Science always doubts, only faith has the answers. Those who have faith should not read this posting. For those who have doubt, perhaps this will clear up some of it for you.
As I said in response to a challenge issued by Dave Smith, for which I have been roundly criticized, there is ample empirical data of the process by which wood loses unbound and bound water to the environment, and methods other than letting it be merely accelerate the process by exploiting extremes. Heat/dehumidification/vacuum methods all take advantage of the lower relative humidity produced to get the water out. There are no known chemical methods, save dehumidification by dessicants which do not alter wood chemistry.
So, what is it that alcohol, specifically ethanol, does to wood to make it lose water faster? Wood naturally contains alcohols, so chemical modification is certainly unlikely. Alcohol influence-bonds with the wood structure poorly compared to the more electronegative water, so significant displacement of bound water also seems unlikely. Still, we are informed that this is a proven process, so this possibility must be investigated.
Without boring you too much by by specific data on weights and times, the method by which I attempted to discover if alcohol soaking displaced or replaced (unbound or bound) water follows.
Blocks of soft maple 2x2x1", with the 1" along the grain, were prepared randomly from the center 12" of a single 2' length and compared. They were all within four grams in 60, which is pretty good considering I whipped them out on the bandsaw pretty much by eye, and the dull blade wandered. To determine if alcohol could enter and replace either unbound or, much less likely, bound water, I tagged a quart of denatured alcohol with brown alcohol-soluble dye to get visual confirmation of penetration which I might correlate with a loss of weight caused by the lower specific gravity alcohol (0.80) displacing water. The soaking took place at 68 F, in a closed container.
A control block was tightly wrapped after weighing, a second control was microwaved to determine that moisture content was above the fiber saturation point. It was, at 42%, 12% by weight over the normal FSP.
The first soaked block was removed after nine hours, blotted to remove surface alcohol, and weighed. It was identical to the original weight, nicely brown, and was microwaved to reveal a 41% MC, then sliced to reveal insufficient penetration by the dye along the end grain to make a reliable estimate of distance.
Conclusion: A nine-hour soak did not lower the MC of a block of soft maple, nor was any loss in weight from replacement of water with lighter alcohol evidenced. Penetration of the dye was minimal to nonexistent by eye, in confirmation of the above.
The second block was removed after soaking for 24 hours, weighed within 1/2 gram shy of the original. The second control was unwrapped, weighed at 1 gram less, which I attribute to moisture on the wrap. The two were then set side by side on a piece of notebook paper for 60 hours in a nearly steady 65% RH environment. The soaked block lost weight at the same rate as the control, reaching 20% after a bit more than 48 hours. They were allowed additional time, but as they were almost the same, there seemed no purpose in continuing. Unbound water was lost at the same rate over the first 24 hours, and bound water seemed to be following the same course.
Conclusion: A 24 hour soak may have resulted in the replacement of up to two and one half grams of water of an anticipated total of 32 by ethanol, though it did not affect the dry time to the FSP or beyond, at all. It is possible that the use of this analog scale versus the digital I borrowed before might account for the difference. In any case it does not appear to have affected the outcome. The penetration of alcohol on the end grain is pictured. There is visible, consistent penetration of ~1/32 of an inch.
I'm saving the rest of my alcohol for mixing shellac.
Oh yes, Kurt, the scientific community among the ancients knew the earth was spherical by observing its shadow on the moon. The Greeks even measured its circumference accurately. The belief that it was flat was based on religious authority in defiance of scientific evidence.