> > I never saw your reply below, to my comments until I did a google search > on
> > the thread. For some reason, my ISP dropped some of the posts from that
> > thread - maybe from other threads for all I know. I've pasted in my last
> > comments and your reply to them below and will insert my current comments > > within.
> > No - very correct. Whether the fibers absorb moisture at the molecular
> > level (not true), or at any other level, they can only absorb as much as
> > they are allowed to hold by the mechanical constraintes placed on them. A
> > tight joint will not absorb as much moisture as a plank laid out in the > same
> > high RH environment. What you say above about absorbing moisture and
> > releasing it above is otherwise true, but it does not address the > mechanical
> > constraint. Nor does the article.
> >
>
> Sorry, but until water is no longer influence-bonded to the cellulose (read
> FSP), and until you squeeze all the air out by collapsing the cells and
> tracheids completely, you are incorrect. Since both are not possible...
> draw your own conclusions.
>
Sorry George, but again, your response does not speak to the point in question. Mechanical constraint poses different influences on a piece of wood than does the absence of it.