0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well blow me if this was the case we would have water spurting out of the tops of buildings filled with cavity wall insulation...
All answers welcome, here is a chance to do some "science"Not literally but yes according to the tension theory if a brick evaporates water it should aslo apply the same tension to the water below so stacking one brick onto another should cause rising damp to travel to the tops of walls but it clearly does nothing of the kind.
A tree grows slowly and is filled with fluids from the onset so does not require fluids to be lifted to the leaves as per Sophies rope and bucket analogy
AFKQuoteA tree grows slowly and is filled with fluids from the onset so does not require fluids to be lifted to the leaves as per Sophies rope and bucket analogyI just re-read this comment. Do you not see what rubbish it is? If a tree is 30m high, it GREW there. All materials needed to be lifted up there during the growing process. How long it took is irrelevant to the energy needed. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you misunderstand elementary things like that?If you accept that Energy is conserved in chemical and physical processes then you need to apply that principle in all of your ideas. You can't pick and choose what Science to use and what not to use. It's a consistent package - not mumbo jumbo, like your ideas.
Andrew. Where do you think plants get the material from which to grow?
AKFWhy do you introduce a nonsense question about why trees "bother" to shed [edit] leaves.If large leaves were not shed they would rupture in frost and let infection enter. Any connection with your theory is spurious (not for the first time).
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 12/07/2009 09:32:32All answers welcome, here is a chance to do some "science"Not literally but yes according to the tension theory if a brick evaporates water it should aslo apply the same tension to the water below so stacking one brick onto another should cause rising damp to travel to the tops of walls but it clearly does nothing of the kind.If you cover the walls with a layer of waterproof material (I can't say I have tried tree bark- but it would be interesting) then that's exactly what happens. The water soaks up to the top and evaporates there.Of course, without that cover, it evaporates before it reaches the top.Scince is based on observation. My observation is that your assertion is false.This tends to suport (though it does not prove) the opposite viewpoint.In effect you have just proved your own ideas to be faulty.
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 12/07/2009 09:32:32All answers welcome, here is a chance to do some "science"Not literally but yes according to the tension theory if a brick evaporates water it should aslo apply the same tension to the water below so stacking one brick onto another should cause rising damp to travel to the tops of walls but it clearly does nothing of the kind.
HOW ON EARTH CAN A TREE EVAPORATE WATER WITHOUT ALTERING THE DENSITY OF THE SAP . . . .
If 98% of all the water drawn through the roots evaporates . . . . . .
Easy question here
How does a tree know there is about to be frost? Does it watch the BBC weather forcast as the leaves fall long before the first frost in most cases?
Andrew,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damp-proof_course
some tall trees that have a relatively few leaves yet appear to draw water from the ground for many years and are unaffected by their inherant lack of leaves.
AKFQuoteHOW ON EARTH CAN A TREE EVAPORATE WATER WITHOUT ALTERING THE DENSITY OF THE SAP . . . .Did anyone say that it could? Of course there will be dense solutions at the top. The question is whether there is enough to provide the motive power mechanism you propose.Well yes someone has said the density changes will not take place because more water will arrive to re-dilute it and take it’s place. This of course does not prevent the change in density but merely supports a circulation theory rather than a redundant one way ticket to the atmosphere hypothesis.QuoteIf 98% of all the water drawn through the roots evaporates . . . . . . Quote So you are implying that the 2%, falling can lift the 98% for transpiration? Fantastic. We have a brilliant new way of making skyscraper lifts work, for free.You are still locked onto this circulation theory with not a single numerical reason to justify it. If the numbers don't tally, there must be another reason. But of course, Maths is just there in order to discredit the unqualified, isn't it? Well it appears to work for the Californian Redwoods and a few other magnificent specimens towering well over a hundred metres. Did anyone observe a mechanical lift used in their construction?
So you are implying that the 2%, falling can lift the 98% for transpiration? Fantastic. We have a brilliant new way of making skyscraper lifts work, for free.You are still locked onto this circulation theory with not a single numerical reason to justify it. If the numbers don't tally, there must be another reason. But of course, Maths is just there in order to discredit the unqualified, isn't it?