Alcohol drying and Science
I’ve tried to ignore this debate but it seems no one else is going to step in so here goes:
First, I am a scientist. To be more specific, I have a B.S. in Chemistry (University of Wisconsin, 1970) and a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry (Michigan State University, 1974). This information is a matter of public record and you can check it if you like. My career was spent in industry so the only things that are a matter of public record are U.S. Patents #5,224,775 and 5,306,406, and possibly the litigation surrounding those patents (U.S. District Court of Delaware, 1998).
The Scientific Method. In twenty words or less: “Experimental observations are a direct measurement of reality. Everything else is derived and extrapolated from this knowledge base.†Those are my words, my interpretation. I’m sure there are others who have said it more succinctly and/or more eloquently. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than this, but this is the core. I have a friend who teaches high school chemistry, and this is one of the principles that he tries to teach. If you want to get more academic, I took a course in the “Philosophy of Natural Science†my senior year at UW. (I needed another 3 non-science credits.)
Probably THE most important criteria for the validity of scientific data is that it be “reproducible by multiple independent experimentersâ€Â. Dave Smith’s original investigation met this criterion.
As a Chemist, I know of nothing that conflicts with Dave’s observations. I mentioned Dave’s method to my Dentist last week and his comment was, “Oh…, yes of course.†From a chemical point of view, it makes perfect sense. Alcohol is very hydroscopic and very mobile. (A standard joke among biologists: “They’ve finally found the active site for alcohol. [The site where it is biologically active.]†“Oh, where?†<Speaker points to mouth.> The key point here is that alcohol acts on the entire system, not on isolated sites.)
As a chemist, alcohol drying makes sense. The alcohol effectively sucks the “free†water out of the wood. (I can provide a non-technical description of this if desired.) Then, since “bound water†is bound only by weak inter-molecular forces instead of stronger chemical bonds, the alcohol extracts some (but not all) of the “bound waterâ€Â. The alcohol evaporates much more quickly than water and leaves the wood in a condition that is very close to “equilibrium moisture†content.
As I said, I’m only a chemist, not a biologist or bio-chemist. There might be something that I’m missing and my views are always open to revision based on current “valid†scientific data (i.e. reputable scientific journals). [Web sites are NOT scientifically valid.]
Moderators: feel free to edit this as needed!
Brian K. Hahn, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry, Michigan State University, 1974
I’ve tried to ignore this debate but it seems no one else is going to step in so here goes:
First, I am a scientist. To be more specific, I have a B.S. in Chemistry (University of Wisconsin, 1970) and a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry (Michigan State University, 1974). This information is a matter of public record and you can check it if you like. My career was spent in industry so the only things that are a matter of public record are U.S. Patents #5,224,775 and 5,306,406, and possibly the litigation surrounding those patents (U.S. District Court of Delaware, 1998).
The Scientific Method. In twenty words or less: “Experimental observations are a direct measurement of reality. Everything else is derived and extrapolated from this knowledge base.†Those are my words, my interpretation. I’m sure there are others who have said it more succinctly and/or more eloquently. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than this, but this is the core. I have a friend who teaches high school chemistry, and this is one of the principles that he tries to teach. If you want to get more academic, I took a course in the “Philosophy of Natural Science†my senior year at UW. (I needed another 3 non-science credits.)
Probably THE most important criteria for the validity of scientific data is that it be “reproducible by multiple independent experimentersâ€Â. Dave Smith’s original investigation met this criterion.
As a Chemist, I know of nothing that conflicts with Dave’s observations. I mentioned Dave’s method to my Dentist last week and his comment was, “Oh…, yes of course.†From a chemical point of view, it makes perfect sense. Alcohol is very hydroscopic and very mobile. (A standard joke among biologists: “They’ve finally found the active site for alcohol. [The site where it is biologically active.]†“Oh, where?†<Speaker points to mouth.> The key point here is that alcohol acts on the entire system, not on isolated sites.)
As a chemist, alcohol drying makes sense. The alcohol effectively sucks the “free†water out of the wood. (I can provide a non-technical description of this if desired.) Then, since “bound water†is bound only by weak inter-molecular forces instead of stronger chemical bonds, the alcohol extracts some (but not all) of the “bound waterâ€Â. The alcohol evaporates much more quickly than water and leaves the wood in a condition that is very close to “equilibrium moisture†content.
As I said, I’m only a chemist, not a biologist or bio-chemist. There might be something that I’m missing and my views are always open to revision based on current “valid†scientific data (i.e. reputable scientific journals). [Web sites are NOT scientifically valid.]
Moderators: feel free to edit this as needed!
Brian K. Hahn, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry, Michigan State University, 1974
Last edited:
