How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?

  • 404 Replies
  • 246366 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 513
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #100 on: 11/05/2005 14:02:35 »
Maybe we should derive a new forum...

MAD SCIENCE

*

Offline anthony

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #101 on: 13/05/2005 04:24:32 »
The majority of scientific publications in this area appear to be in "Plant Physiology", "Journal of Experimental Botany" and "Tree physiology" I suggest you try either the British Library or a local university library to read these journals.

I don't have much time available to me but have found an interesting abstract on the topic, that represents something close to the "state-of-the-art" currently in the field. I think you'll be surprised at how advanced the field is.

Thermodynamic analysis of the interaction of the xylem water and phloem sugar solution and its significance for the cohesion theory.     Lampinen, Markku J.; Noponen, Tuula.    Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics,  Helsinki University of Technology,  Finland.    Journal of Theoretical Biology  (2003),  224(3),  285-298.

Abstract

The cohesion theory explains water transport in trees by the evapn. of water in the leaves (transpiration), which in turn generates the tension required for sap ascent, i.e., the flow of pure water from the soil through the root system and the non-living cells of the tree (xylem tracheids) up to the leaves.  Only a small part of this water flow entering the leaves is used in photosynthesis to produce sugar soln., which is transported from the leaves through the living cells (phloem) to everywhere in the tree where it is needed and used.  The phloem sieves are connected to the xylem tracheids by water transparent membranes, which means that the upflow of pure water and downflow of sugar soln. interact with each other, causing the osmotic pressure in the sugar soln. (Munch model).  Here, the authors analyze this interaction with a thermodn. approach and we show that some open questions in the cohesion theory can then perhaps be better understood.  For example, why under a quite high tension the water can flow in the xylem mostly without any notable cavitation, and how the suction force itself depends on the cavitation.  Minimizing Gibbs energy of the system of xylem and phloem, we derive extended vapor pressure and osmotic pressure equations, which include gas bubbles in the xylem conduits as well as the cellulose-air-water interface term.  With the aid of the vapor pressure equation derived here, we est. the suction force that the cavitation controlled by the phloem sugar soln. can generate at high moisture contents.  The authors also est. the suction force that the transpiration can generate by moisture gradient at low moisture contents.  From the general osmotic pressure equation we derive an equation for calcg. the degree of cavitation with different sugar soln. concns. and we show the conditions under which the cavitation in the xylem is totally avoided.  Using recent field measurement results for a Scotch pine, the theory is demonstrated by showing its predictions for possible amts. of cavitation or embolism from morning hours to late afternoon.

Your argument on this website has been interesting and some excellent scientific points have been made about your theories and experiments by very talented scientists. However, they are not experts in the field and I think you might benefit from that input. The first two journals I mentioned are, most probably, peer-reviewing journals, which means that, subject to the editors decision, the editor may also be an expert scientist, submissions will be reviewed by two experts. If you are serious about your ideas I suggest you submit your experiment and theories as a what is known as a "letter" or "communication", this may need be no longer than one side A4. You should first read the journal for style and think about reading the literature to reference your work relative to that of others. I think a day or two reading these journals may be very fulfilling for you. It is not necessary to have a university address to get published, but your submission must be professional and new.

If you were prepared to write a manuscript, and place the text online here, I would be prepared to comment on style, and I suggest others might too.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2005 04:25:48 by anthony »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #102 on: 13/05/2005 18:06:30 »
Anthony: I have read very much all that has been written on this subject, including the cohesion theory, which, as shown in the abstract, does begin to attribute some force from the solutes to the picture:


The phloem sieves are connected to the xylem tracheids by water transparent membranes, which means that the upflow of pure water and downflow of sugar soln. interact with each other, causing the osmotic pressure in the sugar soln.

Now I wonder where the idea of sugars causing what is believed to be osmotic pressure, originated?

I have approached many journals to get my work published, only to find a very tightly closed shop.

1.   New Scientist. Dr David Concur was the Editor when I first approached them to publish my findings. He said if I can get one academic involved in either physics or biology to back me on this discovery, He would break with traditions and primary publish my work. I got quite a few people to back me and he went back on his word!
2.   I approached New Phytologist, only to find the same “Not invented here syndrome”. Got some encouraging letters and no logical reason for refusing to publish.
3.   Nature, Well, They would not give me a reason for not publishing. Nor would they offer any help for a new author as one would expect from such a well read journal. They did say that it was not fit for their journal in either format or content?
4.   The Lancet, relating to the massive amount of work I have done with neurology, helping people to regain a huge amount of function and sensitivity in people suffering from a whole range of neurological disorders, ranging from multiple sclerosis to spinal cord injuries. The Editor was genuinely interested and we exchanged a fair bit of information, including some amazing case histories, yet, they refused to publish also.
5.   And there are many more attempts to obtain publication like this. In fact, I have one investigation into Plagiarism ongoing at the moment on another subject.

I wish to say thank you for your offer to help me achieve the correct pitch for publication and will do everything I can to get this important discovery into the public domain.

I wrote to The Association of Science and Education to get the basic theory into their School Science Review Journal. They claim to have lost my paper, even though it was submitted electronically to several people in the same organisation. They blamed it on the Editor leaving and deleting my work? I have since been asked to resubmit it. They have been looking at this article since the year 2000.

Someone on here called me paranoid. I would say realistic in the face of everything that has been done to stop me from publishing.

But I will pick myself up;--no matter how many times I am kicked in the teeth while I am down and have another go.

As I see it there are two ways of protecting ones work. One is to tell no one and the other is to shout it from the rooftops, so that in the event that some thief tries to claim it as their own, they will inevitably come un-stuck, thanks to the Internets amazing capacity to record and date stamp almost everything discussed on the Internet.

There are many more open Journals available now online, which are putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the closed shop journals. In fact they are squealing like stuck pigs about the amount of published papers that are going to these journals, and the beauty of these journals is they are open for everyone to read the publications and free of any charge for the privilege of doing so.

I accept your offer to help me to publish and cannot thank you enough for your offer to help.

I believe the basic theory, which was written for School Science Review, is a good place for us to start.

Professor H.T.Hammel has said that he would help with the paper, maybe I could invite him to join the forum. Also Professor Michel Cabanac from University Laval, Quebec Canada has expressed an interest in this discovery.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #103 on: 13/05/2005 18:39:04 »
quote:
Now I wonder where the idea of sugars causing what is believed to be osmotic pressure, originated?

What is this supposed to mean?

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #104 on: 13/05/2005 18:47:22 »
The phloem sieves are connected to the xylem tracheids by water transparent membranes, which means that the upflow of pure water and downflow of sugar soln. interact with each other, causing the osmotic pressure in the sugar soln.

How do you interpret this?

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #105 on: 13/05/2005 20:21:54 »
You give the impression of not thinking that osmosis has any effect... and of doubting wheter it exists.

I think the abstract was coming up with a mechanism for how the Pholem can be at a positive pressure throughout it's length which is how the sugar can move through it with minimal use of energy.
http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol327/Lecture/phloem.htm

It is really neat - areas of the phloem with high sugar concentrations will draw in water from the xylem by osmosis so increasing their pressure. Areas which are using sugar have a low concentration of sugar and therefore a low osmotic pressure. Water flows away from regions of high pressure to the low pressure where the sugar is being used. This has the advantage of being able to move the sugar from where the sugar is being produced - either in the leaves most of the season, or from starch in the roots during the spring, to where it is needed.

I don't know whether I have acces to this article because I am in a university, but if you can I would defnitely read the introduction.

Link to article
« Last Edit: 14/05/2005 00:34:41 by daveshorts »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #106 on: 14/05/2005 09:52:01 »
Dear Doctor Saupe,
 
I wrote to you in April 2003 in order to explain a new paradigm in water movement in trees and plants. I never did get a reply and wonder if you would care to join our discussion at the Naked Scientist forum?
 
I believe your knowledge in this field would benefit this discussion immensely. I do understand that your commitments and demands on your time are high.
I hope you can find the time to look us up, as I believe we have a mutual interest in understanding the true functions of transpiration and water movement in trees.

Sincerely  Andrew K Fletcher


 

Last post on this topic:

 
quote:
You give the impression of not thinking that osmosis has any effect... and of doubting whether it exists.

 
Sorry for giving the wrong impression about osmosis. I believe that the accepted interpretation of osmosis is erroneous, as did Professor H.T.Hammel. Water cannot attract water to the leaves of a tree, any more than diffusion or root pressure can cause it to flow at the observed rates evident in trees! There has to be a method of loading an unloading sucrose as Stephen Saupe Suggests in his pages. The bulk flow rates observed in trees are undeniably massive and simply cannot be addressed by osmosis, capillary action, or root pressure! Saupe points to this problem in his pages. He also states that the phloem is under a positive pressure, demonstrated by aphids. This fits with my own experiment in the saline loaded side that does indeed flow down! He also states that there must be a sink. In my theory, I have mentioned the sink as being the roots and trunk for simplicity. There are also the fruits, leaves and minor branches that continue to grow providing additional sinks as Saupe also states.
 
Sauppe also states:
Bidirectionality - how can phloem translocate materials in two different directions at once? It can’t, at least not within the same sieve tube. However, presumably sieve tubes within a single vascular bundle could be transporting in opposite directions assuming each is acting appropriately.
 
The fact is that bi-directional flow in one tube is easily observed using my model, proving beyond any shadow of doubt that it will also occur inside a tree when the resistance in other pathways becomes congested!
 
I wrote to Stephen Saupe in Early January 2003, sending him information about my experiments. I never did get a reply.
 
XIII. Why does transpiration occur?
A. Transport in plants. This is important to a small degree. Transpiration is certainly not a necessity.
B. Heat loss (latent heat of vaporization)
C. Carry nutrients in the soil to the plant
D. Perhaps plant cells need to maintain some optimal level of turgidity and this helps them do so.
 
And lets not forget the picric acid and copper sulphate experiments killing all living cells in the tree and yet it still flows and transpires for three weeks post death of the tree.  
 
I am surprised that he has failed to realise the importance of transpiration, density and gravity.
 
I have written to Stephen Saupe again to see if he will join us.
 
Andrew



« Last Edit: 14/05/2005 09:54:32 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #107 on: 14/05/2005 12:08:14 »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #108 on: 14/05/2005 17:17:45 »
Your link to a paper was not in any way arguing that osmosos is empirically wrong, or that the way that thermodynamacists explain osmosis or it's properties was wrong, just that the simplifications that are taught to school children are a bit dodgy - so it is still a real effect !!!

I don't see why the bulk flow rates are not possible by osmosis - the rate of osmosis may be slow per unit area - but there are a huge number of xylem and their suface area is huge - so it all adds up to a big number - unless you can do soame maths to back up your argument it isn't very strong...

You didn't get my point about the Phloem - if it is all at an absolute positive pressure, if you wired one into the Xylem, theere would be flow of sugars into the xylem as the pressure is bigger there - THE WRONG WAY  - so if this is the case your theory can't use the Phloem as the downward path (especially as sugars flow up or down a tree depending on the season....) -  and I don't think there is anything else to use

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #109 on: 14/05/2005 19:35:58 »
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts


I don't see why the bulk flow rates are not possible by osmosis - the rate of osmosis may be slow per unit area - but there are a huge number of xylem and their suface area is huge - so it all adds up to a big number - unless you can do soame maths to back up your argument it isn't very strong...

You didn't get my point about the Phloem - if it is all at an absolute positive pressure, if you wired one into the Xylem, theere would be flow of sugars into the xylem as the pressure is bigger there - THE WRONG WAY  - so if this is the case your theory can't use the Phloem as the downward path (especially as sugars flow up or down a tree depending on the season....) -  and I don't think there is anything else to use



Not at all David, if you wired a positive force generated by falling sap it would find the most direct route to the ground. The flow works totally independent to pressures! You can pressurise a tube to a hundred bar and this flow would still travel down inside the pressurised tube. It does not require any pressure to function; it generates pressures as it functions!


When I did the exhibition in London, I used a saline drip feed to enable many people to see the experiment, which was repeated well over a hundred times.

To do this I needed to set up an artificial bladder, which was on a T junction as you suggest, but at the bottom end of the tubes, to act as a sump for the saline pulses which eventually reached the lowest point. This worked remarkably well, enabling the pulses of saline solution to replace the clean water in 2x connected bladder wash bags, representing the kidneys on either side of a Catheter bag which had a convenient drain tap right at the bottom acting as the ultimate sump, and representing the bladder in human physiology which of course enabled us to empty it. This worked perfectly except for the formation of gas bubbles in the upward flowing side.

Some very large bubbles collected at the upper part of the somewhat complicated tubes, which looked a little like a tubular maze. The interesting thing with the bubbles is that the flow continued around the outside of the bubbles and it did not stop the flow.

Another interesting observation for people at the exhibition was that if the drip bag was allowed to flow a little more profusely, the large bubbles at the top of the experiment began to travel down with the saline flow, some of these bubbles measured 10 millimetres long in a 4 mill bore soft walled tube.  One other point was that the bladder bag on the saline free side of the nighttime catheter bag emptied as the negative pressure caused by the downward flow pulled clean water into the system.  Now the thing about this experiment is it was a closed loop system, and that the saline flow had to be the principle cause of the negative pressures and positive pressures generated. Pressure from the drip feed did not make any difference because there was a convenient method of isolating it.

But the gist of this reply is, that gravity will drive this circulation, and your T junction will not alter its course, because it is not pressure dependent, and is not trying to overcome gravity as with the embraced cohesion theory. This flow system actually requires gravity and therefore negates your previous energy equation, which after all still relates to gravity as being a force to overcome.


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #110 on: 15/05/2005 00:06:51 »
Regardless of what Chris may say about your bladder theories, you didn't understand what I meant:

The Phloem is at a positive pressure - this means that even at the top of the tree the phloem has a pressure greater than atmospheric.

We have established that the top of the xylem must have a negative absolute pressure of several atmospheres.

The reason your syphon works is that because the saline is more dense than pure water  it pulls down slightly harder than the water side, so the pressure at the top on the downward side is a few mBar lower than at the top on the upward side, so water flows towards the upward side.

Now in a tree you have a Phloem at a pressure greater than an atmosphere and the xylem at a pressure of minus up to 10 atmospheres - there is no way you can make water flow into the xylem if they were attached to one another. you can't get water to flow against a 10 atmophere pressure difference without something else going on as it is a fluid and fluids flow from high pressure to low pressure... (if they are at the same height - which they are)

You can make osmosis produce this sort of pressure difference, but unless you are injecting mercury into the phloem, not how you are suggesting.

*

Offline anthony

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #111 on: 15/05/2005 06:10:13 »
Andrew, thanks for your reply, given your enthusiasm I would have been surprised if you hadn't already tried to publish. First of all, being published means lots of hard work, lots of time and inveitably rejections. Some of what is published shouldn't be and some of what should, isn't, editors try and do the best they can, the main advantage for the editors is that they always have much more than they can publish. The editors' main concern, with good reason, is the reputation of their journal, and the best way to loose that reputation is to publish bad science.

By extension, if I'm not surprised you've tried to publish, given the fact you haven't published, I suppose I am also not surprised you haven't. People in the arts have the same arrogance of people in the science. We think ours is the discipline that concentrates on logic, they think theirs is the one which concentrates on communication. I've found much of what you said very difficult to follow and given the fact that this argument has now reached about 40,000 words, the length of a short PhD thesis, it doesn't get any easier. So now you see why I made my offer. People say scientists speak a different language, I'm offering my services, and that of this forum, as translator.

All but one of the publications in which you have so far tried to publish are wholely inappriopriate for this work. New Phytologist was a good start, and I refer you to the list which I first posted. But you simply MUST read and understand what other people in the field have done first. Furthermore, you must not see it as potential plagarism. The sad truth is that ideas are very rarely new, and I'm sure your ideas are no different. What counts is working the idea, with a little proof, into something that someone else can have an idea with. That counts for you and me as much as it did for Einstein.

Science is now conducted by professional scientists, it's the 21st century. The time of the "Gentleman Scientist" is behind us, it's a concept I have some affection for, but will never be re-instated. The era of the Gentleman Scientist was one full of great cataloguers and makers of lists and trees in biology, geology and paleontology. Great observers who could see the connections between things. The physicists were developing the basis of modern science in laboritories, and by the end of Rutherford's time it was essentialy dead. Rutherford had PhD students and worked in a university after-all. Take no offence at this, but you are essentially a "living fossil." As such, you can be poorly adapted for the world at large.

As the abstract I posted shows, water transport in trees is very much the territory of the modern scientist. Modern science is built on layers of concepts each the foundatation for the next, that's why it takes six to eight years, undergraduate/PhD, to produce one modern scientist. Increasingly scientists have to draw on knowledge from different fields to progress. The abstract I posted for example, drawing on advanced thermodynamics, mathematics and computing to solve a simple biology problem. It is not easy, it is very, very difficult.

Everyone in this forum is trying to help but you are at a considerable evolutionary disadvantage. It remains possible for the Gentleman Scientist to publish, but you simply must research others work and communicate in the right way. It's our rules now. Alternatively you can withdraw from competition, which is ultimately the safer thing to do.

I remain true to my original offer, and make a second. If you are minded to look into other people's publications in the area, I will give you a list of journal articles that may get you started.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #112 on: 15/05/2005 16:10:23 »
Anthony

Thanks for your reply

I have taken much of what you have said on the chin. Your defence of editors and Journals in an ideal world would be acceptable. I have a huge amount of correspondences from these and many more journals, which I intend to publish for all to see, so that everyone can make up their own minds about why these people have the audacity to place such controls on science. But there is a huge swing right now towards a different kind of journal, and this has revived my spirit somewhat. Whenever there is a new discovery in Science of significant importance, History tells us that it is seldom the establishments that deliver it. In fact it is usually the “fossils” that provide us with solid foundations.

I am surprised that you suspect I have not read other peoples papers. I have! I also have a great deal of respect for Professor H.T.Hammel, Professor Michel Cabanac, Pete Scholander, Galileo, Evangelista Torricelli, Eduard Strasburger, Is there really any point in regurgitating old papers, which will place demands upon the permitted space in our publication. Other than a briefer mention than those set out in the links provided below? I do realise that other theory’s have to be shown to be weaker than this one, but how much time, effort and space has to be devoted to this?

For an excellent history of the ascent of sap, read the following.
http://www.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=4&id=98


http://www.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=4&id=99
A recent synthesis of the main features of the CTT and the electrical analogy used for modeling water transport in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum has led to a new approach to plant and tree water relations: the hydraulic architecture approach. This approach considers a plant, and especially a tree, as a hydraulic system. All hydraulic systems (dams, irrigation systems for crops or houses, the human blood vascular system) are composed of the same basic elements: a driving force, pipes, reservoirs and regulating systems. So described, the hydraulic architecture is a powerful tool to study the hydraulic characteristics of the conducting tissues under a whole range of natural conditions. Important questions subject to study with the hydraulic architecture approach include:


I repeat: Anyone that has ever witnessed these simple experiments looks in awe and instantaneously accepts that this is exactly how trees lift water at bulk flow rates.
Anthony,
I have to ask you to repeat at least the scaled down versions of these experiments, in order that it will clarify the text to the point that you will totally understand what it is we are dealing with here. A trip to the local aquarium retailer will provide you with the required tubes, junctions and T junctions, used to aerate fish tanks. While you may believe that you understand how this flow works at the moment, it is only when you see it work that the full implications of this discovery hits home.

You are sure that my theory is no different to what has been done before? Have you seen another?

How can you say this when every single paper has been trying to understand how everything living is struggling against gravity and trying to overcome gravity?
My theory embraces gravity as the power source that drives the fluids of all things living, As far as I know, no one has a theory that identifies how gravity causes water to flow vertically and effortlessly.

 
quote:
Science is now conducted by professional scientists, it's the 21st century. The time of the "Gentleman Scientist" is behind us, it's a concept I have some affection for, but will never be re-instated.


There is more than one way this statement can be interpreted. I believe that the professionalism of scientists has compromised science causing a considerable degree of stagnation in pure science. Everyone either is accepting what they read as fact or too afraid of rocking the boats for fear of being ostracised.

I believe you are quite wrong about this bubble of the closed shop being impregnable to outsiders. I believe someone may just come along with a pin and pop it, kicking science so far off its pedestal that a new breed of scientists will again immerge and science will again grow in leaps and bounds. I first heard this from a doctor on an Open University Programme who sated that Science is on a pedestal and that it is all B*******. Another scientist added that once it has been kicked off its pedestal, he hopes it will not fall so far as to become irreparably damaged, meaning I take it as losing all of its credibility. I think the programme was "The trouble with science"

Truth has an uncanny knack of turning round and biting us all in the butt, so telling it as it is, rather than as it isn’t sounds like a good standpoint.

I am not scared of a fight, and I can assure you that I don’t abide by Queensbury rules and have despatched a few hardened boxers from the ring on my travels. But I do consider myself as a fair and honest person. And maybe even a gentleman in the sense that you have implied it. As for a fossil, I see myself as a new generation of people who dare to disbelieve what is written and question everything and everyone, taking absolutely nothing for granted.

While engaging a pathologist on this same subject but in a different model if you get my drift, she said; “My god you have just dissected a body in front of me reassembled it and explained how it all works perfectly, and not even had to cut open a single cadaver.

 
quote:
Everyone in this forum is trying to help but you are at a considerable evolutionary disadvantage. It remains possible for the Gentleman Scientist to publish, but you simply must research others work and communicate in the right way. It's our rules now. Alternatively you can withdraw from competition, which is ultimately the safer thing to do.

And I really do appreciate being granted an opportunity to share my findings with people here!

 
quote:
It's our rules now

Interpreted, as I don’t appear to abide by the rules?

 
quote:
I remain true to my original offer, and make a second. If you are minded to look into other people's publications in the area, I will give you a list of journal articles that may get you started.


Withdraw from competition? Bahh, never knew how to be a quitter, but I can see that you are steering me into a rather complicated paper, which I believe may be the wrong way to go. I think it should be kept simple that even a scientist can understand it. Present company excluded from that remark of course, and I really could use some help with this.

One last point, almost a week ago I set up a 2 metre vertical loop of tubing filled with boiled water with the two open ends submerged in two bottles of water to test the stability of gas free water. It has remained unaffected and is still intact. I will try to leave it for three weeks as Strasburger did with his tree experiment in picric acid to see if the constant tension causes cavitation without any added salt to the one side as in the Brixham experiment.

Regards  Andrew


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #113 on: 17/05/2005 13:29:37 »
I think that a gentleman scientist can still do useful work, but this is very dependent on the area. In subjects that are studying the way the world is such as parts of zoology, geology, medcine and especially psycology there is a lot still to do - and anyone can find a new rock, animal or herb, however if you are in an area that has been intensely studied, the pickings are a lot poorer.

 I would also say that the gentleman scientist is more likely to find an interesting experiment or new observation than come up with new theries of how the world works (again depending on the subject) as in parts of physics just understanding the evidence that you have to explain with your theory takes many years of work, let alone understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the present theories.

So essentially you are better off looking for new butterflies or rocks than rewriting   quantumn physics.

I also think you are hugely underestimating the awkwardness of many scientists, a lot of them are really not the kind of people to fit in and take part in a conspiracy. Making lots of scientists do the same thing is a bit like hearding cats...

As to your experiments Andrew I can easily explain them by conventional physics apart from a couple of observations.

The not syphoning above a certain height.
and
The water retreating up the tubes when you remove them from the bottles.

I don't think that your explanations explain these any better than mine could so I am interested.

Have you made any form of systematic study of these phenomena? What height does the tube stop syphoning conventionally? does the water retreat up the tubes if the tube is shorter, or under less tension, or was layed out at an angle rather than vertically?
« Last Edit: 17/05/2005 20:50:21 by daveshorts »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #114 on: 19/05/2005 19:58:35 »

So essentially you are better off looking for new butterflies or rocks than rewriting quantumn physics.

No thanks; I have no desire to go chasing butterflies, anymore than I underestimate scientists.

As to your experiments Andrew I can easily explain them by conventional physics apart from a couple of observations.

The point really is the original thoughts, which led to the experiments, and is now leading to a paper compiled in such a way that it is beautifully simple, yet addresses all of the known idiosyncrasies inherent in the current theories.
To say that you feel that you can explain them by conventional physics is comforting, as I would expect this new paradigm to be understood by physicists and biologists. After all, the children and teachers in the schools I have demonstrated the experiments in, had no difficulty understanding this logic, anymore than the 3 thousand visitors to The London International Inventions fair did in 1997.

What I do find surprising is that no one here appears to have conducted the experiments for themselves in order to give a qualified account of their own observations. If it is the money, I will send the £3.00 so that you can purchase the tubing and T junctions. This is even more confusing when one would think that with so many young enquiring minds someone at least would want to see water flowing up a tube for themselves.
 
Have you made any form of systematic study of these phenomena? What height does the tube stop syphoning conventionally? does the water retreat up the tubes if the tube is shorter, or under less tension, or was layed out at an angle rather than vertically?

Not sure about what you mean by a systematic study. I have tried removing the tubes at lower than the thirty three feet limit and find that water flows out of the tube from one side only, lifting the entire contents up one side and out of the other. This was demonstrated to the children at HighWeek Primary school in Newton Abbot, Devon. They had difficulty understanding why water only flowed out of on end when the tubes were lifted.

I have tested the tube at an angle, a loop, partly horizontal and partly vertical, in an intricate multi directional set up, and it works the same. I.E. a flow and return is observed! But this is hardly surprising when this same flow is attributed to driving the Atlantic Conveyor system (Gulf Stream) where there are no tubes whatsoever. Like I said before, it has no respect for where it flows. But flow it must!


I am also surprised that the link below did not generate much interest?

http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/search_links.htm
Gravity of Life - Have you ever thought how trees are able to transport fluids to their tops? Andrew Fletcher has some novel thoughts on how plants use gravity to drive this process.




"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #115 on: 19/05/2005 20:36:55 »
Why is it that the phloem sap is observed to flow down, in the opposite direction to the predicted path of suction generated by the leaves? According to this theory, it is hard to understand how a plant or tree can differentiate between the xylem and the phloem. How can the same leaf suck up water in the xylem and blow it down the phloem at the same time? If you were to place an atomiser from a paint spray gun at the top of the tree, under say 65 psi, would you really expect this to cause water to be drawn up the tubes inside the tree? NO! It simply cannot work any more than a lift pump would work placed at the top of the tree. Why would you expect the current cohesion theory to work? You add, well there are many leaves at the top of the tree and the interactions between all of the leaves and the atmosphere would suffice to generate ample pull. How? There are many trees which have minimal leaves at the tops, like the larch which lift water with ease, yet do not have anywhere near the surface areas that you suggest would be required to generate the pull! Let alone Strasburger’s dead transpiring trees.

Even if you removed even more branches from the top of a larch it would carry on pulling water to the top! Look at bamboo for instance, or climbing vines.

A few days ago I went out with a stethoscope to listen to the trickling of sap as it flows in bulk within the trunk of an ash tree, which was just in bud. Again this tree did not have the massive surface area the cohesion theory requires of it. I could hear the water flowing and the cavitations creating cracking noises.

Now explain that with your knowledge of physics please,


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #116 on: 19/05/2005 21:51:12 »
On the "Gentleman Scientist" question...
There is no particular reason, I don't think, why a "gentleman scientist" such as Andrew shouldn't be able to make and interpret accurately useful new discoveries many fields (I'd suggest that this wasn't infact the case in quantum physics which tends to require several miles of subterranean tunnels full of particle accelerators as this might be more than a little way outside the typical spare-time budget). It would require a phenomenal amount of dedication to get up to speed on the current thinking, getting hold of material not available on the internet etc., but some do have that.

However... the presumption within the scientific community is that individuals not doing this as a full-time job can't possibly have the time, energy and access to materials this requires, and so tend to be starting with an assumption that such people are unlikely to have anything very interesting to say. The primary necessity for anyone from an unexpected background who wanted to get their theory recognised by the scientific establishment is to write a *very* detailed explanation of their new theory along with a discussion of the old theory they're attempting to debunk which shows a very thorough understanding of the old theory such that it's impossible for readers to discount the whole exercise by saying to themselves "he only doesn't believe our theory because he doesn't understand it".
You haven't persuaded me yet. This may be because we're attempting to communicate in text and you haven't shown me any numbers, but I'm not convinced.

quote:
What I do find surprising is that no one here appears to have conducted the experiments for themselves in order to give a qualified account of their own observations. If it is the money, I will send the £3.00 so that you can purchase the tubing and T junctions.

Nope, not the money. The time. And the space. When I have more than a couple of hours together to call my own I have every intention of having a shot at some of your experiments. But as a student in a ground floor room in the middle of a seriously flat county this is not high on my list of priorities.

quote:
If you were to place an atomiser from a paint spray gun at the top of the tree, under say 65 psi, would you really expect this to cause water to be drawn up the tubes inside the tree?

I don't know how an atomiser from a paint spray gun works, but if it didn't introduce an air bubble or a nucleation site for a cavitation into the system I'd expect any given pressure to draw up a column of water of the corresponding depth... 1Atm vs a vacuum pushes water up 10m, as in a water barometer so my expectation would be that provided no cavitation occurs (and I'd suspect most conventional pumps in this area) a negative pressure of 2Atm would pull water up about 20m.

quote:
I am also surprised that the link below did not generate much interest?
http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/search_links.htm

Why? It's a links page... so you have novel theories about water transportation. We all know that.

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #117 on: 20/05/2005 00:26:26 »
quote:
Why is it that the phloem sap is observed to flow down, in the opposite direction to the predicted path of suction generated by the leaves?


Andrew fluid flows in the Phloem up down and sideways, it has been measured to be at a positive pressure - THIS MEANS IT CAN'T BE SUCKING UP THE WATER IN THE XYLEM DIRECTLY!! in order to suck the pressure in the phloem must be lower than the xylem..

If you read my previous post you would have found out that the reason it is at a higher pressure than the xylem is osmosis - the Phloem is sugary, and therefore water will osmose into it from the xylem. This can happen at pressure differences of 10-20 atmospheres quite happyly.

quote:
If you were to place an atomiser from a paint spray gun at the top of the tree, under say 65 psi, would you really expect this to cause water to be drawn up the tubes inside the tree?


If you made the atomiser out of something hydrophilic like paper or cotton and the holes in are small enough then yes.

Andrew HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT AREAS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS TO WORK? have you done any experiments or even calculations to find out - if so could I would be interested, if not please not don't make broad generalisations which you can't back up
« Last Edit: 20/05/2005 00:28:55 by daveshorts »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #118 on: 20/05/2005 21:34:32 »
Dave

If you had read my previous posts, you would have found that this flow is not pressure dependent! It does not require pressure; it generates pressures as it flows! The tiny pulses of saline solution injected at the top of the loop experiment flow down. This causes a dragging effect because of the cohesive qualities of water. The downward flow cannot flow down without dragging water down with it. It behaves like an elasticised string. I.E. the downward flow is not possible, without it causing an upward flow! Phloem flows in the direction of a sink! If that sink happens to be an apple, then it will flow towards the apple, if it happens to be a root, it will flow to the root. If a denser solution is flowing down, then a less dense solution will be flowing up or in any direction affording less resistance! Hence “Flow and return”. In my inverted tubular experiment, both tubes are under a negative pressure with no saline added. Demonstrated by the water retreating up the tubes when the tubes are lifted out! Yet when the saline is added, it causes the contents of the whole tube to rotate in the direction of the downward flowing salt solution.

1.   Evaporation cannot take place without it altering the density of the sap at the leaf!
2.   Gravity will pull on the denser sap causing it to flow in the direction of a sink!
3.   The denser sap will drag less dense solutions from other areas of the tree!
4.   Pressures will be altered by this flow and return system, but the flow itself is not pressure dependent. I.E. Pressure changes are not required to cause this flow in any direction, other than the effect of gravity upon dense sollutions!
5.   The flow and return will generate negative pressures and tension in the sap at the roots and throughout the xylem it will generate an upward pull on the water, which will cause water to flow horizontal, down, up and diagonally, because the water is being dragged upon by the falling solutes and in the phloem it will inevitably change the negative pressure to a positive pressure, causing both a pushing force in front of it and a pulling tension behind it.
6.   In the tree, there is an outer sleeve, which adds additional support for this flow and return, making it much more robust than the simple inverted U tube experiment. Within this sleeve / bark cavitations can occur frequently and do not interfere with this flow and return system. The sap simply flows around the gas bubbles, as observed in my own tubular experiments.
7.   In these tubular experiments, it was also observed that a two-tier flow system can exist in a single tube, meaning, that there is a flow and return observed in the same side of a closed loop of tubing. Meaning, that a concentrated solution flows down one side of a diagonally placed loop of tubing, while clean water flows above it in the opposite direction!

For you to keep dismissing this as irrelevant to trees, without observing the hard evidence for yourself is a reaction I have grown to expect from people who would rather believe text in text books, than to question and evaluate the theories for themselves. You have absolutely no idea of the full implications. I have lived and loved my work and will do so until the day I die!

I therefore decline your polite invitation to become self gagged and hope you will understand why.

Andrew


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #119 on: 21/05/2005 00:21:57 »
Andrew Yes your system generates it's own pressure differences however the water is still moving because of pressure differences they are just generated by density differences not by a pump..

 Shall we do a little calculation...

if you inject 20cm of saline with a density of 1.5g/cm3 this will produce an extra pressure of about (1000kg/m3-1500kg/m3)*.2m*9.81 = -1000Pa or -.01Bar above the saline on the downwards side.

So for a little overview:
The pressure at the top of a 20m tube
on the no saline side is -1Bar
on the saline side it is -1.01Bar because of the extra weight of the saline pulling on it.

This means that at the top the pressure on the saline side is lower so water moves towards the saline side - as you have observed.


However if you measure the pressure of the fluid in the Phloem
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=440496&pageindex=1
you find the pressure is positive and up to 10 Bar - (otherwise aphids would implode)

So lets think about this -

the pressure in the xylem is at up to -10Bar the pressure
in the Phloem it is at +10 Bar.

Now you are expecting me to accept that the water is moving against a pressure difference of 20Bar to flow into the Phloem with no Osmosis going on...?

quote:
For you to keep dismissing this as irrelevant to trees, without observing the hard evidence for yourself is a reaction I have grown to expect from people who would rather believe text in text books, than to question and evaluate the theories for themselves. You have absolutely no idea of the full implications. I have lived and loved my work and will do so until the day I die!

Please do not say that I am ignoring the hard evidence - at no point have I said that  there is much wrong with your experiments - they are exactly what I would expect to happen apart from a few minor details that you have not investigated in detail.

What I am disputing with you is your interpretation, as although on the surface it sounds nice if you had bothered to do any simple calculations - like how much energy is released by the sap going down compared to the 50x more water going up, looked at the actual structures in a plant, considered what the pressure is in the Phloem, considered that sugar flows in more than one direction in a plant, etc. you would have realised that unless a tree is a perpetual motion machine, and is not designed the way it appears to be it can't work the way you describe.

The most important question I have to you despite all this, is have you ever considered that you may be wrong? or prefereably tried to proove yourself wrong. As if you haven't you are not doing science but PR.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #120 on: 23/05/2005 11:28:23 »


Inside a phloem, the structure adds an additional restrictive force on the downward flow, mainly friction, causing the falling solutes to back up, “Hydraulic brake”, slowing the flow down, and allowing sugars and salts to accumulate, giving rise to higher pressures. Inside the tree, as previously explained, there is additional support for the columns of water, due to the outer sleeve of the tree. This will inevitably explain the reductions in negative tension found inside the tree, as opposed to those that are obvious inside the Brixham Experiment. For instance, If I were to use a closed loop of tubing instead of the open ended tubing in the Brixham Experiment, then the height that can easily be obtained would exceed even the tallest of trees, and the circulation generated by the solutes would effortlessly rotate the fluids in the direction of the density path. Again the support of either a closed loop or a semi-closed loop changes the pressure parameters greatly.

In your calculations, I have difficulty understanding how you have derived the figures.

I believe you will find that the negative tension inside the inverted U tube at 20 metres will be far higher than your estimate. And as you are aware, the experiment is designed to demonstrate the flow, not to mirror the internal structure of a tree. So comparing like for like with the inverted tube is pointless.

See Reference to Professor H.T.Hammel letter page 2 of this thread.


 
quote:
The most important question I have to you despite all this, is have you ever considered that you may be wrong? or prefereably tried to proove yourself wrong. As if you haven't you are not doing science but PR.


With this last question, it would appear that you are trying to belittle me. Why is this? Do you not think that given all of the years I have been working on this, I have not tested and re-tested as to whether I am correct or incorrect?
E.G.
One simple test for you:

Measure the density of your urine, making a note of what you have eaten and drank during the day. Retire to bed, and measure the density of your urine when you relieve yourself in the morning.

Now elevate your bed by no less than six inches or fifteen cm’s at the head end and repeat exactly as the day before.

Then sleep with your head down and your feet up on the same incline and do the same. Now compare the figures and explain why there are massive differences in urine density.

Also, if you have varicosity in the lower limbs, you might find that the veins are pulled in by the reduction in pressure inside the veins, as we did when sleeping with the head end elevated for four weeks. Strange, because the vein in my wife’s leg had been bulging and aching for 16 years, following the birth of our first child. The vein is no longer varicose and barely visible!

You will find that your heart rate will reduce by 10 to 12 beats per minute, and your respiration rate will reduce by 4-5 breaths per minute, even if you are a sleeping bull terrier! But you will need a partner to measure these while you are sleeping.

Most of my research since discovering this flow and return has been directed towards helping people suffering from a whole range of illnesses. Like I said before, this flow and return has no respect for where it flows, but flow it must! I have spent many years working with and helping people with neurological and non-neurological conditions, to which, I have never charged a single penny for my services.

However, discussing this physiology and its wide ranging relationships will only serve to complicate this discussion beyond the purpose of plants and trees, and I have absolutely no wish to do so, other than offering this as an excuse for not conducting a greater number of various experiments with water and tubes. I have found myself going full circle and addressing the foundations of the initial discovery, which is to show how the bulk flow is generated, how it circulates and how evaporation triggers it.

As for P.R. I have appeared on television 3 times, been featured in the Daily Mail, Western Morning News, BBC and independent radio, Woman’s Realm magazine, Herald Express, Sunday Independent, Disabled Bikers Magazine, Medical Physics Group Newsletter at The Institute of Physics. Why would I want to be doing P.R. on the Naked Scientists forum? I find this remark of yours a little terse.

I am here because I am trying to understand what is required of me to publish a paper that will provide the “Closed Shop Scientific and Medical Communities with a paper that is difficult for publishers and readers to ignore, and believe it or not, I am gaining a tremendous insight into how this is to be achieved. And perhaps enlist a little expert help.

Andrew


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #121 on: 23/05/2005 13:13:56 »
I'm not saying which is the right interpretation of the urine density experiment, but my first interpretation would be that if you sleep with your head raised it makes breathing easier, which means you sleep more deeply.
When you sleep you produce more of the antidiuretic hormone which controls water loss (or possibly re-uptake, I forget) in the kidneys, so that you lose more urea etc. and less water. I suspect (I fear there aren't any physiologists reading this thread, so I'll have to check it on the physiology forum) that if you sleep more deeply you produce more ADH and therefore urine is denser.
Which would mean that the result would be due to gravity, but rather due to an effect on snot than on blood.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #122 on: 23/05/2005 13:26:36 »
quote:
I believe you will find that the negative tension inside the inverted U tube at 20 metres will be far higher than your estimate.

Atmospheric pressure will support a 10m column of water. This will give a vacuum pressure above the water (0Atm) We know that. (I think?)
Atmospheric pressure is about 10^5 Newtons per square metre.
Pressure due to gravity changes linearly with depth in a liquid. In a column 10m high which is in an open jar at the bottom will have a point 10m up where the pressure is 0 bar. You've established that water may but need not cavitate at negative pressures. If it does not then there must be a "pull" from above to support the extra weight of water in the column and the decrease in pressure continues linearly to be -1 Atm at 20m, -2 at 30m, etc, until caviatation occurs and the whole lot falls back to the 10m it can sustain without negative pressure.
The -1Atm pressure at 20m means that there is a pressure difference at that height between the outside atmosphere and the water in the tube of 2Atm or 2*10^5 kN per m2.

By the way, if you've had time to think about getting water out of your inverted tube at the top, which you reckoned a while back you could if you wished design an experiment to do, I'd still be interested to hear about it (or any time you do get time to consider it!)
« Last Edit: 23/05/2005 13:27:11 by rosy »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #123 on: 23/05/2005 14:35:30 »
Rosy
Actually, you sleep less deeply with the bed inclined, rem sleep is less frequent, dreaming becomes far les frequent. The body generates a substantial amount of additional heat in the inclined position, avoiding the temperature drop off that horizontal sleep causes. More heat = higher evaporation, which inevitably results in the production of denser urine.
Head down tilt on the other hand produces urine of near water density! Which at least proves that renal function requires gravity in order to transport solutes through to the bladder. Head down tilt temperature also fits with the temperature reduction in hibernating bats, and as it is used to simulate the harmful effects of micro-gravity on astronauts, it has ben thoroughly investigated, with huge amounts of literature available on the internet.




"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #124 on: 23/05/2005 16:15:38 »
Isn't REM sleep an indicator of light sleep - deep sleep happening in between the episodes of REM/dream sleep?

It may indicate that renal function is assisted by gravity, but it certainly doesn't proove gravity is required for solutes to be moved to the bladder. If it was the whole story then astronaughts would be dead after a few days in space...

It is possible that a lot of sleep problems could be assisted by altering the angle of the bed - this will have lots of effects like altering snoring, altering how hard the heart has to work, which will have lots of subsequent effects... the human body is a horribly complex system so making niave conclusions from simple experiments is a little dangerous

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #125 on: 26/05/2005 10:58:00 »
Rosy



 
quote:
Atmospheric pressure will support a 10m column of water. This will give a vacuum pressure above the water (0Atm) We know that. (I think?)


If you are referring to the barometer type experiment, the only reason the water remained in the tube was because of the ability of water to stick to the top of the capped tube and the friction to the internal walls of the tube, again adhesive (adhesive quality of water) Atmospheric pressure does contribute to the experiment but not as much as believed, demonstrated by the inverted U tube, which relies on the cohesive force of water, more than doubling the height achieved and therefore indicating that adhesion was the principle factor in the barometer type experiment. When the water level goes below the 10 M level in the Barometer type experiment, it is then supported by a vacuum.

In the Inverted U tube experiment, there is twice the weight applied to the column of water suspended over the raised middle of the tube, and therefore twice the amount of tension is applied to the water inside the tube, yet it remains relatively stable providing the gas has been removed from the water by pre-boiling it.

The pull from above is balanced by the equal opposing pull on the opposite side of the tube, which therefore is a not actually a pull from above, more an increase in tension.
Again atmospheric pressure plays a part but not as much as previously thought. More, the Cohesive strength of water is tested against the adhesive strength of water + the additional friction caused by the additional adhesion to the doubling of the length of tube compared to the single vertical tube.

I conducted another experiment at 2 metres elevation, This involved 3 lengths of tube connected to a central T Junction, one length was longer than the other 2, to allow the open end to be doubled back on itself into a U shape, again with the end open and the water level inside to be at the same level as the water level in the jug which contained the other two open ends of the triple conduit. The U ended tube was allowed to fall below the water level in the jug containing the otehr two open tube ends ends. The whole experiment was filled with pre-boiled water and great care was taken to make sure there were no leaky joins where air could be sucked in.

What would you, or anyone else reading this expect to happen to the water in the end exposed to the atmosphere via the U shaped exit point, and the central T junction was elevated to 2 metres vertical?

With regards to constructing an experiment to show that water can be excreted from a tubular construction, Strousburger already did it by killing the tree and observing water transpiring from the leaves for three weeks after the death of every living cell in the tree, making the trees tubular structure a perfect example of your challenge! And in doing so concluded that bulk flow was not a living process, but a Physical non-living process! I am tempted to repeat his truly fascinating experiments myself.

Andrew



"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Terry Richards

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #126 on: 26/05/2005 12:54:37 »
I have been reading this thread and thought I might add that I was at the London International Inventions show in 97 and saw the experiment on display at Andrew’s stand. It was remarkable. From what I remember he had a dark red coloured liquid, which was salty water and dye in a simple loop of tubing suspended on a board with bags. Although I didn’t fully understand the explanations he gave, the water did appear to be flowing up and down.

He was showing a bed that was tilted. I didn’t stay to the end of the show to see if he won anything for his invention, but the experiment was impressive.

Terrence
 

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #127 on: 26/05/2005 22:09:16 »
Andrew, I hope I'm about to explain some things you already know. But it's not at all clear from your posts that you do understand this stuff. I'm not going to consider the effects of introducing different densities of liquid, because that merely confuses the issue.
I don't think you should be disagreeing with me on any of the points I make here.

The basic point about a liquid such as water is that the pressure at a given depth is constant for any interconected bodies of water (where each is free to flow into the other.
So if equal pressures act on both side of a U tube open at both ends, the water in the two tubes will be at the same level.

If we then take out some of the air on one side (say reduce the pressure to half an atmosphere) then the water on that side will be pushed through the system by the air pressure on the other side until the system is balanced again. At this point, the pressure in the water on the other (lower pressure) side, at the same level, will also be 1 Atm. This will be due to (i) a pressure of 0.5 Atm from the gas and (ii) an extra weight of water, which will be enough to give 50kPa per square metre (as water weighs in at 1000kg per metre cubed, so a metre depth of water exerts a pressure of about 100N per square metre=100Pa) so the depth of the water will be 5m higher on one side than the other for a 0.5Atm air pressure difference.

quote:
When the water level goes below the 10 M level in the Barometer type experiment, it is then supported by a vacuum.


This is entirely untrue. The water is not supported by the vacuum in a barometer, it is pushed up by air pressure at the water level of the open vessel which gets it up to a height of 10m under compression. The vacuum cannot provide *any* force on or against *anything* because THERE'S NOTHING THERE, it's just a total absence.

Up to 10m, nothing has to be supported under tension *at all* because it's all happening at positive pressure.

quote:
In the Inverted U tube experiment, there is twice the weight applied to the column of water suspended over the raised middle of the tube, and therefore twice the amount of tension is applied to the water inside the tube, yet it remains relatively stable providing the gas has been removed from the water by pre-boiling it.

Um, no. In an inverted U-tube less than 10m in height there is no tension at all, it's all happening under positive pressure, just less than atmospheric. There's quite a large difference between the two [1] (provided there's no other way of air at atmospheric pressure seeping into the system). The pressure in the two tubes at any given depth will be the same. If there is space for it to do so, the water wants to move from high to lower pressure, which is how a syphon works- if pressure is 1Atm at a point on one side of the system and at some open point lower down on the other side there will be a positive pressure greater than 1Atm at that point. In which case, if it is open to the air, water will be pushed out of the system against the 1Atm pressure.
Above 10m, provided no cavitation occurs, the same will apply. Pressure falls constantly all the way up, and negative pressures "pull" exactly the same in all directions... against the walls of the tube, against neighbouring "bits" of water and so on.

quote:
Strousburger already did it by killing the tree and observing water transpiring from the leaves for three weeks

My point is that I think that your demonstration system requires more weight coming down than going up (weight of water plus weight of solution). This is very obviously not true of a tree and doubly untrue of Strousburger's dead tree which is no longer synthesising sugars.
If you can't build a demonstration then an account of a back-of-an-envelope calculation accounting for the energy and mass transferred (what's going where and what's powering it) might serve equally well to convince me.

quote:
What would you, or anyone else reading this expect to happen to the water in the end exposed to the atmosphere via the U shaped exit point, and the central T junction was elevated to 2 metres vertical?

I have no idea... I don't understand your description. Any chance of a diagram?



[1]100kN per square metre is about equivalent to 10,000 kg. The oft-quoted comparison for this is that it's equivalent to the weight of one elephant per metre cubed.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #128 on: 26/05/2005 23:21:40 »
Terry
Thank you so much for the post Terry, Smiling like a cheshire cat here :) Though probably won't remember you from the exhibition :( Was a great few days for me, my son and my friends who attended. I did win a Thousand pounds worth of free advertising in Streetwise Magazine and there was a nice feature in there about the experiments and theory behind the bed design.


Rosy
A simple thought experiment for you to consider Imagine the inverted U tube experiment set up, but this time, the two open ends are submerged in one sealed container, with the water level afording some air space above it. And it has all the pressure removed eliminating any positive pressure or influence from the atmosphere.

Prediction, the water column will remain intact. What do you think?   B.T.W thinking about a way of testing this one to settle an argument.

In the case of the barometer type experiment, "Thought experiment again unfortunately" removing the poitive pressure in this experiment by sucking the air out of the beaker containing the water with the open end of the capped water filled tube will indeed cause the water to be pulled from the top of the capped tube at a much lower height than ten metres. But this does not prove that the pressure was the only force supporting it. It suggests that the increased downward force of the water has severed the hydrogen bonds to the capped glass tube.

I was trying to refer to the way a syringe pulls water up, even when there is air space directly in front of the plunger. The absence of pressure if you like is sufficient to draw water up acting upon its surface, so why do you think the vacuum is any different to the suction caused by the plunger in a syringe?

Maybe its the way I explain it?

Andrew

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #129 on: 26/05/2005 23:44:38 »


Rosy

I forgot to add that Strasburger's experiment (killing the tree) caused a cascade of solutes to flow down from the inevitable decay of the foliage and internal cells. According to my theory this would be more than enough to cause the flow and return to carry on for three weeks or more. The solutes did not vanish suddenly along with the death of the tree, they remained at an elevated point and were released slowly. I think Strasburger may have even noticed an increase in the circulation of the dead tree during the rapid release of stored sugars and salts.

I really don't relish killing a tree for science to test this, being a tree hugger by nature, I like planting trees not destroying them.

If i purchase a digital camera and video the experiments would this be acceptable to you and others? Seeing as no one can be bothered to repeat them. I have the original Brixham exp on video also, maybe I can find a way to load it on to a website.

Andrew

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #130 on: 27/05/2005 00:55:41 »
quote:
A simple thought experiment for you to consider Imagine the inverted U tube experiment set up, but this time, the two open ends are submerged in one sealed container, with the water level afording some air space above it. And it has all the pressure removed eliminating any positive pressure or influence from the atmosphere.


By eliminating any positive pressure do you mean carrying out the whole experiment in a vacuum? as otherwise there will allways be a positive pressure. You can't do this with open ends to the tube as it would cause the water to evaporate at the ends quite quickly...

quote:
Prediction, the water column will remain intact. What do you think? B.T.W thinking about a way of testing this one to settle an argument.


If you could somehow do it without exposing the surfaces to a vaccum and none of the surfaces were hydrophobic to act as nucleation sites it probably would remain intact - if you ignore the bottom 10m of your experiment that is essentially what you have done.

You could build your 2m loop and attach syringes to the end and pull on the syringes with a force of 100 000N x Area of syringe in square meters (so for a syringe with an area of 1cm2 apply a force of 10N or about 1kg. This would be equivalent to doing the experiment in a vacuum as the weights on the syringes should be compensating for atmospheric pressure.

As a check try it with and without a tiny bubble in the system, if when you add the bubble the weights pull the plungers out but when you don't have a bubble they don't, I think it has shown what you want to.

quote:
In the case of the barometer type experiment, "Thought experiment again unfortunately" removing the poitive pressure in this experiment by sucking the air out of the beaker containing the water with the open end of the capped water filled tube will indeed cause the water to be pulled from the top of the capped tube at a much lower height than ten metres. But this does not prove that the pressure was the only force supporting it. It suggests that the increased downward force of the water has severed the hydrogen bonds to the capped glass tube.


If you are using very clean and boiled water I expect that you could support a column higher than 10m in a glass tube, and I am sure it is possible using the tubes you do - as long as you can fill the end of the tube with no bubble or with something that has holes so small that sufrace tension can support the pressure - a tree.

  the ten metres thing does however hold if you are using large tubes with dirty and unboiled water as once there is a bubble the water will cavitate if there is a negative absolute pressure.

But this is all dead standard cohesion theory...

quote:
I was trying to refer to the way a syringe pulls water up, even when there is air space directly in front of the plunger. The absence of pressure if you like is sufficient to draw water up acting upon its surface, so why do you think the vacuum is any different to the suction caused by the plunger in a syringe?

The reason that a syringe can suck even with a bubble in it is that everything is under atmospheric pressure 100 000Pa - the equivalent of 10m of water.

so if the water in the syringe is under a pressure of 100 000Pa and the fluid in the syringe is under pressure of 90 000Pa there will be a NET force towards the syringe and liquid will flow in, without having a negative absolute pressure anywhere.

I think you will find that the syringe will not suck if there is a bubble and you are working against more than 10m of head - again you are in a good position to try this.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #131 on: 27/05/2005 22:03:37 »
Dave, you have made some interesting points, and I have taken on board your idea about a syringe and a kilo weight. Great idea if the syringe can deal with a kilo force in the opposite direction to its designed function, but its certainly worth a try.

By the way, if the inverted tube is at 2 metres and the ends submerged in water at equal lengths, filling one bottle higher than the other causes it to flow to the other bottle as expected. From what I remember this was not the case at over the 33 feet limit. But I will have to test again at some point to make certain. Also, at 2 metres using the salt, it does not return to the other side because of the increased density of the salt receiving side. I have not observed the coloured salt solution flowing back up the tube once it has reached the bottle and the tube contains clean water. Also, you can regulate the flow by altering the density on the rising side bottle. This is important, because it suggests a mechanism for acid rain to kill trees by altering the density of the ground water by dissolving a greater amount of minerals from the soil. It should be easy to test this by adding salt solution to the soil, and then adding distilled water to compensate for the increased salt to see if it allows the plant or tree to recover. This also fits with overfeeding plants and killing them.

Thanks for the suggestions

Andrew

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #132 on: 29/05/2005 12:04:31 »
Cool, just be a bit careful about the design of your experiment, as if you are attempting to distinguish between two hypothesies you have to be careful that the result will be difficult in the two hypothesies. I think adding a lot of salt to the ground would kill the tree in the conventional model as it would tend to dessicate the roots by osmosis...

Out of interest what do you mean by return to the other side? It is hard to describe this sort of thing without a diagram... Do you mean that in teh long tube the flow overshoots and then afterwards flows backwards for a bit?

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #133 on: 29/05/2005 19:52:56 »
I have drawn a diagram of the triple tubed exp, but can't figure out how to post a picture on the site, that on my hard drive :(

The last post was refering to the single looped tube exp.

According to the results in the single loop tube, it should only require a relatively small amount of salt to upset the flow, when added to the rising tube side. However, the tree has a fair amount of sugars and minerals in the sap and stored in the leaves, branches and trunk. So the salt may cause the leaves to wilt, but it may not kill the tree for a long time. just wandering if anyone has done something similar with trees and posted on the net?

Got my eye on a cannon Ixus 700, to film the experiments, but they cost over £300 with a decent memory card and tripod. But feel it will be well worth getting a good camera with high movie resolution.

It's about time I made a web page so I can store the pictures on it, tried using a blog, but the pictures still do not show on here for some reason.

Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #134 on: 30/05/2005 10:48:22 »
Trees the key to beating salinity
DAFF04/175M 18 August 2004

The Australian Government's Natural Heritage Trust will invest $2.9 million over two years to develop commercial environmental forestry (CEF) that will address salinity.

Speaking at a regional forest investment workshop in Morwell, Australian Forestry and Conservation Minister Senator Ian Macdonald said the CEF program developed farm forestry systems that reduced salinity while delivering commercial returns.

"It is about linking the commercial to the environmental to develop long-term agricultural business options for farmers affected by salinity," Senator Macdonald said.

"When adopted, CEF will also benefit the broader community by not only reducing salinity in the Murray system, but also by protecting water quality and biodiversity. The CEF project supports private and public outcomes for regional catchment management groups and private investors to deliver benefits."

The CEF project began in 2003, and is a major collaboration between CSIRO and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Other partners include the National Association of Forest Industries, the Murray Darling Basin Commission and the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.

The project partners will invest more than $4 million in 2004-05, and plan further investment in 2005-06.

The project is focussed initially on a pilot in the Goulburn Broken Catchment where salinity is a major problem, and the Catchment Management Authority (CMA) has targeted forestry as a potential solution. The CMA is an active partner in the project and is holding community forums to involve landholders.

The project has identified those areas in the catchment where forestry will reduce salinity without stressing river flows. These areas are typically found where rainfall and growth rates are lower than in traditional plantation areas. CSIRO is undertaking research to reduce investor risk by identifying species with commercial potential for these lower rainfall areas and developing growth predictions for them.

The project is also quantifying the other environmental benefits of farm forestry of interest to regional NRM groups and governments. These include biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and erosion control.

"This new funding of $2.9 million comes on the back of initial seed funding of $550,000 provided last year," Senator Macdonald said.
http://www.mffc.gov.au/releases/2004/04175m.html

Response of orchard 'Washington Navel' orange, Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck, to saline irrigation water. II. Flowering, fruit set and fruit growth.

H Howie and J Lloyd

Abstract
Flowering, fruit set and fruit growth of 'Washington Navel' orange fruit was monitored on 24-year-old Citrus sinensis trees on Sweet orange rootstocks that had been irrigated with either 5 or 20 mol m-3 NaCl for 5 years preceding measurements.Trees irrigated with high salinity water had reduced flowering intensities and lower rates of fruit set. This resulted in final fruit numbers for trees irrigated with 20 mol m-3 being 38% those of trees irrigated with 5 mol m-3 NaCl. Final fruit numbers were quantitatively related to canopy leaf area for both salinity treatments.Despite little difference between trees in terms of leaf area/fruit number ratio, slower rates of fruit growth were initially observed on high salinity trees. This effect was not apparent during the latter stages of fruit development. Consequently, fruit on trees irrigated with 20 mol m-3 NaCl grew to the same size as fruit on trees irrigated with 5 mol m-3 NaCl, but achieved this size at a later date. Measurements of Brix/acid ratios showed that fruit on high salinity trees reached maturity standards 25 days after fruit on low salinity trees.Unimpaired growth of fruit on high salinity trees during summer and autumn occurred, despite appreciable leaf abscission, suggesting that reserve carbohydrate was utilized for growth during this period. Twigs on high salinity trees had much reduced starch content at the time of floral differentiation in winter. Twig starch content and extent of floral differentiation varied in a similar way when examined as a function of leaf abscission. This suggests that reduced flowering and fruit set in salinized citrus trees is due to low levels of reserve starch, most of which has been utilized to support fruit growth in the absence of carbohydrate production during summer and autumn.

Keywords: Oranges, irrigation, water, salinity, responses, fruits, set, development, flowers, initiation, Carbohydrates, metabolism, Polysaccharides, Flowering, growth, Maturation, subtropical fruits, citrus fruits, fruit crops, Citrus, Australia, Rutaceae, Sapindales, dicotyledons, angiosperms, Spermatophyta, plants, Australasia, Oceania, 2180,

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 40(2) 371 - 380
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR9890371.htm

Salinity and drought stress effects on foliar ion concentration, water relations, and photosynthetic characteristics of orchard citrus.

JP Syvertsen, J Lloyd and PE Kriedemann

Abstract
Effects of salinity and drought stress on foliar ion concentration, water relations and net gas exchange were evaluated in mature Valencia orange trees (Citrus sinensis [L.] Osbeck) on Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf. (Tri) or sweet orange (C. sinensis, Swt) rootstocks at Dareton on the Murray River in New South Wales. Trees had been irrigated with river water which averaged 4 mol m-3 chloride (Cl-) or with river water plus NaCl to produce 10, 14 or 20 mol m-3 Cl- during the previous 3 years. Chloride concentrations in leaves of trees on Tri were significantly higher than those on Swt rootstock. Foliar sodium (Na+) and Cl- concentrations increased and potassium (K+) concentrations decreased as leaves aged, especially under irrigation with 20 mol m-3 Cl-. Leaf osmotic potential was reduced as leaves matured and also by high salinity so that reductions in leaf water potential were offset. Mature leaves had a lower stomatal conductances and higher water use efficiency than young leaves. After 2 months of withholding irrigation water, leaves of low salinity trees on Tri rootstock had higher rates of net gas exchange than those on Swt rootstock, indicating rootstock-affected drought tolerance. Previous treatment with 20 mol m-3 Cl- lowered leaf area index of all trees by more than 50%, and resulted in greater reserves of soil moisture under partially defoliated trees after the drought treatment. This was reflected in more rapid evening recovery of leaf water potential and less severe reductions in net gas exchange after drought treatment in high salinity trees on Swt rootstock. High salinity plus drought stress increased Na+ content of leaves on Swt, but not on Tri rootstocks. Drought stress had no additive effect, with high salinity on osmotic potential of mature leaves. Thus, the salinity-induced reduction in leaf area appeared to be independent of the Cl- exclusion capability of the rootstock and decreased the effects of subsequent drought stress on leaf water relations and net gas exchange.

Keywords: Oranges, salinity, responses, rootstock scion
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR9880619.htm

Salinity

Cause

Salinity damage is caused by the accumulation of toxic levels of salts (sodium and/or chloride) in the tree. This usually arises from the use of saline irrigation water or the presence of a saline watertable within or just below the rootzone.

Symptoms

The severity of symptoms increases with the concentration of salts accumulated in the soil and/or trees. Loss of tree vigour is a major symptom of salinity. Trees affected by salinity generally show water stress before they should, ie when soil moisture content appears adequate. This is particularly the case where salt has accumulated in the soil.
Marginal leaf burn, particularly towards the tips, is characteristic of salinity. Leaves tend to be cupped. Premature drop of a proportion of the older leaves may occur along shoots.
When cut off, the branches of salt affected trees have discoloured heartwood.
In severe cases salinity causes tree death.

Control

Leaf nutrient analysis is a useful means of detecting the development of salinity problems. Annual leaf analysis will reveal the trend in leaf sodium and chloride levels. If levels are increasing the cause of this should be investigated. Bear in mind that higher levels can be expected in low rainfall seasons and in years of higher than normal river salinities.
The water used for irrigation in the Riverland is relatively saline, normally in the range 400 to 800 EC. With adequate irrigation management and good drainage, these levels of water salinity need not substantially affect stone and pome fruit production.
Leaching of salts through the soil profile is a necessary part of irrigation in the Riverland to prevent salt accumulation in the rootzone.
For further information refer to the irrigation section.



Knowledge of the problem?
Observations of increasing land and stream salinity were first reported many years ago. In 1907 Government Analyst E. A. Mann suspected that there was a relationship between clearing and the development of land salinity.

In 1902, 8,000 ha of trees in the Mundaring Weir catchment were ringbarked to increase run-off. Salinity in the weir increased, and in 1909 it was recommended that regrowth be encouraged and replanting undertaken. This was done and salinity levels fell.

Increasing salinity in railway dams used to supply water to steam engines was also observed. A railway engineer, W. E. Wood, collated and analysed the early data and with the publication of his paper in 1924 the relationship between clearing and increased land and stream salinity was unequivocally established.
http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/environment/salinity/intro/salinity_at_a_glance.htm

Dave, this does appear to fit with the saline regulation of the tubular experiment, where the saline sollution isadded to the rising tube side bottle.

But more to the point, it was because of my interest in irrigating deserts and reforesting them that I considered how the trees were dealing with salts in the first place. I have contacted the Australian Government and several experts on desertification many times over the years, but failed to touch a nerve. Now trees are being recognised as valuable desalination plants.

This is good news for me. I have been shouting this message at them since 1993. "Plant Trees to reduce salinity in the ground water" I am curently shouting a similar message to the people in Thailand, who are experiencing one of the worst droughts in their History.
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=02&f=18&t=29285&qpid=358136


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline qazibasit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 344
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #135 on: 10/06/2005 10:35:26 »
its mainly due to ascent of sap.
"There is never too late to make a change".

*

Offline rabeldin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stormloader.com/dickbeldin
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #136 on: 28/06/2005 22:40:44 »
Mangrove trees, which grow in salt water, so something oppositee. They take in salty water and deposit salt crystals on the surface of their leaves. Surely, the difference in ion concentration is a crucial factor in both situations.

R A Beldin,
Improbable Statistician
R A Beldin,
Improbable Statistician

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #137 on: 07/08/2005 10:52:22 »
R.A. Beldin

Mangrove trees are able to restrict the amount of salt they take in and the salts found on the leaves are a result of evaporation, re-concentrating the salts. The difference in ion concentrations is indeed a crucial factor in all situations. Wherever a concentration takes place due to evaporation there is an obvious alteration of density in the fluids that are shedding water. There has to be! Denser solutes at the evaporation points will inevitably be acted upon by gravity and there goes that for every action there is a reaction again. Gravity will pull the denser solution down and the negative tension behind the falling sap will draw up less concentrated solution as a return flow, much the same as a flow and return system in a central heating boiler, which uses heat to alter density on the rising side and the cooled water becomes denser so provides the return flow. Having fitted this type of boiler it contributed to the discovery.  Flow and return hot water supply drawings. http://www.gasman.fsbusiness.co.uk/system_basics.htm http://www.ecoplusonline.com/images/Fig5_70.gif


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline robbyn

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #138 on: 08/08/2005 13:10:42 »
I am interested to learn if there is more evidence supporting Andrew's view that it is best to sleep on a slight decline. Since 1998 is their further emperical evidence in support of the claim? Have their been any tests undertaken in controlled circumstances?

In his 1998 article he explains that "Cattle and sheep, when given a choice all sleep facing uphill". To me this reads as if they prefer to sleep on an incline.

Hospital beds in order to encourage sluggish circulation and avoid thrombosis are designed to raise the feet above, not lower them below, head level. I assume the benefits of this have been endorced by hundreds of years of practical observation.

Andrew makes some big claims  for sleeping on a decline of 5 deg. As the benefits claimed are considerable I would appreciate an update, so I can decide if I should copy it.

Robin
 

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #139 on: 08/08/2005 15:22:00 »
Hi Robbyn

I have been trying to enlist the cooperation of the medical profession since 1994, lots of broken promises, despite having convinced quite a few people within the health service that this would save them an awful amount of money and time, not to mention saving patients limbs and lives.

I am currently trying to get a simple study with varicose veins oedema and leg ulcer underway at the local prison. The Health Officer there is very interested and we have the support of a vascular surgeon from Torbay Hospital and Professor’s Urnst and Curnow, also invoved with local health service and universities.

 The case histories are from my own attempts to demonstrate just how effective this simple cost free therapy is.

My telephone no is +44 1803524117 should you wish to hear this from the horses mouth, or have any questions which require answers.

Sincerely   Andrew K Fletcher

Below is a thread where I have been asking on here for some help to conduct a study that will be accepted by the medical profession.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2262

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline robbyn

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #140 on: 08/08/2005 20:28:26 »
It seems there are two things to investigate:

1. The pumping action of a tree. Is it gravity aided?
Comment
I notice that you were invited to put together a page length paper for a peer reviewed journal. I would suggest you follow that advice.

2. The medical benefits of sleeping on 5deg declined bed
Comment
I have read the testimonials you kindly sent to me. They are remarkable and the results astounding. I can understand you wanting to pursue this discovery. It may be that the gravity theory does not account for the results. I am not qualified to comment. I know that many discovers of medical breakthroughs were broken by the system demanding explanations rather than results. I do not understand why bed manufactures are not happy to finance a study.


Robin
 

*

Offline Jason Fletcher

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #141 on: 10/08/2005 02:44:23 »
Its about time they started to give u some constructive comments dad! ive been watching these threads for a while now [:D]
I have watched and heard and seen thousands of people from doctors, proffesors, scientists to journalists and lamers on the net try to rip into my dad for years and try to take down his ideas and accomplishments and have all failed miserably .... he will get recognised in the end ya know!!! jus keep motoring on dad!!! .. why is it so easy to spread bad news and it is so difficult to bring a ray of light to the world?

Jason
 

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #142 on: 18/10/2006 08:39:52 »
As we now have quite a few new members, it might be worth taking another look at this theory and hope you will forgive me for bumping this subject up.

Andrew

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Wade

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #143 on: 11/02/2007 23:43:43 »
It looks to me like the answer would lie in the active transport of cells... and that if the tree is completely dead when the water moves upward, something is pushing it. perhaps it is the process of death and decomposition that pushes the water upward into the leaves, if, for instance, the circulatory pathways  harden and move water upward as they dry up. i admit, I only started researching tree circulation today, and except, of course, for photosynthesis, i have almost no knowledge of the anatomy of a tree, but i do know a significant amount about physiology and this entire topic seems to me like way too much energy put into something that could be found out with a little research. although i admit, i haven't read the entire topic either.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2007 23:50:17 by Wade »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #144 on: 24/08/2007 20:20:02 »
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sz9eddGw8vg


The Experiment at Brixham Overgang Cliffs where water flowed vertical up a single 6 mm bore tubing using 10 mils of salt solution, demonstrating that a tiny amount of denser solution can lift effortlessly many thousands of times it’s own volume in water without any artificial aids, demonstrating clearly a non living physical cause of bulk flow in plants trees, animals and humans. The 10 metre limit for lifting water clearly needs some serious revision.

Online experiment details
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/786493/water_flowing_up_a_cliff_to_24_metres_with_no_pump_experimen/#

http://www.myspace.com/inclined_bed_therapy
« Last Edit: 29/08/2007 15:04:13 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #145 on: 05/09/2007 19:08:40 »
http://www.metacafe.com/channels/AndrewKFletcher/

Just added the scaled down version of the Brixham experiment on metacafe and the set up instructions for the experiment as parts 1 and 2, followed by actual footage of the experiment in Brixham in 1995, seems such a long time ago now, particularly when the evidence provides irrifutable facts, one can't help wondering why it has been resisted for so long.

This short video shows how water is raised using salt solution it also shows negative tension pulling a filled syringe body plunger in. But most of all it shows the velocity of this flow system in realtime.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2007 19:10:13 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #146 on: 21/09/2007 10:59:49 »
Rosy, have you seen the experiments on metacafe yet? Take a look at the scaled down version of the Brixham Experiment, here you will see a syringe filled with concentrated saline sollution being sucked up under a negative tension. The weight of the salt +resistance of the syringe body shows there is a negative tension in the water and the same happens without salt sollution. Mentioning this to advise you that your statement is not correct.
Quote
Andrew, I hope I'm about to explain some things you already know. But it's not at all clear from your posts that you do understand this stuff.

Up to 10m, nothing has to be supported under tension *at all* because it's all happening at positive pressure.



Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #147 on: 21/09/2007 13:00:01 »
Sorry. It was a siphon in 2005 and it still is.
It still doesn't explain anything that wasn't better explained before.
And I have too little free time to go round the houses on this one with you. Again.

On second thoughts, I'm a sucker for an obvious explanation...

You have added n mL of a denser solution to your dilute solution. Say the density is 2 g/mL rather than 1 then thats added n g extra weight to the "down" arm.
All the water in the "up" and "down" arms is balanced from one side to the other so say your max tube height is 20 m and you inject 10 mL salt solution (weight 20 g), you've just aquired the ability *by siphoning* to lift 10 g, and therefore 10 mL water 20 m up. If the surface of the water under your your "down" arm were 1 m higher up than the surface of the water under your "up" arm I'd expect to see you siphon 200 mL water. If they're only 10 cm different in height it would be 10 times that, so 2 L water. If they were at the same height limiting factors would be things like friction as you're not actually lifting any water that isn't counterbalanced by water on the other side going down.
I can't see the heights of the containers on the Brixham cliffs experiment, but the scaled down version seems to show about 2 mL salt solution, so maybe 2 g of weight falling maybe 1 m, and two containers at near-as-dammit the same height (say 1 cm different), and maybe 3 mL water transferred across.
So you've got enough energy out of your SIPHON to move 2 mL water up 1 m (OK, maybe a bit less, depending on how concentrated your salt solution is) but you're actually lifting about 4 mL up about 1 cm, using maybe 2 % of the energy available from the conventional-physics based explantion in terms of a siphon.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #148 on: 21/09/2007 16:48:36 »
Thank you for the reply Rosy, Ill try to get my head around your post in a bit, but the question that tension does not exist inside the inverted loop of tubing is dismissed because the salt solution is not initially injected into the tube but the syringe plunger together with the salt solution, which is hanging upside down is drawn into the loop of tubing by a negative tension which you said does not exist in your earlier post.

To activate this flow system all that is required is one grain / crystal of salt or sugar in one side, this induces the water filled loop of tubing to circulate. Even half a single crystal would do it. If you look at the other video showing salt crystals dropping into a clear water filled container you can see the flow generated by individual falling crystals as they dissolve, the sunlight shows the current created by this system.

there is no height difference between either of the bottles, the tubes are placed at the bottom of the two bottles. The recipient bottle overflows, the donor bottle level goes down rapidly as water is transferred from one vessel to the other, the displaced water = many times the volume of the added salt solution and should equate to the contents of the donor side of the tube. Which incidentally can be much larger in diameter than the downward flowing side. I have used an additional juxtaposed tube in the donor side to prove this capability and it runs perfectly. I did this to show that the flow is capable of delivering sufficient sap to the leaves to allow for the huge evaporation, which is known to take place at the leaf.

Changing the height of the arms as you put it at 24 metres does not induce a flow through siphoning. Possibly, the elasticity of water prevents this causing the bead of water to break and then water in both sides of the tube irrespective of the differences in levels will fall to the 10 metre level and the space above the water levels is vacuum.

This flow is different from a siphon effect. Because the water molecules are connected and under tension, by cohesion, the first denser molecule descends causing a chain reaction along the entire tube which drags all of the other molecules around much the same as if the water bead were made of elastic.
 
Andrew
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?
« Reply #149 on: 15/01/2008 11:36:57 »
Umbrella Plant Experiment 
Cyperus alternifolius

Take a stem of this plant approximately 6-8 inches place it upside down in a beaker / vase of water and ignore for around 2 months. The roots begin to grow from the crown of the leaves, followed by the ascending leaves from the developing root crown. Gravitropism is the term used to explain how plants and trees determine the correct orientation in relation to gravity. However, I believe that the migration of denser solutes to the leaf crown due to the plant being kept upside down plays a very important part in this process.






Andrew K Fletcher
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with