Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

1) Learn how to quote you are replying to

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

2) I think I learned a few things in gaining a BS, part of an MS and
30+ years of work in the "field"

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+.

3) I actually do know what I am talking about

Apparently not.

You said:
The variation is close enough, given the sample size, that this test
doesn't prove or disprove anything.

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 ****ing contest (that you began) ends - I quit.