How does water really reach the tops of trees?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

AndrewKenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

Hi everyone

Could we re-open this topic for discussion? I feel I have something new to
add to this field and wander if others find the accepted explanations for
fluid transport somewhat confusing.

Has anyone developed a working model which demonstrates a lift of water
higher that the 10 metre limit set down in the physics literature some three
hundred years ago.

I have read about osmosis, capillary action and root pressure, but find them
lacking in scientific validity.

Has anyone heard of alternative theories and if so could you provide us with
the location to start this thread.

Andrew K Fletcher


"I have chosen to relate to the following text book because it is written by
a person who like myself is not entirely satisfied by the explanations put
forward in the relevant subjects".

For the currently accepted view of osmosis and other views on water
transport I will refer to one of the standard GCSE text books entitled GCSE
BIOLOGY, D.G. Mackean. ISBN 0-7195-4281-2 first published in 1986.

Page 36 OSMOSIS

Osmosis is the special name used to describe the diffusion of water across a
membrane, from a dilute solution to a more concentrated solution. In biology
this usually means the diffusion of water into or out of cells Osmosis is
just one special kind of because it is only water molecules and their
movement we are considering. Figure 3 showed that molecules will diffuse
from a region where there are a lot of them to a region where they are fewer
in number; that is from a region of highly concentrated molecules to a
region of lower concentration. Pure water has the highest possible
concentration of water molecules; it is 100% water molecules, all of them
free to move.

Figure 9 shows a concentrated sugar solution, separated from a dilute
solution by a membrane, which allows water molecules to pass through. The
dilute solution, in effect contains more water molecules than the
concentrated solution. As a result of this difference in concentration,
water molecules will diffuse from the dilute to the concentrated solution.
The level of the concentrated solution will rise or, if it is confined to an
enclosed space, its pressure will increase. The membrane separating the two
solutions is often called selectively permeable or semi-permeable because it
appears as if water molecules can pass through it more easily than sugar
molecules can.

Osmosis then is the passage of water across a selectively permeable membrane
from a dilute solution to a concentrated solution.

This is all you need to know in order to understand the effects of osmosis
in living organisms, But a more complete explanation is given below.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR OSMOSIS

The current text book explanation for osmosis appears to have ignored the
effects of gravity on liquids. The constant pull of gravity acts differently
on concentrated solutions than dilute solutions i.e. The concentrated
solution is heavier than the dilute solution and will always initially
settle at the bottom of a reservoir or in this case a vessel.


Chapter 7 Transport in plants

page 71

The main force which draws water from the soil and through the plant is
caused by a process called transpiration. Water evaporates from the leaves
and causes a kind of 'suction ' which pulls water up the stem. The water
travels up the vessels in the vascular bundles and this flow of water is
called the transpiration stream. The water vapour passes by diffusion
through the air spaces in the mesophyll and out of the stomata. It is this
loss of water vapour from the leaves which is called transpiration. The cell
walls which are losing water in this way replace it by drawing water from
the nearest vein. Most of this water travels along the cell walls without
actually going inside the cells. Thousands of leaf cells are evaporating
water like this and drawing water to replace it from the xylem vessels in
the veins. As a result , water is pulled through the xylem vessels and up
the stem from the roots. This transpiration pull is strong enough to draw up
water 50 metres or more in trees.

Page 72

Most of this water evaporates from the leaves; only a tiny fraction is
retained for photosynthesis and to maintain the turgor of the cells. The
advantage to the plant of this excessive evaporation is not clear.

A rapid water flow may be needed to obtain sufficient mineral salts, which
are in very dilute solution in the soil. Evaporation may also help to cool
the leaf when exposed to intense sunlight.

Against the first possibility it has to be pointed out that, in some cases,
an increased transpiration rate does not increase the uptake of minerals.

Many biologists regard transpiration as an inevitable consequence of
photosynthesis, in order to photosynthesise, a leaf has to take in carbon
dioxide from the air. The pathway that lets carbon dioxide in will also let
water vapour out whether the plant needs to lose water or not. In all
probability, plants have to maintain a careful balance between the optimum
intake of carbon dioxide and a damaging loss of water.

Page 73

Humidity if the air is very humid, i.e. contains a great deal of water
vapour, it can accept very little more from the plants and so transpiration
slows down. In dry air, the diffusion of water vapour from the leaf to the
atmosphere will be rapid. ( " I will deal with this point later on because
it is very important and has implications for human health ") Air Movements:
In still air, the region round a transpiring leaf will become saturated with
water vapour so that no more can escape from the leaf. In these conditions,
transpiration slows down. In moving air the water vapour will be swept away
from the leaf as fast as it diffuses out. This will Speed up the
transpiration. Furthermore, when the sun shines on the leaves, they will
absorb heat as well as light. This warms them up and increases the rate of
evaporation.

Page 73 continued Water movement in the xylem

You may have learned in physics that you cannot draw water up by suction to
a height of more than about ten metres. Many trees are taller than this yet
they can draw up water effectively. The explanation offered is that, in long
vertical columns of water in very thin tubes, the attractive forces between
the water molecules are greater than the forces trying to separate them. So
in effect the transpiration stream is pulling up thin threads of water which
resist the tendency to break.

There are still problems however, it is likely that the water columns in
some of the vessels do have air breaks in them and yet the total water flow
is not affected. The evidence all points to the non-living xylem vessels as
the main route by which water passes from the soil to the leaves.

"This statement suggests that the long thin tubes of the tree ,are used for
water transport, which are none-living , therefore must represent the tubes
used in my experiments at Brixham."

Page 74

Root Pressure

In Experiment 8 on page 79 it is demonstrated that liquid may be forced up a
stem by root pressure from the root system. The usual explanation for this
is that the cell sap in the root hairs is more concentrated than the

soil water and so water enters by osmosis (see page 36). The water passes
from cell to cell by osmosis and is finally forced into the xylem vessels in
the centre of the root and up the stem.

This is rather an elaborate model from very little evidence. For example, a
gradient of falling osmotic potentials from the outside to the inside of a
root has not been demonstrated. However, there is some supporting evidence
for the movement of water as a result of root pressure.

root pressures of 1-2 atmospheres have been recorded, and these would
support columns of water 10 or 20 metres high. Some workers claim pressures
of up to eight atmospheres (i.e. 80 metres of water)

" A column of water 80 metres high would undoubtedly cause water pressures
of eight atmospheres at the roots. However It is very difficult to see how a
root could generate 8 atmospheres of pressure."

However, root pressure seems to occur mainly in the young herbaceous (i.e.
non-woody) plants or in woody plants early in the growing season and though
in many species it must contribute to water movements in the stem. The
observed rates of flow are too fast to be explained by root pressure alone.

Transport of salts

The liquid which travels in the xylem is not, in fact pure water. It is a
very dilute solution, containing from 0.1to1.0% dissolved solids, mostly
amino acids, other organic acids and mineral salts. The organic acids are
made in the roots; the mineral salts come from the soil. The faster the flow
in the transpiration stream, the more dilute is the xylem sap. Experimental
evidence suggests that salts are carried from the soil to the leaves mainly
in the xylem vessels.

Transport of food


The xylem sap is always a very dilute solution, but the Phloem sap may
contain up to 25 per cent of dissolved solids, The bulk of which consists of
sucrose and amino acids.

There is a good deal of evidence to support the view that sucrose amino
acids and may other substances are transported in the phloem. The movement
of water and salts in the xylem is always upwards, from the soil to the
leaf. But in the phloem the sap may be travelling up or down the stem. The
carbohydrates made in the leaf during photosynthesis are converted to
sucrose and carried out of the leaf to the stem. From here the sucrose may
pass upwards to growing buds and fruits or downwards to the roots and
storage organs. All parts of a plant which cannot photosynthesise will need
a supply of nutrients bought by the phloem. It is possible for substances to
be travelling upwards and downwards at the same time in the phloem.

"note the dual flow has been observed in experiments with concentrated
solution and water filled tubes."


Page 74 continued

There is no doubt that substances travel in the sieve tubes of the phloem
But the mechanism by which they are moved is not fully understood.

There are several theories, which attempt to explain how sucrose and other
solutes are transported in the phloem but none of them is entirely
satisfactory.

Page 75

Uptake of water and salts

The water tension developed in the vessels by a rapidly transpiring plant is
thought to be sufficient to draw water through the root from the soil. The
precise pathway taken by the water is the subject of some debate, but the
path of least resistance seems to be in or between the cell walls rather
than through the cells.

When transpiration is slow, e.g. at night time or just before bud burst in a
deciduous tree, then osmosis may play a more important part in the uptake of
water.

One problem for this explanation is that it has not been possible to
demonstrate that there is an osmotic gradient across the root cortex which
could produce this flow of water from cell to cell. Nevertheless, root
pressure developed probably by osmosis can be shown to force water up the
root system and into the stem

page 76

The methods by which roots take up salts from the soil are not fully
understood. Some salts may be carried in with the water drawn up by
transpiration and pass mainly along the cell walls in the root cortex and
into the xylem.

It may be that diffusion from a relatively high concentration in the soil to
a lower concentration in the root cells accounts for uptake of some
individual salts. But it has been shown (a) that salts can be taken from the
soil even when their concentration is below that in the roots and (b) that
anything which interferes with respiration impairs the uptake of salts. This
suggests that active transport (p.35) plays an important part in the uptake
of salts.

The thing that becomes clear from reading the established explanations for
water transport is that if it were a bucket, very little water would be
transported due to the large number of holes in it !


Penny314

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
dear andrew,
Robert Finn wrote a series of papers on
the classical equation of capillarity and perhaps one book.
He showed that at if a certain angle is exceeded the height can be
arbitrary.
pennysmith

>Message-id: <38b78...@news1.cluster1.telinco.net>

Jan Panteltje

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Rain

Uncle Al

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

AndrewKenneth Fletcher wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Could we re-open this topic for discussion? I feel I have something new to
> add to this field and wander if others find the accepted explanations for
> fluid transport somewhat confusing.
>
> Has anyone developed a working model which demonstrates a lift of water
> higher that the 10 metre limit set down in the physics literature some three
> hundred years ago.
>
> I have read about osmosis, capillary action and root pressure, but find them
> lacking in scientific validity.
>

[big snip]

Water is primarily drawn up tall trees by tensile strengh - roots push
in at the bottom, transpiration pulls at the top. If you breach a
tall trunk at ground level with a punch you can hear the sucking sound
when you break the seal. If the water were in compression rather than
tension you would get an immediate outward pulse.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

AndrewKenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
I guess I asked for that "Smiles"
Andrew

Jan Panteltje <j...@panteltje.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:951568136.26115....@news.demon.nl...
> Rain

AndrewKenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Dear Penny

I replied to someone else about capillary action and would like to here what
you have to say about this.

If I had a glass tube as tall as a mature tree, filled it with capillary
tubes,
with the open end submerged in a bucket of water do you believe that water
would rise to the top?

The xylem tubes inside the tree are non-living tubes.

The question must be then, did Robert Finn demonstrate this in a model, if
so I would be most interested in learning how he did it, perhaps you could
send us the location or a small excerpt from his paper, explaining how it
was done? Furthermore, we would have to explain the negative pressure,
observed in the xylem of a transpiring tree. Capillary action could not
explain this.


Kind regards

Andrew


Penny314 <penn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000226071716...@ng-bh1.aol.com...

AndrewKenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Hi Uncle Al

If I stood at the top of a tree with a long straw in a glass of water, would
I be able to suck the water up. I don't think this would be possible do you?
Furthermore, if I put a few holes in the top of the straw, would I be more
likely to suck air in than water up?

I do believe that the tensile strength of water plays a very important part
in fluid transport.

If the punch hit only the phloem vessels, we would get an outpouring of sap,
this is how rubber and maple syrup are collected.

However if we punctured the xylem tubes while the tree was transpiring, we
would as you rightly say find evidence of negative pressure.


Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:38B81917...@hate.spam.net...


>
>
> AndrewKenneth Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > Could we re-open this topic for discussion? I feel I have something new
to
> > add to this field and wander if others find the accepted explanations
for
> > fluid transport somewhat confusing.
> >
> > Has anyone developed a working model which demonstrates a lift of water
> > higher that the 10 metre limit set down in the physics literature some
three
> > hundred years ago.
> >
> > I have read about osmosis, capillary action and root pressure, but find
them
> > lacking in scientific validity.
> >
>

EL Hemetis

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Hi Andrew

You asked, "How does water really reach the tops of trees?"
You also know quite well about the agricultural theories in plant
physiology.
Let me organize the known set of knowledge to make the picture clear.

In the tallest trees of forests, as they are morphologically known, we
find roots, stems and branches with leaves.
Accordingly, plant physiology shall demonstrate three phases:
Water absorption, Ascent of sap and transpiration.

You seem to agree or at least have no problem with theories on
the "lateral transportation of water".
You have a disagreement or you are not "happy" with theories about the
water ascension inside the tallest tree.
Here I ask you, do you have a problem with water ascension theories for
a few centimeters?
Look at the side of a green mountain, each plant growing on its side
is "drinking" water from soil by osmosis through the rhizoids and the
plant gets wet at the crown under the power of "ROOT PRESSURE".
The next step is to follow the sap stream.
Certainly only wooden trees do have xylem and phloem.
Phloem is responsible for redistribution of "food" from the leaves to
the rest of the tree for growing.
Your Question is concentrating on the ascension of water inside
the "Xylem".
As tall as 100 meters of water vertical transport inside trees is very
well known.
In capillaries of 0.2 mm water would rise to a height of 150 cm while
in those of 0.5 mm in diameter water would rise to 6 cm only.
The root pressure is certainly a nice positive start, while the
transpiration is a nice negative end.
Now let us make an experiment with wood only (without a root or leaves
on branches).
Water molecules are bound together with a great cohesive force due to
the "hydrogen bonds".
There is also the force of adhesion between water and the cellulose of
the cell walls (much better than glass).
The wooden stem under this condition of forces is absolutely identical
to a hundred plants along the rising side of a mountain.
Each cell (fiber) just makes water available to the next cell.
Once all the wood is almost equally wet, no more water movement is
required.
When this "formula is put between the positive "root pressure" and the
negative "respiratory pressure",
we end up with a "potential difference".
Water molecules in any vertically connected "water column" acts as a
one piece solid.
Pushing in from under and pulling up from above produce a chain of
molecular replacements.
The force equations show that the total forces involved are quite
adequate to lift the water column that high.
So, study plant physiology a little harder and stop complaining. :-)
EL
=================================================
My words mean nothing without your reconstruction
Reflect on my words and SEE YOURSELF.
=================================================


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Hi El Hemetis

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

In your post you explain accepted theory on how water rises up a tube that
is already in place. One problem with this is, the
tubes have to be continually extended vertically.
In a desert climate for instance a tree can grow 3.5 metres a year, erecting
the tubes as it goes.
So we must explain where the tree gets its momentum and power in order to
erect such a vertical column. Its not magic, nor is it some mysterious
living function.

Why vertical? A tree in a field with no competition will still grow
predominantly up. Why would a tree in a field struggle against gravity, or
why would the plants you refer to grow up the mountain, when horizontal
growth would favour the current theories.

If we bend the trunk down to horizontal, all the new growth will be
vertically up.

Mistletoe and other parasitic plants tap into trees in order to extract
water and nutrients from it. and in doing so effectively are drawing water
from the ground, by borrowing the structure of the tree.

If we were to attempt to build a city tower block, using manpower only, we
would have to take the blocks to the top of the extending structure. The
problem we have is that we can carry the whole Tower block a little at a
time, but would have trouble raising the whole tower block in one go.

In effect the tree has to deal with the same scenario. We could for instance
use a rope and pulley in order to assist us. But then we would be using
gravity=our weight through a pulley, in order to raise the block.

The plant grows by lifting the material and stacking it on top of the
existing structure. We know that the tree does not have a set of lifting
gear, so must be transporting the materials to the leaf in a dilute form,
which is observed and accepted to flow predominantly in the xylem.

In a transpiring tree

Xylem = upward flowing dilute sap. Agreed?

Again, root pressure is mentioned. The problem I have with root pressure, is
that a column of water towering above a root is more likely to develop a
positive pressures than a negative pressure, when gravity is taken into
account. How then can a root generate a negative pressure when it has first
to support a column of water under inevitable positive pressure.

EL Hemetis <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:899s1j$8un$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> Hi Andrew
>
> You asked, "How does water really reach the tops of trees?"
> You also know quite well about the agricultural theories in plant
> physiology.
> Let me organize the known set of knowledge to make the picture clear.
>
> In the tallest trees of forests, as they are morphologically known, we
> find roots, stems and branches with leaves.
> Accordingly, plant physiology shall demonstrate three phases:
> Water absorption, Ascent of sap and transpiration.
>
> You seem to agree or at least have no problem with theories on
> the "lateral transportation of water".


*********
I do have problems with the explanation for lateral transportation of water.
it is obviously happening, as water is observed to be drawn from the soil
into the tree. However the mechanism for suction in the roots is not fully
understood. There can be no doubt that suction does occur in the roots of a
transpiring tree or plant, however, it is demonstrated by cutting off the
top of a plant and
witnessing water exuding from the top. At first glance it would appear that
the roots are somehow squeezing water up the stem of the open ended plant.

In order to accept root pressure, we must first explain where this negative
force develops and how.

You mention the phloem as being responsible for distribution of food to the
rest of the tree. This is accepted as the way that food is transported and I
have no problem with this. But first let's remember the tower block.

The bulk of growth in the tree is below the leaf, therefore the food is as
you state,
transported down the tree.
The huge trunk of the tree is obviously used to store the food, as is the
tower block used to store the raised blocks. Furthermore, there is an
interesting photograph in a book Titled The International Book Of Wood ISBN
0861340523 page 16 which shows a bench covered in timber. The timber looks
like a thick liquid has been poured down from the tree and engulfed the
bench. I mention this because it fits with a downward flowing sap, which
delivers and deposits its cargo of liquid timber, engulfing the bench.

When we look at the shape of a tree, it is obviously bulkier at the bottom
than it is at the top, so most of the food must end up utilised as timber in
the trunk, branches and roots, tapering out towards ground level. Which
suggests that sap descends from the leaf in the phloem.

Phloem therefore = Predominantly downward flowing sap, Agreed?

*********

> You have a disagreement or you are not "happy" with theories about the
> water ascension inside the tallest tree.
> Here I ask you, do you have a problem with water ascension theories for

> a few centimetres?


> Look at the side of a green mountain, each plant growing on its side
> is "drinking" water from soil by osmosis through the rhizoids and the
> plant gets wet at the crown under the power of "ROOT PRESSURE".

Surely the mountain and the surrounding atmosphere provides all of the
plants with the water they need, regardless of whether they are above or
below another plant. Forgive me if I am missing something, but I can't see
what a mountain has to do with the plant?

> The next step is to follow the sap stream.
> Certainly only wooden trees do have xylem and phloem.
> Phloem is responsible for redistribution of "food" from the leaves to
> the rest of the tree for growing.
> Your Question is concentrating on the ascension of water inside
> the "Xylem".
> As tall as 100 meters of water vertical transport inside trees is very
> well known.

Actually my question is not just about ascension of sap, its about the whole
picture of fluid transport.

> In capillaries of 0.2 mm water would rise to a height of 150 cm while
> in those of 0.5 mm in diameter water would rise to 6 cm only.
> The root pressure is certainly a nice positive start, while the
> transpiration is a nice negative end.

> Now let us make an experiment with wood only (without a root or leaves
> on branches).

*********


> Water molecules are bound together with a great cohesive force due to
> the "hydrogen bonds".

"The cohesive force is far greater than the adhesive force of water. Agreed!
This would describe the water column as a sort of liquid rope on the pulley
of the thought exp. relating to the tower block construction. How do you
feel about a liquid rope analogy?

*********


> There is also the force of adhesion between water and the cellulose of
> the cell walls (much better than glass).
> The wooden stem under this condition of forces is absolutely identical
> to a hundred plants along the rising side of a mountain.

> Each cell (fibre) just makes water available to the next cell.


> Once all the wood is almost equally wet, no more water movement is
> required.

Are you saying that one plant lifts water up the mountain to feed the next
plant?

This soaking up of water does not relate to the observed rates of flow in
trees. The massive loss of moisture from a mature oak equates to a 100
gallons a day. This would be phenomenally more than one would expect from,
what is in effect rising damp. It is generally accepted that the flow rates
observed in trees cannot be explained by osmosis or capillary action. There
must be some other force producing bulk flow from the roots to the leaves in
order to account for the massive water loss at the leaves.


> When this "formula is put between the positive "root pressure" and the
> negative "respiratory pressure",
> we end up with a "potential difference".

***********


> Water molecules in any vertically connected "water column" acts as a
> one piece solid.
> Pushing in from under and pulling up from above produce a chain of
> molecular replacements.
> The force equations show that the total forces involved are quite
> adequate to lift the water column that high.

We are still dealing with a non-living physical force, therefore erecting a
working model to support this view, should have been relatively easy. The
tubes in the tree are not alive, yet water is drawn through them from root
to soil.
I would like to hear if anyone has shown a working model that reflects the
explanations you have given.

Osmosis
I am sorry, I must have missed the explanation for the driving force behind
osmosis.
If a tree is, as osmosis states, using water to attract water, why does it
chose to
grow vertically, when logically it would be more efficient to grow
horizontally along the ground. Why is the tree observed to make use of
elevating itself from ground level? What part does gravity play in the
accent of sap in the xylem and the decent of sap in the phloem.

Furthermore, if one places a stethoscope on the trunk of a tree at first bud
in the spring, you can hear the water flowing. You must also account for
this rate of bulk flow. You simply could not hear water being transferred by
capillary action.
Neither osmosis or capillary action offer an explanation for the evidence of
negative pressure in xylem and positive pressure in phloem.

We are studying plant physiology a little harder and I for one will not stop
complaining, until I am convinced that all of the mechanisms involved are
fully understood.

Henry Wilson

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:07:17 -0000, "Andrew Kenneth Fletcher"
<gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

>
>We are still dealing with a non-living physical force, therefore erecting a
>working model to support this view, should have been relatively easy. The
>tubes in the tree are not alive, yet water is drawn through them from root
>to soil.
> I would like to hear if anyone has shown a working model that reflects the
>explanations you have given.
>
>Osmosis
>I am sorry, I must have missed the explanation for the driving force behind
>osmosis.
>If a tree is, as osmosis states, using water to attract water, why does it
>chose to
>grow vertically, when logically it would be more efficient to grow
>horizontally along the ground. Why is the tree observed to make use of
>elevating itself from ground level? What part does gravity play in the
>accent of sap in the xylem and the decent of sap in the phloem.
>
>Furthermore, if one places a stethoscope on the trunk of a tree at first bud
>in the spring, you can hear the water flowing. You must also account for
>this rate of bulk flow. You simply could not hear water being transferred by
>capillary action.
>Neither osmosis or capillary action offer an explanation for the evidence of
>negative pressure in xylem and positive pressure in phloem.
>
>We are studying plant physiology a little harder and I for one will not stop
>complaining, until I am convinced that all of the mechanisms involved are
>fully understood.
>

Ever heard of the sodium pump? The theory used to be that water
molecules are actually transported upwards via a type of 'conveyer
belt' which has Na atoms along it. These literally pass the water on
to the next link in the chain. The force is electrical.
Can't remember all the details and don't know how much more is known
about the process now.

Of course osmosis and diffusion of water vapor can account for some of
the movement. Water vapor, at humidities well below saturation, will
condense to liquid, under high tension (much more than 1 atmosphere),
in very fine capillaries. If I remember rightly, a moisture tension of
around 15 ats is equivalent to a relative humidity of 98.5%. Plants
reach a critical wilting point if the soil moisture tension goes above
about 15 ats tension.


G=EMC^2 Glazier

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to

z@z

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
: = Andrew Kenneth Fletcher in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=590565146
:: = EL Hermetis

[ Interesting quotes from a biology textbook can be found in Andrew's
starting post: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=590191701 ]

: In a desert climate for instance a tree can grow 3.5 metres a year, erecting


: the tubes as it goes. So we must explain where the tree gets its momentum
: and power in order to erect such a vertical column.

: The plant grows by lifting the material and stacking it on top of the


: existing structure. We know that the tree does not have a set of lifting
: gear, so must be transporting the materials to the leaf in a dilute form,
: which is observed and accepted to flow predominantly in the xylem.

: Again, root pressure is mentioned. The problem I have with root pressure,


: is that a column of water towering above a root is more likely to develop
: a positive pressures than a negative pressure, when gravity is taken into
: account. How then can a root generate a negative pressure when it has first
: to support a column of water under inevitable positive pressure.

: In order to accept root pressure, we must first explain where this negative
: force develops and how.

:: As tall as 100 meters of water vertical transport inside trees is very
:: well known.

:: In capillaries of 0.2 mm water would rise to a height of 150 cm while


:: in those of 0.5 mm in diameter water would rise to 6 cm only.

:: Water molecules are bound together with a great cohesive force due to


:: the "hydrogen bonds".
:
: The cohesive force is far greater than the adhesive force of water. Agreed!

: This would describe the water column as a sort of liquid rope ...

: This soaking up of water does not relate to the observed rates of flow in


: trees. The massive loss of moisture from a mature oak equates to a 100
: gallons a day. This would be phenomenally more than one would expect from,
: what is in effect rising damp. It is generally accepted that the flow rates
: observed in trees cannot be explained by osmosis or capillary action. There
: must be some other force producing bulk flow from the roots to the leaves in
: order to account for the massive water loss at the leaves.

100 gallons a day are around 400 kg a day. Where does the energy needed
to transport 400 kg upwards come from?

Does the transport produce waste heat or is thermal energy transformed
into potential energy, violating the second law of thermodynamics?

: The tubes in the tree are not alive, yet water is drawn through them from
: root to soil.

According to panpsychism, advocated by some of most innovative and
consistent scientists of the past (e.g. Johannes Kepler), there is no
clear distinction between "alive" and "not alive".

: Furthermore, if one places a stethoscope on the trunk of a tree at first bud


: in the spring, you can hear the water flowing. You must also account for
: this rate of bulk flow. You simply could not hear water being transferred by
: capillary action.

What is the maximal "uptree" speed?

In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum
mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple
molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of
molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible
to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at
the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The
downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into
mechanical energy.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Panpsychism - an alternative explanatory framework for biology and evolution:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=482821805
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=515913346

JeffMo

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
>generally valid.

This is, of course, utter rubbish. However, it IS true that in the
context of life, the second law of thermodynamics can be generally
misunderstood.

JeffMo

"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines


Henry Wilson

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
On 29 Feb 2000 16:13:54 -0500, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:


>What is the maximal "uptree" speed?

I told you what happens. Trees use a sodium pump, which uses
electrical forces to literally transport water molecules up a
conveying 'belt'. It gets its energy from other chemical reactions,
ultimately from sunlight. I don't think the process is well
understood, even today.


>
>In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be

>generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum
>mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple
>molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of
>molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible
>to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at
>the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The
>downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into
>mechanical energy.

You can't get energy for nothing. What you are suggesting here is
nothing more than what happens everyday with rain.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
An interesting point about waste heat, thank you for joining the discussion.

Perhaps waste heat is sufficient to maintain the circulation of evergreens,
growing in sub-zero temperatures?

Waste heat is produced in warm blooded species, including humans. The heat
must be an inevitable consequence of bulk flow. Furthermore an explanation
for the origin of the bulk flow must take into account, why one species is
warm blooded and another is cold. Could it be the distance the animal is
elevated above ground level? We know that reptiles are relatively
un-elevated and are known to alter posture and increase body temperature and
circulation by doing so. A snake for instance bumps up the power by raising
its head and body prior to striking.

You could argue that lizards and snakes are lizards and snakes and that's
why they are cold blooded. However in the case of the dinosaur it is
generally accepted that they were in fact warm blooded. John Mitchell an 11
year old became involved in a conversation I was having with his father
about the exit of the dinosaur. We were arguing the point of why the
alligator and the croc survived, when other dinosaurs perished. John said
something that was astonishing. He said: Dinosaurs were croc's that stood
up. Croc's with long legs.

hypothesis

Could it be possible that a huge increase in bulk circulation, caused by the
new erect posture of the crock/alligator. And the increased bulk flow
started a chain-metabolic-reaction, which in turn generated heat, which
thinned the fluids, accelerated evaporation, altering the specific gravity
of the fluids, which in turn altered the tissue and even the structure of
the crock/alligator?

Back on topic.

My question must be: What is the purpose of the massive evaporation found
across the spectrum of life. What is this massive loss of moisture doing to
the residual liquids at the point of evaporation. Evaporated water is in
effect distilled from the leaves as relatively pure water. The water inside
the leaf contains both sugars and minerals from the soil.

Having chewed on this, could it be that a concentration of the residual
liquid is a consequence of evaporation?

Andrew K Fletcher


z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in message news:89hcpe$re8$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net...


> : = Andrew Kenneth Fletcher in
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=590565146
> :: = EL Hermetis
>
> [ Interesting quotes from a biology textbook can be found in Andrew's
> starting post: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=590191701 ]
>

> : In a desert climate for instance a tree can grow 3.5 metres a year,


erecting
> : the tubes as it goes. So we must explain where the tree gets its
momentum
> : and power in order to erect such a vertical column.
>

> : The plant grows by lifting the material and stacking it on top of the


> : existing structure. We know that the tree does not have a set of lifting
> : gear, so must be transporting the materials to the leaf in a dilute
form,
> : which is observed and accepted to flow predominantly in the xylem.
>

> : Again, root pressure is mentioned. The problem I have with root


pressure,
> : is that a column of water towering above a root is more likely to
develop
> : a positive pressures than a negative pressure, when gravity is taken
into
> : account. How then can a root generate a negative pressure when it has
first
> : to support a column of water under inevitable positive pressure.
>

> : In order to accept root pressure, we must first explain where this


negative
> : force develops and how.
>

> :: As tall as 100 meters of water vertical transport inside trees is very
> :: well known.
>
> :: In capillaries of 0.2 mm water would rise to a height of 150 cm while


> :: in those of 0.5 mm in diameter water would rise to 6 cm only.
>

> :: Water molecules are bound together with a great cohesive force due to


> :: the "hydrogen bonds".
> :
> : The cohesive force is far greater than the adhesive force of water.
Agreed!

> : This would describe the water column as a sort of liquid rope ...
>
> : This soaking up of water does not relate to the observed rates of flow


in
> : trees. The massive loss of moisture from a mature oak equates to a 100
> : gallons a day. This would be phenomenally more than one would expect
from,
> : what is in effect rising damp. It is generally accepted that the flow
rates
> : observed in trees cannot be explained by osmosis or capillary action.
There
> : must be some other force producing bulk flow from the roots to the
leaves in
> : order to account for the massive water loss at the leaves.
>

> 100 gallons a day are around 400 kg a day. Where does the energy needed
> to transport 400 kg upwards come from?
>
> Does the transport produce waste heat or is thermal energy transformed
> into potential energy, violating the second law of thermodynamics?
>

> : The tubes in the tree are not alive, yet water is drawn through them
from
> : root to soil.
>


> According to panpsychism, advocated by some of most innovative and
> consistent scientists of the past (e.g. Johannes Kepler), there is no
> clear distinction between "alive" and "not alive".
>

> : Furthermore, if one places a stethoscope on the trunk of a tree at first


bud
> : in the spring, you can hear the water flowing. You must also account for
> : this rate of bulk flow. You simply could not hear water being
transferred by
> : capillary action.
>

> What is the maximal "uptree" speed?
>

> In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
> generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum
> mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple
> molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of
> molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible
> to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at
> the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The
> downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into
> mechanical energy.
>
>

Morat

unread,
Mar 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/1/00
to

Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On 29 Feb 2000 16:13:54 -0500, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>

> >What is the maximal "uptree" speed?

> I told you what happens. Trees use a sodium pump, which uses
> electrical forces to literally transport water molecules up a
> conveying 'belt'. It gets its energy from other chemical reactions,
> ultimately from sunlight. I don't think the process is well
> understood, even today.
> >

> >In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
> >generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum
> >mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple
> >molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of
> >molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible
> >to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at
> >the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The
> >downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into
> >mechanical energy.

> You can't get energy for nothing. What you are suggesting here is
> nothing more than what happens everyday with rain.

And according to (in my opinion) the firmest of all physical laws, the
energy required to power the system will be greater than the energy removed
from the system.

> >
> >
> >Wolfgang Gottfried G.
> >
> >Panpsychism - an alternative explanatory framework for biology and evolution:
> >http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
> >
> >http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=482821805
> >http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=515913346
> >
> >

--

spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is tied to the deepest feelings people have. The love
that arises from that stewing pot is the sweetest and strongest, but
the hate is the hottest, and the anger is the most violent."
-- Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind
------------------------------------------------------------------


Scott

unread,
Mar 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/1/00
to
Chemical, biosynthetic, and religious ideas asid, a major factor in
water moving up a tree (or any plant, for that matter) is strongly
dependant on capillary action. The force that keeps plants upright
and extended is called turgor pressure (forcing a liquid into an
otherwise flexible membrane to fill up cavities in the material).

On 1 Mar 2000 00:03:53 -0500, Morat <dra...@icsi.not.net> wrote:

=
=
=Henry Wilson wrote:
=>
=> On 29 Feb 2000 16:13:54 -0500, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
=>
=> >What is the maximal "uptree" speed?
=> I told you what happens. Trees use a sodium pump, which uses
=> electrical forces to literally transport water molecules up a
=> conveying 'belt'. It gets its energy from other chemical reactions,
=> ultimately from sunlight. I don't think the process is well
=> understood, even today.
=> >
=> >In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
=> >generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum
=> >mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple
=> >molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of
=> >molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible
=> >to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at
=> >the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The
=> >downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into
=> >mechanical energy.
=> You can't get energy for nothing. What you are suggesting here is
=> nothing more than what happens everyday with rain.
=
= And according to (in my opinion) the firmest of all physical laws, the
=energy required to power the system will be greater than the energy removed
=from the system.
=
=> >
=> >
=> >Wolfgang Gottfried G.
=> >
=> >Panpsychism - an alternative explanatory framework for biology and evolution:
=> >http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
=> >
=> >http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=482821805
=> >http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=515913346
=> >
=> >


Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
Humidity undoubtedly induces wilting in many species of tree. However, all
the humidity is doing is preventing the tree from transpiring.

So, what is the purpose of transpiration and how does it contribute to the
bulk flow in trees and plants, or even the human lung for that matter?

Andrew K Fletcher


Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:38b9a172...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Thank you for contributing to this discussion.

We don't want to go down the road of perpetual motion. I for one believe
that you don't get ow't for now't. To presume that a chemical reaction in
trees is responsible for generating an electrical power supply that then
lifts water 330 feet to the top of a redwood is erroneous.

Furthermore, if it were so then it would be simple to set up the same
chemical reactions in a working model for all to see.

However this does show that current fluid transport explanations have failed
to convince the author of the sodium pump theory.

I also find it astonishing that this thread has not stimulated masses of
support for the current explanations for fluid transport in trees?

If there are any plant physiologists reading this thread, please join the
discussion.

Andrew K Fletcher

Morat <dra...@icsi.not.net> wrote in message
news:38BCA400...@icsi.not.net...


>
>
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Feb 2000 16:13:54 -0500, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> >
> > >What is the maximal "uptree" speed?

> > I told you what happens. Trees use a sodium pump, which uses


> > electrical forces to literally transport water molecules up a

> > conveying 'belt'. It gets its energy from other chemical reactions,

> > ultimately from sunlight. I don't think the process is well

> > understood, even today.


> > >
> > >In the context of life the second law of thermodynamics cannot be

> > >generally valid. Maybe it could be even possible to build a perpetuum

> > >mobile of the SECOND KIND by using properties of rather simple

> > >molecules. If the evaporation and condensation probabilities of

> > >molecules could be influenced in the right way, it should be possible

> > >to create a system, where molecules condense with a higher rate at

> > >the top of the system and evaporate with a higher rate below. The

> > >downwards motion of condensed water could then be transformed into

> > >mechanical energy.


> > You can't get energy for nothing. What you are suggesting here is

> > nothing more than what happens everyday with rain.
>

> And according to (in my opinion) the firmest of all physical laws, the

> energy required to power the system will be greater than the energy
removed

> from the system.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >Wolfgang Gottfried G.
> > >

> > >Panpsychism - an alternative explanatory framework for biology and
evolution:

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to

Scott <lokkistup...@psynet.net> wrote in message
news:m9jpbsof6hdpb29ol...@4ax.com...

> Chemical, biosynthetic, and religious ideas asid, a major factor in
> water moving up a tree (or any plant, for that matter) is strongly
> dependant on capillary action. The force that keeps plants upright
> and extended is called turgor pressure (forcing a liquid into an
> otherwise flexible membrane to fill up cavities in the material).
>
> On 1 Mar 2000 00:03:53 -0500, Morat <dra...@icsi.not.net> wrote:


Not so! The flow rates observed experimentally cannot be addressed by
capillary action, which in effect is rising damp. A hundred gallons a day
transpires from a mature oak in favourable weather conditions.

What is the purpose of this massive moisture loss and how does this fit with
capillary action, osmosis, sodium pumps, and root pressure. It does not fit!

Come on you guys, you can do better than this.

Andrew K Fletcher


Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
From: Sci.bio.botany
Kaywan J. <notava...@notavailable.na> wrote in message
news:38BCB5BC...@notavailable.na...
> Hi. I think the cohesion-tension theory can be summed up as follows. The
> pressure differential between the air and the stomata on the leaf causes a
net
> flow of water molecules into the atmosphere. The dipoles on H2O create
> electrostatic interactions that connect neighboring water molecules and
also
> connect water molecules to the cell walls. This combination of cohesion
and
> adhesion creates a continuity of water throughout the plant. The net
result is
> a continous flow of water moving up from the roots into the atmosphere as
> evaporated water is replaced by the neighboring molecules that were
previously
> clinging.
>
> However, your idea on the differences of water potential due to solute
> concentrations is very interesting but suspiciously sounds like bulk-flow.
It
> doesn't seem likely that the lignified cell walls of xylem will facilitate
this
> flow because of their lack of elasticity; it is, IMHO, the elasticity of
phloem
> tissues that contribute greatly to the bulk-flow. Without the hydrostatic
> forces to push the water upwards your mechanism seems inefficient. While
the
> minerals may move up the water may not necessarily follow! (True?)
>

The flow rates experimentally have shown bulk flow in excess of that found
in trees.

A loop of water filled tubing was raised vertically at the centre to a
height of seventy eight feet. A small amount of salt solution was added at
the centre of the tube and both open ends of the tube were placed at the
bottom of two glass water filled bottles prior to raising the centre of the
tube.
Water flowed out of one bottle, while the level of the water in the other
bottle was observed to fall. The flow rate was observed to be very
efficient, and comparible with the fall of the saline solution, under the
influence of gravity.


> A fellow student of mine whose name I've not been told once suggested that
> oxygen dissolves into the water and this creates a pressure differential
which
> presumably would increase the rate of flow out. Perhaps the flow is really
a
> combination of mechanisms with one (the cohesion-tension hypothesis)
> dominating. Anyway, this idea about the oxygen would also in my opinion
require
> elasticity. But I don't have very many facts to work with.
>
>
> Kaywan J.
>
>
> Andrew Kenneth Fletcher wrote:
>
> > Hi Mathew
> >
> > I included the text from GCSE Biol in order to illustrate accepted
theory.
> > If we make this too complicated from the onset, it is more likely to be
> > missed or skipped.
> >
> > Would you be so kind as to sum-up the cohesion-tension theory for people
who
> > may want to follow this thread.
> >
> > I have an interesting theory of my own about the way trees and plants
lift
> > water. It also relies on some aspects of cohesion.
> >
> > The theory is very simple. Evaporation from the leaves, concentrates the
> > liquid in the leaf. Gravity then pulls the concentrated liquid down the
> > tree, which in turn draws more dilute sap up the tree.
> > This simple flow and return system, is an inevitable consequence of what
is
> > in effect, distilled water leaving a liquid which contains minerals, or
> > anything that is heavier than water.
> >
> > Matthew J. Linton <lin...@botany.uga.edu> wrote in message
> > news:89gli8$5n9$1...@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
> > > If you find that "the accepted explanations for fluid transport [are]
> > > somewhat confusing," perhaps you should do additional reading in the
> > field.
> > > The theory of water transport, which is called "the cohesion-tension
> > > theory," is well described in a number of textbooks, the best of which
> > might
> > > be "Plant Physiology" by Frank B. Salisbury and Cleon W. Ross. Your
local
> > > college or university library probably has a copy of it. The text
that
> > you
> > > included is VERY POOR at describing xylem and phloem transport,
osmosis,
> > and
> > > root pressure. There are alternative theories for water transport,
> > notably
> > > one by M.J. Canny 1995 "NEW THEORY FOR THE ASCENT OF SAP-COHESION
> > SUPPORTED
> > > BY TISSUE PRESSURE" Annals Of Botany 75(4):343-357, but this theory
really
> > > hasn't survived a number of follow-up research studies, including
articles
> > > in Nature (378:715-716) and Science (270: 1193-1194). Although it is
> > > healthy for one to question established theories in science, you can't
> > just
> > > disregard decades and decades of careful research by hundreds of
> > scientists
> > > just because "the accepted explanations...are somewhat confusing."
> > > Good luck in your quest.
> > >
> > > Matthew J. Linton
> > >
> > >
>


Fraggle_Rock

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
gravit...@hotmail.com (Andrew Kenneth Fletcher) wrote in
<89llt2$3mm$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>:

As I understand it the point of large volumes of water in trees is to move
stuff around! The roots suck nice things from the soil/fungi up to the
leaves for energy-cell division etc. this happens lots on warm days cos
there is lots of light and therefore energy around. the trees use this
light (in photosynthysis) to turn nasty unreactive molecules into lovely
high energy ones which it can then turn into leaves, seeds, flowers etc.

For a nice simple explination look here

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,120804+7,00.html

which holds all the answeres

and this bit on transpiration directly

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/idxref/4/0,5716,596815,00.html

hope that helps.

Britannica is realy quite brilliant. not the best layed out perhaps, and
some confusing links. but generealy well written

Hope all that helps.

have fun

Aidan
--
Nb the e-mail is my spam catcher, I do check it so if you want to talk to
me direct use that but it could take 7 days for me to get round to it.


G=EMC^2 Glazier

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
Hi Herb

Correct me if I am wrong, but surely evaporation would concentrate the sap?

The only reason smoke goes up a chimney is because there is a fire
underneath it, emitting hot air, which causes the smoke to rise.

Energy is required, whether it is either air or water that requires
transporting.
The tree still has to overcome the same problem, so requires a mechanism
which harnesses a physical force in order transport water from root to leaf.

A logical explanation, is that the loss of moisture from the leaves,
concentrates residual liquids, on which gravity exerts additional influence.
The heavy, mineral laden sap is drawn down by gravity and in doing so
induces less dense liquids to be drawn up. A simple flow and return system!

Picture the water as a liquid string running over a pulley at the top of the
tree. Weight is added to one side, by transpiration and down it goes, but
for every action there must be an oposing reaction and in this case water is
drawn in to redilute the solution at the roots and up it goes.

Do you have a problem with this?


Andrew K Fletcher
G=EMC^2 Glazier <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16180-38...@storefull-165.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Since it says tops of trees and I think of red woods .They are so
tall,that the difference of pressure could bring the water up like smoke
going up a chimney.I don't think osmosis alone would be enough.The sun
on the top most part could also play a part(evaporation)thining the sap.
Regards Herb

<imgsrc="http./www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/7447/lgpkrose.gif'height=11
6width=242


EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/3/00
to
Hi Andrew

Growth Inhibiting Hormone:
===================
Firstly, you are wondering as why a wooden tree would grow vertically
while you did not wonder why watermelons creep on the ground but the
leaves stand up erect.
In plants there is a growth inhibiting hormone, take care it is not a
growth hormone but a growth inhibiting hormone. That hormone is
produced in the zenith tips and travel "down" with phloem to inhibit
branching "UNDER THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE".
Thusly it is gravity that defines "down" and "up".
Since "all the tree is "down" relative to new shoots and morphing buds,
then down do not grow.
If down do not grow then it must be up that grows.
That is why a tree grows up.

Stepping Concatenation:
=================
Secondly, you are making a terrible mistake by imagining that a fiber
of a single xylem cell could be a hundred meters long in a vertical
continuum.
If you agree that a capillary 0.2 mm in diameter could raise water to a
150 cm, then if it was 5 cm long only then you have a vertical pump.
There is a toy that floats on water with twelve capillaries each of
which is 0.1 mm in diameter and protruding down the floating platform
while the tops open into a common tray shaped as an open leaf that
pours water back to the surface of water on which the toy floats.
This is a natural perpetual machine overlooked.
Now if it was not necessarily floating but fixed in place pumping water
from level one to level two, then another device placed at level two
will take water to level three and so on.
This is stepping concatenation and the weight of the water column does
not feed back down.

The continuous flow:
==============
Another point that should be taken into account that the plant as a
whole is alive.
When leaves create sugar and the concentration rises, the sugar is
redistributed through the phloem cells and migrates to where sugar is
being used to make thicker cell walls at the lower parts of the plant.
Sugar is hygroscopic and it takes water along with it, other material
follow the same scheme and we have a downwards flow. Now the total
column of water flowing down is confined and must be replaced
horizontally or vertically or by any means that results in a great
negative pressure in the xylem.
I like your analogy of a water rope on pulleys that makes the ascending
and descending columns at equilibrium cancel out the gravitationally.

The aggregation of entity:
=================
You also misinterpreted me in an inverse style.
The mountain side is to explain the tree and not the tree to explain
the mountain side.
We can regard a tree 'as if' it were many plants stacked on top of each
other.
I never said that we can regard the mountain side plants as a single
tree.

Root pressure, WHY?
===============
The idea is that semi-permeable membranes, like cell walls, are
practically a molecular filter.
Soluble salts in the form of ions have electric forces distributing
them where the positive ions likes the oxygen side of water and the
negative ions prefer the hydrogen side of water.
Now the details are too complicated for the Usenet, but there are very
famous plant physiological experiments demonstrating the inflation of a
cellophane bag when placed in diluted sodium chloride due to succession
in salt water crossover the membrane.
So, your inquiry is very intelligent but you must study plant
physiology before exhausting my time and the Usenet.
There is an answer for all of your questions in the main stream text
books, so spend more time in the library instead of seeking an easy
answer from a professor.
I can not write a book here while it is available for you to read in
the library.
If you have a very specific question regarding unclear points in a
textbook I shall be glad to help.
Kind regards.
EL Hemetis

z@z

unread,
Mar 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/3/00
to
Extracts from ENCYCLODAEDIA BRITANNICA:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,120804+7,00.html

: PROCESS OF XYLEM TRANSPORT

: Normally the proportion of xylem to leaves supplied by that xylem is
: greater in plants growing in dry habitats than in plants found in wet
: ones and may be as much as 700 times greater in certain desert plants
: than in aquatic plants and herbs of relatively humid forest floors.

: The velocity of sap movement in trees varies throughout a 24-hour
: period. ... Peak velocities correlate with vessel size; the rate of
: sap flow in trees with small vessels is about 2 metres (7 feet) per
: hour; that in trees with large vessels, about 50 metres (160 feet) per
: hour. The energy required to lift water in both cases is comparable;
: in trees with large pores, water simply moves faster through fewer and
: larger vessels.

: It was demonstrated about 1900 that living cells of the stem are not
: responsible for water movement.

That living cells are not responsible for the water movement might be
correct in the same sense as living cells are not a necessary condition
for e.g. DNA replication. Polymerase enzymes are able to carry out this
function also in vitro. The crucial question however is, whether the
behaviour of polymerase enzymes is consistent with the predictions of
statistical physics.

: It is now generally recognized that water in the xylem moves passively
: along a gradient of decreasing pressures.

It is clear that in vertical tubes filled with water, gradients of
decreasing pressures upwards are unavoidable. But such gradients do
certainly not lead to upwards forces on the water molecules. On the
contrary the gradients are the result of downwards forces.

: Under certain special conditions, water is pushed up the stem by root
: pressure.

If water is pushed up the stem, then the molecules which produce the
root pressure must perform "uphill" movements, i.e. they must move
against a force and lose the energy which is converted into potential
energy of the pushed water. Such "uphill" movements must not be taken
for granted.

: Most of the time, however, water is pulled into the leaves by
: transpiration. A gradient of decreasing pressures from the base to
: the top of a tree can be measured, even though pressures are low.

Isn't this "transpiration pull" hypothesis dreadfully incredible? The
kinetic energy of water molecules corresponds to a certain statistical
distibution. Those surface molecules with the highest energy evaporate.
Because of momentum conservation the water in the pores of the leaves
suffers rather a downwards push than an upwards pull from upwards
evaporating water molecules.

From a purely quantitative point of view, the explanation seems
plausible. For a gram of water to evaporate, around 2000 Joules are
needed. For a vertical transport over 100 m however, only 1 Joule
is needed for the same quantity of water.

From the fact that water is transported in huges trees after very dry
winters before the leaves emerge, we conclude that another mechanism
of water transport must exist.

: A vacuum pump cannot pull water to a height of more than 10 metres
: (about 33 feet). ... The hypothesis that water is pulled upward along
: a pressure gradient during transpiration has been called the cohesion
: theory. Two critical requirements of the cohesion mechanism of water
: ascent are (1) sufficient cohesive strength of water and (2) existence
: of tensions (i.e., pressures below zero) and tension gradients in
: stems of transpiring trees.
:
: Although the tensile strength of water is very high, an excessive pull
: exerted on a water column will break it. The tallest trees are about
: 100 metres (330 feet) high. A nonmoving water column at an atmospheric
: pressure of 1 atmosphere at the base of the tree is exposed to a
: pressure of -9 atmospheres (i.e., a tension of 9 atmospheres) at the
: top. ... If ..., the pressure at the top drops to -25 atmospheres.

Negative pressures in the context of water seems a rather strange and
questionable concept. Isn't normally an atmospheric pressure of (almost)
zero enough to separate all water molecules from each other?

: It has been demonstrated that water columns in the xylem can withstand
: this tension, or pull, without breaking.

Maybe it is the actual mechanism of the xylem transport system which is
responsible for the fact that water columns do not break, and not this
strange "cohesion hypothesis".

: Negative pressures and gradients of negative pressures have been
: shown to exist in trees with an ingeniously simple device called the
: pressure bomb. A small twig is inserted in a container (the pressure
: bomb), its cut stump emerging from a tightly sealed hole. As pressure
: is applied to the container and gradually increased, water from the
: xylem emerges from the cut end as soon as the pressure being applied
: is equal to the xylem tension that existed when the twig was cut.

If I understand correctly, then "pressure bomb" reasoning is based on
a rather dubious premise: it is assumed that the resistance against
pushing water through the twig in leaves-root-direction results from a
one-directional xylem tension. I suppose there is also a resistance
in the opposite direction (when trying to increase the natural flow of
water in the twig).

So the question "how does water really reach the the tops of trees"
is still open.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.


On Brownian motion, diffusion and molecular transport:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=454983467
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=456249204
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=482303464

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/3/00
to
Herald Express, July 6, 1995, page 19. (local paper in Torbay, Devon)
Main Heading
Eureka!

Picture headers, text and pictures removed.

A Revolutionary breakthrough claimed by a Paignton man is to be investigated
by top scientists.
Ideas man Andrew K Fletcher claims he has disproved a fundamental law of
physics dating back to the 17th century.
And impressed by the historic experiment at Overgang cliff, Brixham, to
raise water 78 feet without the support of any artificial aids,
John Hunt, Senior forestry Officer for Devon and Somerset who witnessed the
experiment's success last Friday said: 'It was quite impressive.

The rule that water will only rise 32 feet under atmospheric pressure when
in a column was effectively disproved."

But Mr Hunt explained that he is a professional forester not a scientist and
a report on the experiment would be sent to the Forestry commission 's Alice
Holt Research Station,
near Farnham in Surrey, for further investigation.
Mr Fletcher's experiment involves a long water filled plastic tube, strung
up the cliffside with both open ends placed in two filled demijohns.
A small amount of a salt solution is added at the top of the tube
before it is completely filled with water, this acts as a liquid pulley says
Mr Fletcher, lifting water from one demijohn to the other, thereby
disproving Torriceli's 17th century law.
This explains how trees can raise water to their tops beyond the 32 feet
limit."
said an ecstatic Mr Fletcher. He believes that the discovery also suggests a
mechanism by which all life on earth has evolved from the ground.

Sub Heading in bold.
Cliff experiment pulls plug on 300 year old law of physics

Andrew K Fletcher


boilerma...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
In article <89ph7b$b2f$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Herald Express, July 6, 1995, page 19. (local paper in Torbay,
Devon)
> Main Heading
> Eureka!
>
> Picture headers, text and pictures removed.
>
> A Revolutionary breakthrough claimed by a Paignton man is to be

Hello Andrew.

Could you please give me some specifics? Tube inside diameter and the
rise height?

Thank You kindly, regards Slavek.

EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
In article <89ph7b$b2f$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
[Hemet]
Hi Andrew :-)

You have the honor of being a true scientist and experimentalist.
Yet you have to answer for some big questions.
1- You have to explain the results of "Strasburger 1893" who killed the
lower part of an Oak with picric acid and demonstrated that "all" the
stem raised a "Fuchsin aquatic solution".
2- There is an established "Cohesion theory" which explains most of
your theory and you have to show what is the difference.
3- If "salt solution" must "fall under gravitation to pull a water
column up and that is how the plant "feeds", how can you explain water
circulation in horizontal plants being so ordered as xylem feeding
forward and phloem feeding backward?
4- How do you explain the homogeneity of climbing plants when they make
a down turn following the light- intensity?
5- In some ground plants the stem grows horizontally on the ground and
we can see multiple root systems along the stem and multiple shoot
systems as well, How do you explain the sap streams in such a plant,
where all roots absorb water and all shoots transpire. What is the
direction of the flow? where does your theory fit?
Do you think it is bidirectional? Or do you have to admit that the dead
duct network provides the path to the living parts, where one would
push and another would pull "on demand" and on cell to cell
interactions.

So, yes your experiment is a wonderful verification for the Cohesion
theory which explains the minimum requirement of energy for water
transport in a living plant, where mineral and sugar diffusion from
production line to assembly of polymers locations would pull the
associated water along with it and must be replaced "Cohesively".

6- In many houses we have hanging pots for plant decoration in which
plants "hang down from the pot.
Do you have the slightest doubt that water in xylem is moving down and
water in phloem is moving up?
This should disprove your theory completely.


So think deeply because your contribution to science is valid
experimentally but your theory is defective.
That is why I have been repeatedly encouraging you to study plant
physiology deeply and check the established theories profoundly before
you postulate a new one.

Regardless of your theorization I must congratulate you for the
wonderful experiment that should be known by your name.
In the history of science thousands of scientists have contributed to
the bulk of experimental data.
Yet few make it to the top including Clowns like Einstein.

With best regards.

EL Hemetis

boilerma...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
In article <89ptj3$g8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> =================================================
> My words mean nothing without your reconstruction
> Reflect on my words and SEE YOURSELF.
> =================================================
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Hello EL.

I write this with the missgivings of being obnoxious, but I just cannot
help it.

When I was going through this thread I wanted to tell you what a treat
it was to read your posts, but then I encounterd the "Fletcher's"
experiment and I was taken by it. His experiment does not tell us,IMO,
all that much about what is the reason for plants to transport the water
to what ever height, but it tells us a lot about what gravitation is
caused by.

You say "that Einstain clown". Well, you know that I had big beef with
his TR and I still have, but it is not as big as it used to be. He has a
bit of it correct. IMO.

Anyway. As much as your contribution to this topic is relevant, the
Fletcher's experiment has contributed to the solution of gravitation,
although it may not be realised for quite a few years to come.

In order to be quite explicit, if that is possible, one should pay
attention to the "pointy and edgy" branching of the plants. It does not
seem relevant at the first sight. I guess we are too used to it. But it
is actually the most relevant.

The salt, along with a multitude of other minerals, is also very
important factor.

My kind regards, Slavek.

EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Hi Slavek
Andrew posted to me some serious experiment demonstrating that salt
solutions bind water into a unified region. This is only a
demonstration that verifies what is already known. He then proceeds by
showing that the density of the region is higher than pure water's
density and 'that' causes the salt bound region to flow downwards with
gravity, and in doing so it pulls behind it a chain of Cohesively
concatenated water molecules that can lift up water from the other end
of the tube. His experiment is genuine but the theory is not genuine.
The Cohesive force theory in plant sap streaming is based on the
increase of sugar concentrations in the leaves causing the sugar
molecules (dissolved in water) to cross the cellular boundary to low
concentration regions and in doing so enhances the osmotic pressure
this would create positive pressure in the phloem that helps the
backward distribution of the nutritious sap to the rest of the plant.
In the same time leaves would transpire and lose big quantities of
water. causing negative pressure in the xylem, which is step connected
through a cellular duct network to the roots that give a positive
pressure. Thusly the xylem recovers the lost water a molecule at a time
by a sequence of pressure adjustments with the help of the cohesive
force between the water molecules. The full picture is that many forces
are at work here, neither of which can be responsible for "pumping"
water for more than a hundred meters. The fact is that because water is
connected cohesively, then any lateral connections between cells of
xylem fibers and phloem fibers shall demonstrate a local circulation
whatever the direction may be but it must be from root to shoot in
xylem and from shoot to root in phloem.
These local circulatory currents then do have local losses that are
mineral compensated from higher concentrations and water compensated
from higher pressures. This would create a molecular wave propagation
demonstrated as a backwards stretching in the hydrogen bonds
responsible for the Cohesive force.

I can not see how can this explain gravity or gravitation while it is a
given parameter of the hypothesis.
Let me know if I misunderstood you.
Kind regards.
EL Hemetis

Richard Metzler

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
AndrewKenneth Fletcher wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Could we re-open this topic for discussion? I feel I have something new to
> add to this field and wander if others find the accepted explanations for
> fluid transport somewhat confusing.

Some scientists do. I know a professor named Ulrich Zimmermann
at the University of Wuerzburg who has published some paper
on the subject. Maybe you can have a look at some of his
papers listed in
http://132.187.96.115/pub/projekte/survey.htm#_Toc385573341
(not all of them are on the water transport problem,
though).

Cheers,

Richard Metzler

boilerma...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Hello EL.

My apology first, as I misinterpreted Andrew's set up from his post. He
stated that the water was lifted to a height of much more than 32Ft.I
understood that as being sucked from its lower end and dispensed at the
higher elevation. That is aparently not the case.

But. First question to pop up is, why the water column of seventy eight
feet in a ~1/4" tube does not tear vacuum? Calling it cohesive forces is
not exactly illuminating. What are they? I would expect that a felt
plunger on a regular pump should work to. I doubt that it does.

Somebody somewhere long time ago (Franklin?) built a gismo, where water
is allowed to drip from an elevated vessel into a tray. The vessel was
conected to the collecting tray with a wire accross a spark gap. The
spark gap would fire every so often, depending on the drip rate and the
gap. I am certain that your scientific training will allow you to
recollect this experiment. My unscientific mind just does not absorb
these references with dates and names attached.I appologise.

IMO, the cohesive forces are nothing else but structured el.force fields
among nucleuses (gone turbulent in places), valence bonds.

The second question is the density of saline solution which is supposed
to act as a plunger. I hope I am correct here. The saline "plunger"
extra weight in the setup is rather miniscule compared to the rest of
the liquid contained in the tube. It would seem prudent to calculate the
speed of the circulation taking into account friction and the extra
weight of the "plunger". I just cannot see that the few miligrams of
extra weight (as understood by the clasical physics) could do the job
over any relatively short period of time. It should be barely
observable, if at all.

If my judgement is correct, it will become clear that another force,or
set of forces is involved, or that the gravity theory is not generally
applicable, if at all.

When one understands gravitation as caused by a reciprocating
communication of el.force field components combined with the geometric
structuring of the paths of this communication and the enegetic
(frequency) compatibility of interactions and polarity, the cohesive
forces and gravitation get a common cause. The gravitational field (of
let's say earth) becomes but a progressively weaker extension of the
total of its component molecular (more likely nuclear) fields.

IMO, the gravitational attraction of the apple is caused mostly by
refractive distortion of the tangential (el.force) gravitational field
caused by the atomic structure of the apple.

The attraction of the saline plunger is caused by the same, but it is
greatly facilitated by radial el.force exchange between ground water and
humidity in the atmosphere, due to harmonic compatibility of the
frequencies.

IMO, the so called el.force communication is "aether". It is not static
and it is turbulent under specific conditions and the turbulences and
their structures are the particulate like photon and electron and
neutron etc. including magnetic field and el.current. None of those are
any particles. All those are secondary waves in and along the
superimposed and structured el.force fields.

The above is not a complete description
I cannot get into it here, because of the length of the whole concept.

It is rather heavy in any case. Who ever wants to flame me, go ahead,
make my day.

Anyway. There is Franklin's lightning rod and there is another
"straight" lightning rod. While the Franklin's rod is split at the top
into an "umbrella wire" structure, the other one is just a straight rod.
While the Franklin's rod is supposed to dissipate static in order to
help prevent a lightning strike at it's locality, the straight rod is
designed to actually help induce a lightning strike and ground it at the
rod, rather than a roof.

In the view of the above, I can speculate that the trees and most plants
are dissipative (electro-static) systems. Since a cloud to earth field
is radial, I can speculate that plant dissipative system communicates
el.force between different parts of its environment. That turns plants
into el.force conductors concentrating el.force exchange between air
humidity and ground water.

While the ground water (condensed) el.force frequencies are in harmony
with air water vapour frequencies, being compatible, they are not
identical. That is the very reason why psionic devices used in Florida
for plantation protection against frost work and why they work the way
they do.

The whole thing points out that the el.force communication within a tree
is much denser then outside of the tree. That means that the
gravitational attraction of water contained in that tree is to a degree
reversed.

IMO, the capilary elevation itself can be pinned on the conductive (to
el.force) property of surfaces and their ability to facilitate and/or
concentrate the el.force reciprocating exchange within a general field.
All surfaces are a conglomerate of relatively dense tangential fields. A
good indication of it is, that a pane of glass polarises light in a
vertical orientation when the light passes through it under very acute
angle.

When it comes to the saline "plunger", the salt has no compatible
counterpart in the atmosphere as water does, therefore it can
communicate through compatible frequencies only with the salt in the
ground. It would be prudent to check if there may be difference in the
circulation rate of one and the same "Fletcher" set up inland and in a
coastal area. The chlorine in the air should make some difference.

When it comes to the sap in the trees, it is my opinion, that the
complexity of the process is rather well understood by you, although I
am a poor judge of that. I'd love to say that my knowledge of organic
structures is limited, but that would be a gross understatment, as it
is about nil.

I am sorry if I bored you.

My regards, Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to

Bob Vickery <vic...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
news:B4E6F4849...@slsdn55p48.ozemail.com.au...
> In article <89f3bb$s0a$3...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,

> "Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi everyone
> >
> >Could we re-open this topic for discussion? I feel I have something new
to
> >add to this field and wander if others find the accepted explanations for
> >fluid transport somewhat confusing.
> >
> >Has anyone developed a working model which demonstrates a lift of water
> >higher that the 10 metre limit set down in the physics literature some
three
> >hundred years ago.
> >
>
Not as such. You would have to take a capillary tube full of water and
draw it out to a vertical height greater than 10 m. The capillary would
have to be strong enough not to collapse inward under the tension generated
by the column of water. It would also have to be permeable to water to
allow evaporation at the top and entry of water at the bottom. This can't
be done with synthetic materials.
What can be done is to measure the strength of water. Plant physiology
texts describe experiments to do this. It turns out that columns of water
in capillary tubes are strong enough to be pulled up tall trees.
Calculations based on surface tension also show that water columns should
be very strong.
>
>
> >I have read about osmosis, capillary action and root pressure, but find
them
> >lacking in scientific validity.
> >
>
These phenomena are not enough to explain the ascent of sap. The theories
behind them are valid enough, it is just that they are not relevant to
explaining how sap gets up tall trees. Some text books are pretty
misleading on these topics. The one you quote ( GCSE BIOLOGY, D.G.
Mackean. ISBN 0-7195-4281-2 first published in 1986.) seems pretty
accurate.
>
>
> >Has anyone heard of alternative theories and if so could you provide us
with
> >the location to start this thread.

No.

Cheers


EL Hemetis <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message

news:89ptj3$g8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Henry Wilson

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
On 1 Mar 2000 03:01:26 -0500, Scott <lokkistup...@psynet.net>
wrote:

>Chemical, biosynthetic, and religious ideas asid, a major factor in
>water moving up a tree (or any plant, for that matter) is strongly
>dependant on capillary action.

Yes - but that might not be enough to transport water to the tops of
very high trees in sufficient quantity. The sodium pump idea was put
forward as a solution. Water will certainly rise inside a capillary
but it takes a lot of energy to get it out.

>The force that keeps plants upright
>and extended is called turgor pressure (forcing a liquid into an
>otherwise flexible membrane to fill up cavities in the material).

Turgor pressure is direct hydrostatic pressure inside a cell. It is
brought about by osmosis. Salts inside the cell create a negative
moisture 'potential' towards which water will move, in liquid or vapor
form. The resulting inflow of water through semipermeable membranes
causes a buildup of internal pressure which strengthens the cells and
makes the plant stand up. Moisture stops moving into a cell when its
turgor pressure equals the osmotic pressure of its contained salts.
Wilting occurs if the turgor pressure falls too much.

Plant physiologists talk in terms of moisture tension, which is a
measure of the ease with which moisture can be extracted. Pure water
in a pond has zero tension. Salt water in the ocean has many
atmospheres of tension. Similarly, all osmotic solutions which inhibit
evaporation, possess lowered potentials (increased tensions). The
relative humidity above a curved meniscus in a capillary will be
lower than that above a flat water surface and equal to the tension in
the water column in the capillary. An RH of about 98.5% corresponds to
a moisture tension of 15 atmospheres, which is about the permanent
wilting point. Plants will usually grow without soil, in humidities
greater than this.

If the atmospheric tension is lower than that of the soil, as it
usually is, water will flow naturally through the plant or tree and
out through the stomata, which of course, close up if the tension in
the plant increases too much. However it is generally believed that
water must continually flow up and down the plant to bring nutrients,
even when stomata are completely closed. This is thought to be
achieved with an active transport system.


>=Henry Wilson wrote:

>=> I told you what happens. Trees use a sodium pump, which uses
>=> electrical forces to literally transport water molecules up a
>=> conveying 'belt'. It gets its energy from other chemical reactions,
>=> ultimately from sunlight. I don't think the process is well
>=> understood, even today.


boilerma...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Hello Andrew.

Has that experiment with 78Ft intact water collumn been repeated by
anyone else ?

Not that I suspect that it did not work for you, but I suspect that it
may not work for everybody else.


Regards Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Hello Slavek

I have sent you a copy of a paper I wrote for level 4 science, which deals
in brief with gravity driven circulation. It represents only a fraction of
my work and for the newsgroup purposes I think it suffices for the time
being.

Though the tubes used in the Brixham Experiment did not show evaporation
taking place at the top, it did show water circulating through the tubes.
Surely, if you demonstrate the lift and circulation, water loss
"transpiration" would be an inevitable consequence of circulation through
the leaves, which incidentally look more like washing hung out to dry, than
solar panels, to me at least.


<boilerma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89rdj6$f1g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> Hello EL.
>
> My apology first, as I misinterpreted Andrew's set up from his post. He
> stated that the water was lifted to a height of much more than 32Ft.I
> understood that as being sucked from its lower end and dispensed at the

> higher elevation. That is apparently not the case.


>
> But. First question to pop up is, why the water column of seventy eight
> feet in a ~1/4" tube does not tear vacuum? Calling it cohesive forces is
> not exactly illuminating. What are they? I would expect that a felt
> plunger on a regular pump should work to. I doubt that it does.
>
> Somebody somewhere long time ago (Franklin?) built a gismo, where water
> is allowed to drip from an elevated vessel into a tray. The vessel was

> connected to the collecting tray with a wire across a spark gap. The


> spark gap would fire every so often, depending on the drip rate and the
> gap. I am certain that your scientific training will allow you to
> recollect this experiment. My unscientific mind just does not absorb

> these references with dates and names attached.I apologise.


>
> IMO, the cohesive forces are nothing else but structured el.force fields
> among nucleuses (gone turbulent in places), valence bonds.
>
> The second question is the density of saline solution which is supposed
> to act as a plunger. I hope I am correct here. The saline "plunger"

> extra weight in the set-up is rather miniscule compared to the rest of


> the liquid contained in the tube. It would seem prudent to calculate the
> speed of the circulation taking into account friction and the extra
> weight of the "plunger". I just cannot see that the few miligrams of
> extra weight (as understood by the clasical physics) could do the job
> over any relatively short period of time. It should be barely
> observable, if at all.

On the contrary, it provides a very efficient flow, in excess of that
observed in trees. Ironically, the structure of a tree, serves to reduce the
rate of gravity driven circulation.
Please try to repeat my experiments and see for yourself, bench model at
least.


> If my judgement is correct, it will become clear that another force,or
> set of forces is involved, or that the gravity theory is not generally
> applicable, if at all.

Your judgement should be based on what you see, not what you feel.

> When one understands gravitation as caused by a reciprocating
> communication of el.force field components combined with the geometric
> structuring of the paths of this communication and the enegetic
> (frequency) compatibility of interactions and polarity, the cohesive
> forces and gravitation get a common cause. The gravitational field (of
> let's say earth) becomes but a progressively weaker extension of the
> total of its component molecular (more likely nuclear) fields.
>
> IMO, the gravitational attraction of the apple is caused mostly by
> refractive distortion of the tangential (el.force) gravitational field
> caused by the atomic structure of the apple.

If an apple falls to the earth from a tree, it must send something back up
to replace the energy expended by the fall! Every action must have an
opposing reaction. This is relevant!

Fletcher has also set up at many inland areas and effected the same results,
I cannot see where you are leading with this?

Kind regards

Andrew

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
The exp. is fully repeatable and works every time. I have repeated it many
times at varying heights and exceeded the 78 feet.

The place to obtain the tubing is a brewery supplier

Andrew

<boilerma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89s3fs$thu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> Hello Andrew.
>
> Has that experiment with 78Ft intact water collumn been repeated by
> anyone else ?
>
> Not that I suspect that it did not work for you, but I suspect that it
> may not work for everybody else.
>
>

> Regards Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to

EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
Andrew,
You do not seem to have acknowledged my refutations. :-)
Here they are again.
Please answer.
EL

[Hemet]
Hi Andrew :-)

With best regards.

EL Hemetis


boilerma...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
In article <89sd83$2mh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Slavek
>
> I have sent you a copy of a paper I wrote for level 4 science,

Yes, you did, thank you again.

Snip.

> Though the tubes used in the Brixham Experiment did not show
evaporation
> taking place at the top, it did show water circulating through the
tubes.
> Surely, if you demonstrate the lift and circulation, water loss
> "transpiration" would be an inevitable consequence of circulation
through
> the leaves, which incidentally look more like washing hung out to dry,
than
> solar panels, to me at least.

I pass maple trees every day right now, which are tapped for the sap. No
leafs, subfreezing temperatures. I would say that evaporation does not
have much to do with the liquid circulation in the maples.

Snip.

> Please try to repeat my experiments and see for yourself, bench model
at
> least.

I do not consider other people to be liers unless proven so. If you tell
me this thing works, I trust your observations.

> > If my judgement is correct, it will become clear that another
force,or
> > set of forces is involved, or that the gravity theory is not
generally
> > applicable, if at all.
>
> Your judgement should be based on what you see, not what you feel.

I have conluded that the rate of circulation in your experiment was
readilly observable from your posts. My question is: How come? It is
even worse in a tree. When one takes into consideration the diameters of
the capilaries, the friction should not allow for the volumes to come
through. But they do.

> > IMO, the gravitational attraction of the apple is caused mostly by
> > refractive distortion of the tangential (el.force) gravitational
field
> > caused by the atomic structure of the apple.
>
> If an apple falls to the earth from a tree, it must send something
back up
> to replace the energy expended by the fall! Every action must have an
> opposing reaction. This is relevant!

That is what I thought some half a year ago myself. Today, I see it a
bit differently. That apple will do something to something else, no
question about that, but I do not see it as certain, any more, that it
will accelerate something else. I may be wrong, though.

> > When it comes to the saline "plunger", the salt has no compatible
> > counterpart in the atmosphere as water does, therefore it can
> > communicate through compatible frequencies only with the salt in the
> > ground. It would be prudent to check if there may be difference in
the
> > circulation rate of one and the same "Fletcher" set up inland and in
a
> > coastal area. The chlorine in the air should make some difference.
>
> Fletcher has also set up at many inland areas and effected the same
results,
> I cannot see where you are leading with this?

Are you saying that the rate of circulation in an identical set up
inland as well as coastal is identical?

I am not certain if I am leading anywhere. I just want to know anything
related to the behaviout of materials in gravitational field. If I may
seem to lead to anything, it is the el.force nature of gravitation.
Comparing the behaviours in different set ups helps to understand what
is gravitation all about. I thing that I have a single concept, which
can explain and tie together just about anything, orthodox or weird.

> Kind regards
>
> Andrew

I thank you very much for your time.

Kind regards Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
Hello Hemetis

Thank you for your response to my posts and for your recognition of the
importance of the experiments. The theory I sent to you was written for
level 4 science and I was limited to 3000 words.
Given the limitations, I think I did a good job of clarifying the main
points of the theory. However it represents only a minute fraction of the
whole picture.


----- Original Message -----
From: Hemetis
To: AndrewKenneth Fletcher
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 2:51 AM
Subject: RE: NEW THEORY FOR FLUID TRANSPORT Re: How does water really reach
the tops of trees?08/August/1999


Hi Andrew :-)

You have the honor of being a true scientist and experimentalist.
Yet you have to answer for some big questions.
1- You have to explain the results of "Strasburger 1893" who killed the
lower part of an Oak with picric acid and demonstrated that "all" the stem
raised a "Fuchsin aquatic solution".

****
I am not familiar with the above mentioned experiment and would appreciate
more details.

Acid rain causes the death of many trees. Has anyone considered the fact
that an increase in acid will cause an increase in the rate at which
minerals are dissolved. For instance, if I pour battery acid on concrete,
it dissolves!

If you increase the amount of minerals in water, you increase the specific
gravity of said water. When you relate this to the Brixham Exp. Any increase
in the S.G. of the water contained in the upward flowing side of the tube
will reduce the flow in the downside!

If the water at the said container becomes too heavy, the experiment would
stop or at least slow down to the point of almost stopping. The tree would
face the same problems according to the gravity theory. However, if the
weather conditions promoted accelerated evaporation from the leaves, this
would compensate for the heavier water at the root and transport would
continue.

Killing the bottom part of the tree would not cause the circulation to stop,
it would not even prevent the tree from drawing water from the soil.
The xylem is after all already dead and the downward flow would simply find
another route, possibly into a xylem, or by oozing from a damaged part of
the tree.


2- There is an established "Cohesion theory" which explains most of your
theory and you have to show what is the difference.

****
I am unaware of anyone showing water flowing vertically up to 78 feet.

Correct me if I am wrong, but cohesion simply explains how water bonds to
water. I fail to see how this could explain bulk flow vertically up or down.

As for chemical reactions at the leaf causing electrical influences on water
and then effectively transporting a hundred gallons of water from the roots
of a mature oak to the leaves, just does not work for me. If it has been
shown experimentally, I will swim the ocean and shake your hand tomorrow.

Once you have observed water flowing in tubes, and I sincerely hope you will
try at least the benchtop model, you cannot deny the existence of gravity
driven circulation! The efficiency of this system sets it aside from all
other attempts to explain fluid transport.

Since 1994, I have convinced many scientists, including Professor Edzard
Ernst at Exeter together with three doctors, Professor Michel Cabanac,
University Laval, Quebec. Professor H.T.Hammel. Emeritus member of the Max
Planck Instiute, Dr David Cutler, Kew Gardens, Forestry Commission
Scientists- who also attended the Brixham Exp. Professor Chui Exeter
University. and many many more. Yet nothing happens. I also know the reasons
why nothing happens!

3- If "salt solution" must "fall under gravitation to pull a water column up
and that is how the plant "feeds", how can you explain water circulation in
horizontal plants being so ordered as xylem feeding forward and phloem
feeding backward?

Horizontal flow? If I lay a water filled tube horizontally, with salt
solution added at the middle of the tube and the ends capped off, there
would be water transport spreading outwards from both sides of the saline
solution, and in order for this to happen, clean water would be drawn
towards the centre of the salt solution.

Even horizontal plants are elevated to some degree above ground level and
roots are usually below the surface of the soil. this is all that is
required to trigger transport.

4- How do you explain the homogeneity of climbing plants when they make a
down turn following the light- intensity?

The energy source in the soft part of plants would alter the pressures in
the xylem and phloem on one side of the stem, causing the plant to turn
towards the energy source.

Imagine a length of string attached to the trunk and running through soft
new growth in a tree. Give the string a pull and the branch is bent towards
which ever side the string is inserted.


5- In some ground plants the stem grows horizontally on the ground and we
can see multiple root systems along the stem and multiple shoot systems as
well, How do you explain the sap streams in such a plant, where all roots
absorb water and all shoots transpire. What is the direction of the flow?
where does your theory fit?
Do you think it is bidirectional? Or do you have to admit that the dead duct
network provides the path to the living parts, where one would push and
another would pull "on demand" and on cell to cell interactions.

The new shoots and roots would set up an independent flow system, which uses
the main flow systems water to operate. Take a cutting and it grows
independently to the plant it is cut from.

The roots on such a plant face down and the leaves point up.


So, yes your experiment is a wonderful verification for the Cohesion theory
which explains the minimum requirement of energy for water transport in a
living plant, where mineral and sugar diffusion from production line to
assembly of polymers locations would pull the associated water along with it
and must be replaced "Cohesively".

6- In many houses we have hanging pots for plant decoration in which plants
"hang down from the pot.
Do you have the slightest doubt that water in xylem is moving down and water
in phloem is moving up?
This should disprove your theory completely.

You can't disprove the truth! You can cloud its validity with words, but
clouds have a nasty habit of letting the light through at times.

Oh boy, do I have some doubts.

If I shaped my tube loop to the exact shape of the plant you refer to and
released the saline solution at the same point as the leaves would release
their sap, you would still see gravity driven circulation, from a single
cell to a giant redwood, it makes no difference to gravity. Try it!
Furthermore, if there is a U bend in the plant, roots will form at the
bottom of the loop and this is used effectively to take cuttings from some
plants by pegging a branch so that it is covered in soil.


So think deeply because your contribution to science is valid experimentally
but your theory is defective.
That is why I have been repeatedly encouraging you to study plant physiology
deeply and check the established theories profoundly before you postulate a
new one.

We are studying plant physiology deeply as we exchange views and I am very
grateful for the opportunity to share your knowledge.

I do have a fair bit of knowledge in this field. However my work has led me
to helping people with neurological conditions, but that should be left out
of this discussion.

Regardless of your theorization I must congratulate you for the wonderful
experiment that should be known by your name.
In the history of science thousands of scientists have contributed to the
bulk of experimental data.
Yet few make it to the top including Clowns like Einstein.

With best regards.

EL Hemetis

Thank you for these words, they show me that some people at least are not
shackled to the powers that be.
Your integrity is admirable.

Kind regards

Andrew

The following review came from a letter I wrote to professor H T Hammel,
who is member of the Max Plank Institute.

Within a 2 weeks I received his reply

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MEDIICINE date September 6/ 1995

Dear Mr Fletcher:

I received the information you sent me regarding your ideas about fluid
transport in trees, in tubing and in the vascular system in humans.

I will study your ideas and comment upon them as soon as possible. A Quick
scan of your Brixham experiment prompts me to ask if you conducted this
experiment with boiled water without any solute added to the tubing on
either side of the central point which you raise 24 meters? I expect that
you could raise the tubing to the same height with or without solute in the
water. In any case , your experiment confirms that clean water (water that
is unbroken water, water that is without a single minute bubble of vapour)
can support tension of several hundreds of atmospheres. The record tension
obtained experimentally is 270 atmospheres. At 10 degrees C. (c.f. Briggs,
L. Limiting negative pressure of water. Journal of Applied Physics 21:
721-722 1950).

I expect even this tension at brake point can be exceeded by careful
cleansing of the water, to remove even the most minute region of gas phase.
When the water is already broken, as occurs when gas is entrapped on
particulate matter in ordinary water, the water will expand around even a
single break when tension (negative Pressure) is applied to the water. When
you boil the water, prior to applying (2.4-1) ATM negative pressure to the
water in the highest point of the tubing, you eliminate some of these breaks
in ordinary water. I expect that dissolving NaCl or other solutes in the
water will have little or no effect on the way you measure the tensile
strength of water.

I am enclosing some reprints that may interest you. Some of these deal with
negative pressures we have measured in tall trees, mangroves and desert
shrubs. Other reprints deal with how solutes alter water in aqueous
solutions and how colloidal solutes (proteins) affect the flux of protein
free fluid between plasma in capillaries and interstitial fluid.

Sincerely H.T. Hammel Ph.D.

EL Hemetis <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:89ptj3$g8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <89ph7b$b2f$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,


> "Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> <snip>

> =================================================
> My words mean nothing without your reconstruction
> Reflect on my words and SEE YOURSELF.
> =================================================
>
>

EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
Andrew,
You are missing the big point again.
Please remember how a mercury barometer works.
The inverted 'glass' tube shall contain "vacuum" or mercury vapor
leaving the height of the column proportional to the atmospheric
pressure, which is 76 cm high.
Each mm of Hg is a unit of pressure called the Torr.
The average AP is 1013 mb. and it can support approximately 10 meters
of pure water at 20 degrees Celsius at sea level.
Therefore the U tube should develop vacuum in the middle if it was open
to the atmospheric pressure unless the cohesive force was greater than
the column of water which is the case in 'pure water columns'(no gas
bubbles).
H.T. Hammel Ph.D. was telling you that he did not believe that mineral
solutions could change this fact very much.
In the established plant physiology we already have this theory and all
scientists exposed to plant physiology accept the fact that the sap is
a unified bulk of water that is not under any pumping.
The established theory is that the water bulk of a plant is exposed to
pressure differential zones.
From high pressure to low pressure across the average pressure, one
molecule at a time pulls a chain of replacements.
All molecular replacements that occur simultaneously account for the
total flow.

To take your experimental result into the archives you have to cross
the fire wall. :-)
Firstly, you need a control experiment with injected water that contain
no salt.
After injection, where dose it go? Up or down? would it flow down
anyway with salt or without?
Since it is under cohesive tension then the increasing level in the
tube tip container shall not tend to equate the other side.
Does the extra volume of water injected escape through the least
resistive path (downwards) and cause stress above it pulling some more
water from the other end?
Secondly, you need to repeat your experiment at least three times with
three different NaCl concentrations of one normal, 2N and 3N, but the
injected volume MUST be exactly the same to demonstrate the major point
in your theory.
Thirdly, you need to construct a special bench experiment with a closed
loop tubing of a single tube connected with a 'T' connector. On the
third branch of the 'T' connector put a mechanical valve that connects
a side chamber full of super concentrated und colored salt. Turn the
position of the tube to make the 'T' become on a side of the cycle and
open the valve to release the colored concentrated salt and then record
your observation.

Not before then could you ever get the proper attention.
If the experimental results do not turn to be what you expected, do not
be disappointed.
Your enthusiasm is wonderful but your theory is defective.
In one of my old experiments I had to make three control sets and three
hundred variations of parameters to get the Ph. D.
The academic world is tough and you must be honest and strong to
persevere.

The weak point in your experiment is the volume of water injected from
a high position.
This never happens in a plant.

I have no interest in putting you down or deceiving you either.
I kindly guide you to safe ground.

Best regards.

EL Hemetis.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
Hello Slavek

Gravity is simple! not complicated one bit!

mass = gravity = mass.

In pure space, beyond the influence of planets, "if at all possible",
objects exist unaffected by the restriction of friction and unaffected by
motion.
The atomic particles and their components have a pushing /repelling and
pulling/attracting force, which maintains the components in an orbit,
preventing them from becoming a solid mass.
As is the case with magnets, the atomic particles should therefore always
link together at opposite polarities.
if two particles met in space at exactly the same force, they should link
together and become one. Not so! The two become one but remain separate
items. They link together and cancel out the pushing force, yet retain the
pulling force and in doing so marginally increase the pulling force.
However, the statement that the pushing force is cancelled is incorrect,
more the effects of motion in the pushing force are cancelled by the
opposing force. Resulting in no net movement of the two particles, which
remain in orbit around each other due to the weak forces, involved.
Because the pulling force of the two atomic particles has been increased by
the addition of 1, more particles are attracted, each time a particle joins
the group, it adds its own forces to the pulling force and the pushing
force, resulting in no net movement. However, there is nothing to stop
particles entering the group at an angle. = Net result, rotation. As
rotation increases it becomes more likely that more particles will hit the
target at an angle. Therefore increasing the rotation of the group in one
direction, adding centrifugal forces to the group, which counter the
attraction of the group around the equatorial line, a bit like a spinning
wet ball repels water at the centre and like the observed ring around
Saturn.
Eventually, the group's collective pushing force will add sufficient weight
to the mass and cause the particles to form a rotating solid. This would
then be the birth of a planet.
As the mass increases at an ever accelerating rate, all be it a painfully
slow process, it draws in more particles until its combined attractive force
is such that it is able to attract bigger particles further accelerating its
inevitable growth.
The alignment of all of the particles becomes affected by the centrifugal
force, adding collective order to its forces and favourably affecting its
continued rotation.
The surface of the ever-expanding mass would be stable, as little to no
disturbance would be present, as is the case on smaller planets that are
unaffected to any degree by larger planets. I mentioned this so that you
avoid comparing orbiting moons that are stripped of their material by larger
planets.
When critical mass is achieved, the collective gravitational effect begins
to convert joining particles into material, which can exist under the
influence of the magnitude of mass. This conversion may be proved to be
responsible for Aurora Borealis.
At some point in mass the gravitational pull of the planet must convert
particles into hydrogen and oxygen, as we know it, also adding the
components of airborne particles to the mass.
Eventually the gravitational pull of the planet becomes such that it must
convert the airborne particles of hydrogen and oxygen into water. It should
therefore be possible to calculate the size of a planet and the existence of
water. Ironically, NASA should be really looking to visit a planet of
comparable mass to that of the Earth in order to find waters.
Remember, the pushing force cannot be cancelled out and the net result of
all of this pushing is friction, "amplified" by the pressure and properties
of the relatively new planets developing oceans as more and more Hydrogen
and oxygen is converted into water and falls as rain.
Water always finds the lowest part and the weight of the water concentrates
the pressure, ensuring that any depression in the planets surface is
exploited. This collective weight of the water presses the surface of the
planet down and the oceans inevitably become deeper. Try throwing some water
on dry sand.
It is worth while considering where airborne material will fall on a
centrifuged object, this explains why snow is stored at the North and South
poles on Earth.
The pressure from the ever expanding water, forces the land up, exactly like
a truck wheel forces mud up either side of the pressure point.
But there is a serious price to pay for friction at the centre of the
planet. Rock begins to melt and magma forms, insulated by the planet crust,
until it erupts from the surface-giving rise to the development of
volcanoes.
The magma, being less dense than the compressed material at the core of the
planet, is ejected. A simple flow and return system. The development of
volcanoes and the activity of volcanoes on Earth will therefore continue to
become more apparent as the planet continues to grow. Which should be a big
concern for cities built in defective areas!
Evidence for the expanding planet is obvious by the shifting plates and
separating continents.
Furthermore, if you want to retrieve history, you usually find yourself
digging for fossils and artefacts.
So the bigger the planet the hotter it becomes. The centrifugal force
increases around the equatorial line preventing debris from entering around
its belt, leaving a visible ring as observed with Saturn. It should
therefore be observed to affect more volcanic activity close to the equator.
However, the Sun and the Moon bring about additional forces to the planets
surface and when a total eclipse occurs close to the equator, the collective
combined pull of the two planets eases the Earth's surface pressure and
causes it to distort.
(I actually predicted the earthquake activity which followed the last
Eclipse, and have witnesses! But no one ever listens do they?)
The additional disturbance at the core, caused by the external forces of the
eclipse, continues to generate additional friction and the likelihood of
volcanoes and earthquakes increase in the wake of the eclipse.
The rotation of the Earth, together with the energy from the Sun, causes the
oceans to circulate.
A simple flow and return system is also responsible for this
Brilliant Film, produced by a genius: After The Warming, presented By James
Burke. Maryland Public Television and Film Australia. 1990.

In 1989 research had been undertaken into the way the ocean currents work.
The group of scientists had discovered that the Gulf Stream is driven by a
combination of evaporation, salt concentration and gravitational pull.
The Gulf Stream, flowing on the surface, warming up as it comes through the
tropics, North up the Atlantic. Around Iceland The winds evaporate a lot of
the water so the water gets saltier. Now salty waters heavier so it sinks.
Five billion gallons a second, down to the bottom of the Atlantic. Then it
flows South an under water river 20 times bigger than all the rivers in the
world. Then East and then North up the Pacific, where it hits the continents
and comes back up to the surface, eventually coming back down through the
tropics, heating up as it goes, to become the warm Gulf Stream again. The
North Atlantic , where evaporation makes the water so salty that it sinks,
is what drives the whole thing, by using gravity in order to propel the
solutions. No tubes yet a clear indication of the magnitude of power
generated from a simple none living force.
But say that salty water didn't sink. There'd be no more warm Gulf Stream
pulled up to fill the gap, caused by the downward flowing, heavy salt water.
And with no more warm Gulf Stream, the temperature in the north would
plummet, so the ice caps would expand, with world wide consequences. Just
like it did 10,000 odd years ago. But for the Gulf Stream not to sink it
would have had to become less salty, and what on earth could do something on
that kind of scale?
A giant prehistoric lake in Canada, Lake Agassiz, B.730 BC. Held back by an
ice wall that melted as the planet warmed up after the ice age. Billions of
tons of fresh lake water suddenly flowed down the Saint Lawrence River into
the Atlantic, making thousands of square miles of ocean-surface Gulf Stream
water too fresh to sink, stopping the entire ocean circulation. Which in
turn prevented the Warm Gulf Stream from coming North, so a massive drop in
temperature and expansion of the polar caps world-wide. That was the key to
everything. Change the saltiness of the Atlantic and you change the world's
weather.
All of the additional matter thrown into the atmosphere from volcanoes,
provides the planets surface with new and alien materials and these combine
with water to generate independent flow and return circulation, giving rise
to the animation of once lifeless material, but that's another avenue we
should avoid. It is not relevant to your questions and would complicate this
thread beyond belief, and forms part of my unpublished book, titled "The
Gravity Of Life". I must avoid complications for the time being and hope you
will excuse me.
The whole of life on Earth pales into insignificance, when it is realised
that we are on a one way ticket to Armageddon! It hit me like a tonne of
bricks.
The Earth must keep growing for it is the order and nature of every planet
to either evolve into a sun or become part of a planet which evolves into a
sun. My best guess at when this will happen is that the oceans will
eventually meet with the magma and the reaction would be an almighty
ignition of everything we know. Evidence for this is the sheer volume of
stars on a clear night and the variety of states of each and every planet in
our solar system.
I had an in-depth conversation with a very good friend of the family. Sue,
who is a spiritualist and into stuff that is too complicated for me to
grasp. Sue showed me a translation of a scripture / prophesy, I will try to
find the authors name, it stated that the Earth will have two Sun's. I
gasped and mumbled Jupiter. Summoned up in a well know song titled: We gotta
get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do. Probably written
by evacuees from another world.
Context taken from: The Gravity of Life. by Andrew K Fletcher

<boilerma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89smgu$a6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <89sd83$2mh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,


> "Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Slavek
> >
> > I have sent you a copy of a paper I wrote for level 4 science,
>

> Yes, you did, thank you again.
>
> Snip.
>

> > Though the tubes used in the Brixham Experiment did not show
> evaporation
> > taking place at the top, it did show water circulating through the
> tubes.
> > Surely, if you demonstrate the lift and circulation, water loss
> > "transpiration" would be an inevitable consequence of circulation
> through
> > the leaves, which incidentally look more like washing hung out to dry,
> than
> > solar panels, to me at least.
>

> I pass maple trees every day right now, which are tapped for the sap. No
> leafs, subfreezing temperatures. I would say that evaporation does not
> have much to do with the liquid circulation in the maples.

Sub freezing temperatures are used to freeze-dry food, so would provide an
ideal climate for evaporation.

When a maple is tapped, the stored sap is provided with an escape route,
which stimulates circulation because the flowing sap will exert a dragging
effect on the fluids retained in the tree.

> Snip.


>
> > Please try to repeat my experiments and see for yourself, bench model
> at
> > least.
>

> I do not consider other people to be liers unless proven so. If you tell
> me this thing works, I trust your observations.

Thank you.

> > > If my judgement is correct, it will become clear that another
> force,or
> > > set of forces is involved, or that the gravity theory is not
> generally
> > > applicable, if at all.
> >
> > Your judgement should be based on what you see, not what you feel.
>

> I have conluded that the rate of circulation in your experiment was
> readilly observable from your posts. My question is: How come? It is
> even worse in a tree. When one takes into consideration the diameters of
> the capilaries, the friction should not allow for the volumes to come
> through. But they do.

Try to stop thinking of gravity as a force we strive to overcome and start
bathing in its beneficial effects on the circulation of everything on earth,
from a volcano to a single cell.

The structure of the tree, as you rightly state serves to slow down the
flow, when it is compared with the tube model and the Atlantic Conveyor
System. It is important to remember that water will find its way down
through whatever the tree places in front of it. Consider the fossils of
dead trees in desert areas. Immortalised in stone, the minerals of the dying
tree, percolated down and solidified with the lower trunk to form stone.
Even in decay, this simple flow and return system must operate. Like it or
not it is a law of nature!


> > > IMO, the gravitational attraction of the apple is caused mostly by
> > > refractive distortion of the tangential (el.force) gravitational
> field
> > > caused by the atomic structure of the apple.
> >
> > If an apple falls to the earth from a tree, it must send something
> back up
> > to replace the energy expended by the fall! Every action must have an
> > opposing reaction. This is relevant!
>

> That is what I thought some half a year ago myself. Today, I see it a
> bit differently. That apple will do something to something else, no
> question about that, but I do not see it as certain, any more, that it
> will accelerate something else. I may be wrong, though.

The downward force of the apple is acting upon the atmosphere, which is less
dense. For example, if I push a toy car with a given force and ferocity and
use exactly the same force as I push a real car, the toy car will hurtle
forward, accelerated by the excess of force. But the real car won't budge.
Turn the scenario around placing yourself as the apple and the atmosphere as
the toy car.


> > > When it comes to the saline "plunger", the salt has no compatible
> > > counterpart in the atmosphere as water does, therefore it can
> > > communicate through compatible frequencies only with the salt in the
> > > ground. It would be prudent to check if there may be difference in
> the
> > > circulation rate of one and the same "Fletcher" set up inland and in
> a
> > > coastal area. The chlorine in the air should make some difference.
> >
> > Fletcher has also set up at many inland areas and effected the same
> results,
> > I cannot see where you are leading with this?

Neither can I.

> Are you saying that the rate of circulation in an identical set up
> inland as well as coastal is identical?

It appears to be so to the human eye.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity and rare luxury of sharing my
work in a civil and courteous environment. These newsgroups are indeed the
future!
I thank you all for your time, for we can never truly be repaid for our
time, it is a priceless gift!

Kind regards Andrew

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher Gra...@bun.com

> I am not certain if I am leading anywhere. I just want to know anything

> related to the behaviour of materials in gravitational field. If I may


> seem to lead to anything, it is the el.force nature of gravitation.
> Comparing the behaviours in different set ups helps to understand what
> is gravitation all about. I thing that I have a single concept, which
> can explain and tie together just about anything, orthodox or weird.

> I thank you very much for your time.
>

> Kind regards Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
Hello Slavek

<boilerma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message


news:89smgu$a6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <89sd83$2mh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Andrew Kenneth Fletcher" <gravit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Slavek
> >
> > I have sent you a copy of a paper I wrote for level 4 science,
>

> Yes, you did, thank you again.
>
> Snip.
>

> > Though the tubes used in the Brixham Experiment did not show
> evaporation
> > taking place at the top, it did show water circulating through the
> tubes.
> > Surely, if you demonstrate the lift and circulation, water loss
> > "transpiration" would be an inevitable consequence of circulation
> through
> > the leaves, which incidentally look more like washing hung out to dry,
> than
> > solar panels, to me at least.
>

> I pass maple trees every day right now, which are tapped for the sap. No
> leafs, subfreezing temperatures. I would say that evaporation does not
> have much to do with the liquid circulation in the maples.

Sub freezing temperatures are used to freeze-dry food, so would provide an
ideal climate for evaporation.

When a maple is tapped, the stored sap is provided with an escape route,
which stimulates circulation because the flowing sap will exert a dragging
effect on the fluids retained in the tree.

> Snip.
>


> > Please try to repeat my experiments and see for yourself, bench model
> at
> > least.
>

> I do not consider other people to be liers unless proven so. If you tell
> me this thing works, I trust your observations.

Thank you.

> > > If my judgement is correct, it will become clear that another


> force,or
> > > set of forces is involved, or that the gravity theory is not
> generally
> > > applicable, if at all.
> >
> > Your judgement should be based on what you see, not what you feel.
>

> I have conluded that the rate of circulation in your experiment was
> readilly observable from your posts. My question is: How come? It is
> even worse in a tree. When one takes into consideration the diameters of
> the capilaries, the friction should not allow for the volumes to come
> through. But they do.

Try to stop thinking of gravity as a force we strive to overcome and start
bathing in its beneficial effects on the circulation of everything on earth,
from a volcano to a single cell.

The structure of the tree, as you rightly state serves to slow down the
flow, when it is compared with the tube model and the Atlantic Conveyor
System. It is important to remember that water will find its way down
through whatever the tree places in front of it. Consider the fossils of
dead trees in desert areas. Immortalised in stone, the minerals of the dying
tree, percolated down and solidified with the lower trunk to form stone.
Even in decay, this simple flow and return system must operate. Like it or
not it is a law of nature!

> > > IMO, the gravitational attraction of the apple is caused mostly by
> > > refractive distortion of the tangential (el.force) gravitational
> field
> > > caused by the atomic structure of the apple.
> >
> > If an apple falls to the earth from a tree, it must send something
> back up
> > to replace the energy expended by the fall! Every action must have an
> > opposing reaction. This is relevant!
>

> That is what I thought some half a year ago myself. Today, I see it a
> bit differently. That apple will do something to something else, no
> question about that, but I do not see it as certain, any more, that it
> will accelerate something else. I may be wrong, though.

The downward force of the apple is acting upon the atmosphere, which is less
dense. For example, if I push a toy car with a given force and ferocity and
use exactly the same force as I push a real car, the toy car will hurtle
forward, accelerated by the excess of force. But the real car won't budge.
Turn the scenario around placing yourself as the apple and the atmosphere as
the toy car.

> > > When it comes to the saline "plunger", the salt has no compatible
> > > counterpart in the atmosphere as water does, therefore it can
> > > communicate through compatible frequencies only with the salt in the
> > > ground. It would be prudent to check if there may be difference in
> the
> > > circulation rate of one and the same "Fletcher" set up inland and in
> a
> > > coastal area. The chlorine in the air should make some difference.
> >
> > Fletcher has also set up at many inland areas and effected the same
> results,
> > I cannot see where you are leading with this?

Neither can I.

> Are you saying that the rate of circulation in an identical set up
> inland as well as coastal is identical?

It appears to be so to the human eye.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity and rare luxury of sharing my
work in a civil and courteous environment. These newsgroups are indeed the
future!
I thank you all for your time, for we can never truly be repaid for our
time, it is a priceless gift!

Kind regards Andrew

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher Gra...@bun.com

> I am not certain if I am leading anywhere. I just want to know anything
> related to the behaviour of materials in gravitational field. If I may
> seem to lead to anything, it is the el.force nature of gravitation.
> Comparing the behaviours in different set ups helps to understand what
> is gravitation all about. I thing that I have a single concept, which
> can explain and tie together just about anything, orthodox or weird.
> I thank you very much for your time.
>

> Kind regards Slavek.

Andrew Kenneth Fletcher

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to

EL Hemetis <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:89tbje$nvc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> Andrew,
> You are missing the big point again.
> Please remember how a mercury barometer works.
> The inverted 'glass' tube shall contain "vacuum" or mercury vapor
> leaving the height of the column proportional to the atmospheric
> pressure, which is 76 cm high.
> Each mm of Hg is a unit of pressure called the Torr.
> The average AP is 1013 mb. and it can support approximately 10 meters
> of pure water at 20 degrees Celsius at sea level.
> Therefore the U tube should develop vacuum in the middle if it was open
> to the atmospheric pressure unless the cohesive force was greater than
> the column of water which is the case in 'pure water columns'(no gas
> bubbles).

Hemetis, it is you that is missing the big point. The flow system we are
dealing with here does not require pressure to function. If we took the loop
tube experiment which is joined, shown in the theory you received and
pressurised it either way, it would still flow! Pressure is irrelevant!
The flow happens and presures develop as a result of the flow. The suction
at the root and the upward force is caused by the flow, dragging water
through the membranes. Not osmosis!!!!!

I disagree that the u tube should develop a vacumm. It cetainly did not
happen at Brixham until the beed of water broke.

The barometer works as you rightly say and is well known and I have no
problem with its accepted explanation.
However, Torricelli was not trying to create a barometer when he first
encountered the problem. He was trying to get water beyond the thirty three
feet limit, and when he realsied he was on a hiding to nothing, he made use
of his failure and gave birth to the barometer.

If an inverted, water filled glass tube, capped at one end is raised beyond
the thirty three feet limit, the water molecules are ripped away from the
top of the glass and the space above the water then contains a vacumm.
Agreed?

Therefore all we have done is demonstrated the adhesive qualities of water
sticking to a glass surface. When I set the experiment up, I could see that
the cohesive qualities of water would be far stronger than the adhesive
qualities of water. I could also see that there are no capped tubes in
nature as there are no capped wires of worth in electrical circuits. When
you plug an applience into a socket, you complete the circuit and the flow
of electricity becomes active.
In water, the circuit has the abillity to repair itself, because of its
liquid properties. When we cut and cap the end of a plant, the ciruclation
is only temporarily interrupted. The changes in pressure, caused by the
removed part of the plant, merely serve to cause the fluids to find a new
way out of the plant, observed in the development of new growth elsewhere.

> H.T. Hammel Ph.D. was telling you that he did not believe that mineral
> solutions could change this fact very much.
> In the established plant physiology we already have this theory and all
> scientists exposed to plant physiology accept the fact that the sap is
> a unified bulk of water that is not under any pumping.

Have I mentioned pumping? There is certainly no pump in any of my
experiments.
The liquid string annalogy explains the way the fluids behave perfectly.
Like a rope over a pully, its not the external pressures that influence the
decent of an object of weeight attached to one side, it is the effect that
gravity exerts on the object and nothing else.

> The established theory is that the water bulk of a plant is exposed to
> pressure differential zones.
> From high pressure to low pressure across the average pressure, one
> molecule at a time pulls a chain of replacements.
> All molecular replacements that occur simultaneously account for the
> total flow.

Please forgive me, as I have problems with this accepted approach to the
problem.
See the post by ZAZ, which relates to the Britanica Database. If you or
anyone else has a model which demonstrates this non-living physical force
drawing water to anywhere near the height of a couple of feet, please let me
know where it may be found?

z@z

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
I wrote:

: Negative pressures in the context of water seems a rather strange and


: questionable concept. Isn't normally an atmospheric pressure of (almost)
: zero enough to separate all water molecules from each other?

In another post of this thread (sci.physics) the following quote from a
professor of the Max Planck institute has been presented:

"... confirms that clean water (water that is unbroken water, water


that is without a single minute bubble of vapour) can support tension
of several hundreds of atmospheres. The record tension obtained
experimentally is 270 atmospheres. At 10 degrees C. (c.f. Briggs,
L. Limiting negative pressure of water. Journal of Applied Physics
21: 721-722 1950)."

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=593297324

Some time ago I have read myself somewhere about negative pressures in
water. Because I could not imagine the possibility of negative water
pressures, I concluded that experiments must have been misinterpreted.

If I remember well, negative pressures are generated by fast rotating
tubes filled with water.

:
__________:__________
|__________:__________|
:
rotation axis

High negative pressures are assumed to appear near the rotation axis
resulting from centrifugal forces.

My main objection: if the tube is completely filled with water "without
a single minute bubble of vapour", then missing space could be enough to
prevent the water molecules from separating near the rotation axis. The
experiment depends on both the volume of the water and the capacity of
the tube. This capacity could be especially sensitive to the pressures
(internal vs external) near the rotation axis.

If we assume that negative pressures in liquids are in the same way
direction independent as positive pressures, then we get in the case of
-270 atmospheres in the tube a pressure of 271 atmospheres (the weight
of around 270 kg per cm^2) on the walls. Such strong forces on the
walls (based on adhesion) are or would be a convincing demonstration
of negative water pressure.

If sophisticated experiments have actually demonstrated negative
water pressures, and my criticism is primarily based on my own
predjudices, then we have a very special property of water:

Whereas surface water molecules DO leave their fellow molecules if
they are not continuously "pushed back" by an atmospheric pressure,
they DO NOT leave the "group" if they are even "pulled away" by the
negative pressure of other water molecules.

I'm grateful for interesting references on this subject.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/physics1.html

Dunk

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>I'm grateful for interesting references on this subject.

The Rise of Sap - there was actually a book with a title something
like that. The 'netgative pressure' is from the pulling efect of
molecules that evaporate at the leaves. The latest ref I have:
Transporting Water in Plants, Martin J Canny, American Scientist 86:
152-159 (March-April 1998): "Evaporation from leaves pulls water to the
top of a tree, but living cells make that possible by protecting the
streched water and repairing it when it breaks". It is a nice article,
explaining how wood works with water.
But note that lianas (woody vines) use a different system. Ever see a
cut vine (say a sturdy grape vine with a small gash)? Water steadily
flows from the cut. This is a way to get a drink in the woods, if you
don't pick the wrong plant. I don't have a ref for the biophysics of
this offhand, but one author (if you want to search) is Jack Putz, a
plant-oriented tropical ecologist at the University of Florida.
Dunk


EL Hemetis

unread,
Mar 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/6/00