere.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec29.pdf... then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). ...
More metal at one end leads to bigger dissipative loss at this location because of its finite resistance.
There is no delay involved but a different impedance and scattering conditions due to the structures as compared to the flat end.... In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?
How does that follow from the rest of your post?
-
#637 by Monomorphic on 31 Oct, 2018 23:43
-
New Space Time episode on the reality of virtual particles.
-
#638 by spupeng7 on 01 Nov, 2018 01:44
-
Thankyou X_RaY,... if reflection is emission following absorption...
I guess you're confused about the photoelectric effect that doesn't occur at "low" frequencies (2.4 GHz), as discussed for the EM drive, or by Fluorescence (Fluorescence is simply defined as the absorption of electromagnetic radiation at one wavelength and its reemission at another, lower energy wavelength.)
Photons re emitted from atoms will have discrete frequencies governed by the change of the energy state of the corresponding electron. This is why we can get exact "fingerprints" for each chemical element.Quote from: wikipediaFeynman diagram on the photoelectric effect: An electron electrically bound to an atom {Z} interacts with a photon and changes its energy.
In contrast the reflection of microwaves at conductive boundaries is well described in the link below and elsewhere.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec29.pdf... then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). ...
More metal at one end leads to bigger dissipative loss at this location because of its finite resistance.
There is no delay involved but a different impedance and scattering conditions due to the structures as compared to the flat end.... In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?
How does that follow from the rest of your post?
food for thought here, I will consider what you have said.
Regarding your last question, charge interactions are the strongest interactions over distance, if all charges constantly interact then the sum of those interactions, in a universe of approximately constant density, is multiple of the square of its radius and an inverse of the square of its radius. To assume that inertia is a local interaction with empty spatial geometry which has no mechanism of interaction, defies logic. It follows from, the retention of electromagnetic inertia during the process of reflection, that inertia is brought out of balance inside emdrive frustums. For more detail on this please see previous reference 'Another Origin for Inertia' at the end of post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805 -
#639 by meberbs on 01 Nov, 2018 05:41
-
Regarding your last question, charge interactions are the strongest interactions over distance,
This is only true if charges don't locally cancel. Since in almost all cases charges are balanced on the local scale, the long range effects are generally weaker than 1/r^2, leaving gravity as the dominating effect at distances.if all charges constantly interact
In quantum since wavefunctions don't cutoff completely, technically all indistinguishable particles of a given species overlap with all other ones in the universe, but when you add in relativistic effects, there are constraints on what this means, and the effect is essentially negligible at long range anyway. This is interesting, but I don't think there is much reason to think your "if" condition is valid, at least not in the way needed for your logic.then the sum of those interactions, in a universe of approximately constant density, is multiple of the square of its radius and an inverse of the square of its radius. To assume that inertia is a local interaction with empty spatial geometry which has no mechanism of interaction, defies logic.
The math you have is wrong since you started from invalid assumptions, Your statement about inertia is simply wrong. You can't say that something "defies logic" just because you are confused by it. Especially since from past conversations, it really seems like you refuse to actually try to understand. (Although the full answer is more complicated that what you described anyway)It follows from, the retention of electromagnetic inertia during the process of reflection, that inertia is brought out of balance inside emdrive frustums.
What I see when I read that sentence is: "It follows from <something that doesn't happen> that <something that wouldn't happen even if the first thing did>"
(X_RaY explained why the first part doesn't happen in the previous post.)For more detail on this please see previous reference 'Another Origin for Inertia' at the end of+ post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805
Except what you just said is wrong, and I have already covered how your previous claims in this area either involve you changing the definition of words as you use them, involve you making up terms with no definition or otherwise are based on false statements about existing physics. The post you cite has an equation that is obviously meaningless, as it only has the solutions t = 0 and v = i*c, neither of which mean anything, as has been pointed out before. I am not sure why you are going back to that post as if no problems with what you wrote back then have been pointed out to you since then.
Are you planning to define your terms and have a productive conversation this time? Or is it going to be a repeat of the same conversation again?
A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.