How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?

Witsend:
Andrew, the point here is that Sophiecentaur does to original thought is what rain does to fire and dampness does to squids. I'm beginning to get an obsessive interest in the personality type. But I would strongly recommend that you don't try and reason with him unless you actually quote from a text book. He has a certain stiffness. A want of flexibility. Struggles a little with the abstract thought. And he trawls through the new ideas threads because he's determined to kill any such, at birth.

He's also a scientist who makes up his mind about an experimental results without doing the experiment. Rather a contradiction in terms. So don't get discouraged. Then he'd have achieved his object. He's not interested in the idea. He's only determined to put you down.

Lyner:
@witsend
I guess you would say the same about anyone who had their feet on the ground.
I have built your circuit many times. It's a relay driver. They work conventionally.

I should listen to your friends. If they wonder why you posted your idea on a forum then perhaps so should you.

I have built your circuit many times. It's a relay driver. They work conventionally.Sophiecentaur

Yet another example of a total misconception of the experiment and its intention. It is NOT a relay driver.

And I joined this forum because its the best fun I've had since Christmas. There are not that many people who give up their time to 'talk physics'. I spend a fortune on phone calls to various friends from all over the world just to indulge this passion. My own circle of family and friends don't have a clue what I'm on about and quite frankly it's lonely. This fills that gap. I just wish I could get past the personality and get back to physics. If you were less destructive you'd be ideal. But you're on a mission. I think you're trying to protect the purity of physics from fraudulent misrepresentation's. You haven't the ability to tell fraud from a left foot. And I'm no fraud.

@Stefan
You make your point very clear Stefan, transparent actually and not a point of view I am unfamiliar with, coming from predominantly people who prefer the literature to remain un-tested.
Labelling me as a creationist says you have not bothered to read what I have written, else you would see that I have no religious interests and do not dwell in a belief system. You do yourself a disservice and add nothing to this discussion with your sneers.

You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.
Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?

Ben V:
I disagree entirely. Sophiecentaur would, no doubt, be thrilled to see established science proven wrong and updated - but only provided it is on solid enough evidence and theory. If he's pushing you at all, it's to make your science better, not to destroy it.

Lyner:
You shot yourself in the foot there, I'm afraid.
If you "had read" what was written, you would have seen that stefan said that you were "like a creationist" and not"a creationist".
I'm afraid that you see what you want to see and make what you want to out of what you observe and what you read. A bit more discipline might help to improve your grasp of Science and allow you to make valid conclusions.

Much better argument than the arguments relied upon in the literature!

Repeat: Osmosis does not account for the fluid transport volumes observed in tall trees. Root pressure is a joke. Cohesion tension theory sucks and capillary action cannot account for the size of tubular dead cells found in the xylem of tall trees. And let's not forget Strasburger's experiments that rulled out any living processes actively involved in bulk flow.

You are defending erroneous literature!

Sophie, I really appreciate your guidance and for showing me how this needs to be presented.

I have an offer of much needed help with presenting a paper for publication from a retired doctor and engineer.

Ben you are Bang to right on Sophie's intentions. Ok we have had a few disagreements and occasionally a few terse comments, but generally most helpful and shows my failings of oversimplifying while trying to present my observations.

@Witsend, you will find that the responses you receive will be more favourable if you refrain from attacking the person rather than the subject at hand. Yes it can be frustrating to try to explain a new direction in a way that it has clarity for all concerned, but at least we can learn how what we write is interpreted by others and this makes for a stronger argument in the end.

Andrew

Question for B.C. et al.

If a tree is suspended vertically in a bath of picric acid has it's roots severed as was the case with Strasburger's experiment showing circulation continued for weeks following the event, despite the tree being completely killed by the influx of acid. What would this acid do to the semi-permiable membranes within the tree? Worth remembering that the leaves were completely killed yet obvious transpiration carried on inside the tree unaffected by this destruction of all living processes.

Andrew