Alcohol Soaking Wet Wood

Sigh.. 1) Learn how to quote you are replying to 2) I think I learned a few things in gaining a BS, part of an MS and

Not to pick nits, but this isn't even a sentence.

Sorry, not impressed. After undergrad, I went on for a Masters and 2 Doctoral degrees and just recently retired after working somewhat more than 40+.

Apparently not.

You said:

It is unclear to which variation you are referring.

If you are talking about sample consistancy you have it exactly backwards. Correctly, the sample variation is large enough that given a small (tiny) sample size you can't draw conclusions. Only if the variation were non existant, i.e., homogeneous samples, could you begin to draw conclusions, though still a mistake when using results from extremely preliminary experiments.

If you are referring to the small differences in the drying rate, the magnitude of the difference has nothing to do with the ability to draw conclusions. That rests entirely with sample size, sample selection, and the statistical test used. Very small variations in results can be, and often are, significant statistically.

And thus the pissing contest (that you began) ends - I quit.

I seem to recall someone suggesting that samples be controlled for homogeneity by being taken off the same piece successively. Got ragged for it, too.

That's what you do to control for _known_ factors like distortion being related to orientation, interval and consistency of annual rings. You're trying to discover a dependent variable, so you have to carefully control (or define) the independent ones.

Of course, if you're merely demonstrating known laws of physical chemistry in your "experiment," as was done by yours doubtful and finally a proponent of the process, sample population means less. The experiment (Raoult's Law) has been done billions of times with the same result. It proves those laws are still operative even when the "experimenter" desires a different outcome.

For those who are interested, the popularizer of the "drying" process has set up a little blog, where he documents evaporation - again - as if that meant anything.

George,

Actually what's meaningless is the tripe you post. Whoops, I responded to a troll. Shame on me.

Sigh.... dispite your postureing, and claims, why do I suspect you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about

Answer, because you don't

Sorry I should have included something that may not be obvious. Raoult's Law depends on the solute being NON-VOLATILE so either George doesn't understand the law or he's claiming that ethanol isn't volatile.

I think I understand the misunderstanding about M. Raoult and his law re tempests in teapots. The problem here is a failure to realize that Raoult, the well known French Woodturner, works under Napolonic codes and is guilty until proven innocent. Many here on rcw post under Anglo law and are innocent until proven guilty. I reckon either way we are all guilty of something. You could look it up .....or let it drop. :)

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter

http//community.webtv.net/almcc/Mac'sMusings

Dropped!