This is a chemist question, but isnt there something like a litmus test for wax? Silicone is easily detectible by our senses, but wax is not - if I understood it correct.
But if the refs have a chemist way to detect the common wax substances through some kind of litmus test, then maybe we don't need the other precautions.
----
I asked ChatGPT :
Below is a menu of techniques that referees (or tournament organisers) could realistically adopt, starting with “quick-and-dirty” field tests and ending with laboratory-grade confirmation methods. None of these relies on smell or feel, so they are harder for a player to fool.
1. Dye-based “grease-spot” swabs (cost: a few euro / test)
| What you need | How it works | What you see | Pros & cons |
|---|
| Cotton tip pre-soaked in 0.05 – 0.1 % Sudan III/IV or Oil-Red-O in isopropanol (many ready-made field kits exist). | The lipophilic dye partitions into any hydrocarbon layer it touches (wax, oil, grease) but does not stay on clean cellulose, phenolic or phenolic-resin cue balls. | The tip and the spot on the ball turn vivid orange-red within seconds. | • Instant and very sensitive.
• Works on natural (bees-, carnauba) and micro-crystalline waxes.
• A quick wipe with alcohol removes the stain.
• False-positives if the ball is genuinely oiled for maintenance. |
How to use on site: tap the suspect area once, wait ~10 s, photograph the colour and wipe the ball clean.
2. Classic “translucent-spot” paper test (near-zero cost)
- Press ordinary filter or copier paper firmly against the cue ball or tip.
- Warm the paper briefly with a hair-dryer or hot-water bottle (~50 °C).
- A greasy, translucent halo forms where wax dissolved and wicked into the fibres; a clean surface leaves the paper opaque.
Pros: cheap, no chemicals, works even on colour-coded balls.
Cons: slightly less sensitive than the dye test and needs a heat source.
3. Contact-angle “bead test” (visual only)
- Place a 1 µL droplet of de-ionised water on the suspect spot and view it side-on (a €100 USB goniometer or a phone+macro lens is plenty).
- If the contact angle > 90 °, the surface is strongly hydrophobic, typical for a waxed patch; an unwaxed phenolic ball sits around 40–60 °.
Tip: always compare with a certified clean reference ball to account for brand-to-brand variations.
4. Hand-held ATR-FTIR confirmation (shared between tournaments)
Modern battery-powered FTIR units (Agilent 4300, Bruker ALPHA II, etc.) can be held against the ball for a 30-s scan; their libraries contain spectra for bees-, carnauba-, paraffin- and silicone-based products. A built-in match score > 80 % is defensible evidence in disciplinary hearings.
5. Laboratory back-ups (rarely needed, but decisive)
| Method | What it tells you |
|---|
| GC-MS of a hexane swab | Exact molecular fingerprint (even detects fragrance additives used to mask wax). |
| Iodine or bromine “value” titration | Degree of unsaturation – useful to distinguish carnauba (low IV) from beeswax (higher IV). |
| DSC (differential scanning calorimetry) | Melting range and enthalpy; confirms the wax identity and purity. |
Putting it into practice
- Fast screen: keep Sudan-IV swabs (or an OilScreenSoil™ kit) at the referee’s desk. One dab gives an answer in under a minute and costs less than a piece of chalk.
- Document: photograph the stained swab/ball next to a colour card for the match report.
- Confirm if challenged: run a quick handheld-FTIR scan; if still disputed, seal the ball in a zip-bag, take a solvent swab and ship it to the lab.
With this two-tier approach (dye spot → FTIR), wax cheating can be detected quickly, objectively and with minimal disruption to match flow—no need for elaborate pre-match ball exchanges or player searches.
so most of them are covered. Kaci don't need to worry about the money being covered.
