How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?

but if evaporation is doing the work you don't need the tube coming down and that is just the conventional model you are so dead set against.

Evaporation is doing the work. But not in the way it has been erroneously interpreted by Dave et al. I am perplexed that you have stated that there is no downward flow in trees?

From an earlier post in case you missed it:
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.

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.

Rosy:
Hm, I'm not at all convinced.
Transport of sugars between living cells (such as in the phloem) actually requires the input of energy. Sugars use ATP (the cellular energy transfer compund) to move sugar (and amin acid, and any charged or bulky species) molecules across cell membranes, including across the boundaries between seive plates.
I simply can't see how this is compatible with the idea that the gravitational potential of the more concentrated solution is lifting the water up the xylem.

Please repeat the simple experiments and understand the driving forces of nature.
If you cant get hold of the tubes, joints and syringe body, let me post them to you.

1. It is an impossibility of the highest degree for evaporation to take place from a liquid containing solutes of salt and sugars, without concentrating said solutes.

2. It is a function of gravity to act upon said solutes when they occur at an elevated point above less concentrated solutes. (see Atlantic conveyor system)

3. For every action there is a reaction. Any downward flow will cause an inevitable upward flow!

4. The experiments have been demonstrated at Primary level education, in schools. At secondary schools, at Universities, at Derriford Hospital’s Physics Department in Plymouth. At the London International Inventions Fair in 1997, witnessed by some 3 thousand visitors and inventors. On Westcountry Television News, BBC Radio in Paignton, and has not yet failed to convince all who have witnessed its efficacy in delivering the flow rates observed in plants and trees!

Now why can’t you understand the simplicity of this discovery and its many applications?

Nevertheless, I am grateful for all of the replies on this thread and thank you for your input

Andrew

Rosy: I know how the experiment works. That's not my question.
It's quite obvious from your description how the weight of the solution pulls the (lighter) water over the top of the tubing.
But at the top of the loop, as in a conventional siphon, the water is at much less than atmospheric pressure (it has to be as there's a force holding up the column of water below) so I don't see how you propose that the water gets out of the xylae into the leaves (essentially the question Dave put further up the thread).

You haven't explained to me how your proposed system for lifting sea-water works.

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.

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

Dave:
I don't see how the two quotes you have made strengthen your case, the first one just says that cohesion theory means that the experiment that you have carried out is possible, the second one is an extract from this thread:
E.L. Hemetis brings up most of the same criticisms as I have.

quote:I have never seen a bowl of water at the top of any tree other than those left by the owners of apple trees to prevent scrumpers.


Of course there isn't!!! This is because the whole process is driven by evaporation concentrating salts and sugars in tthe leaf, which causes osmosis to suck water out of the top of the xylem, and then the cohesion of water means that the whole column is pulled up, so it sucks more water in at the bottom.
So the water leaving the top is as a gas, so it won't fill up a bowl.

Just to make it clear, it is not water cohesion that is doing the pulling, but osmosis, cohesion just means that the water behaves like a wire, so if you pull the top water gets sucked in at the bottom.

quote:In the case of a tree, we could place a plastic bag over a branch and collect and extract the condensed water in its canopy.


Exactly, because evaporation is providing the energy to lift water against gravity, so the water coming out of the tree is a vapour.

quote:It is possible to design a model that can lift sea water, extract pure water and return the denser ballast to the sea through a tube in order to provide the pumping for the desalination. But I have long since given up jumping though loops to amuse people.


It isn't to amuse people, it is to address what is the fundamental challenge to your hypothesis. The experiment in Brixham didn't lift more water than it dropped down. A tree lifts 50 times more water up the xylem than comes down the phloem.

It takes one joule of energy to lift 1 a kg of 1 metre. A litre of water weighs 1kg a litre of sap may weigh 1.5kg (a generous estimate). The litre of sap falling 10m will release 15J of energy, this is enough to lift 1.5l of water back up the 10m. However a tree lifts 50l of water etc. up a tree this means that you need to get 48.5J of energy from somewhere. In the conventional model this energy comes in the form of heat evaporating water at the top of the tree. Where is it coming from in your model.

If your model can do this with no other energy inputs there would be a lot more interest in it than just from plant biologists as you would have built a perpetual motion machine.

One only needs to show the method of circulation. Evaporation is an inevitable consequence of water flowing through the massive surface area of a tree.

Evaporation with a plastic bag over a branch? maybe water oozing from the leaves is a more likely explanation. Evaporation requires a dry air, suns energy and wind. High humidity shuts down transpiration (common knowledge) The environment inside the plastic bag would be near 100% humidity. So where does your accepted without question theory address this Mine fits with it like a glove.

Maybe you would like to explain how evaporation from the trees leaves can alter the concentration of solutes at an elevated point, and gravity does not affect the flow of these concentrated solutes. I wait with bated breath

Dave:
quote:One only needs to show the method of circulation. Evaporation is an inevitable consequence of water flowing through the massive surface area of a tree.

If evaporation is driving the process, you do not need a downward tube to lift water up the tree! If evaporation is not putting in the energy you need to get energy from somewhere for your hypothesis to work.

There are phloem in a tree, but they are not needed in order to lift water up.

quote:Evaporation with a plastic bag over a branch? maybe water oozing from the leaves is a more likely explanation. Evaporation requires a dry air, suns energy and wind. High humidity shuts down transpiration (common knowledge) The environment inside the plastic bag would be near 100% humidity. So where does your accepted without question theory address this Mine fits with it like a glove.

The definition of 100% humidity is that water will condense at the same rate as it is evaporating. So for some evaporation you either need a humidity of less than 100% or the leaf to be at a higher temperature than the air (if you boil a pan of water it will still evaporate, even if you are in a room at 100% humidity), which it will be on a sunny day. So what is happening in your bag is the water is evaporating from the leaves which are hot as they are a dark colour and condensing on the plastic bag which is cooled by the external air.

If the water was oozing out of the leaves and not evaporating this would bring up the problem with energies I mentioned earlier.

quote:Maybe you would like to explain how evaporation from the trees leaves can alter the concentration of solutes at an elevated point, and gravity does not affect the flow of these concentrated solutes. I wait with bated breath

The solutes are in cells and therefore behind cell membranes which are impermiable to the solutes. As Rosy mentioned earlier a cell has to use energy to pump large molecules through a cell membrane.