How do Trees Really lift Water to their Leaves?

Ben V:
Andrew - I don't expect to see a comment like that from you again. If you can't defend the science, do not attack the person.

Maybe you should try to take him on on his own terms? i.e. using facts and figures to support your argument?

I should warn you, Sophie comes out of this conversation as looking a lot more reasonable than you.

B.C,
Andrew,
Perhaps you would like to answer the same question you asked of sophiecentaur.

What have you actually achieved? I mean real achievemnets rather than hypotheses that are not well supported by evidence, so nothing that isn't going to be written off as a coincidence.
(I'm not, BTW, claiming that my epitaph will be anything special, but since Andrew asked...)

Ben V:
BC, I understand the retort - it was an offensive and inflammatory thing for Andrew to have said - but I don't feel this line of conversation will benefit the forum. All it will lead to is hurt feelings and this thread being locked.

@ Ben V
I don't see anything wrong with my comment. It was written to point out that to be remembered it is not enough to cross the T's and dot the I's. Original thinking is what counts!

B.C. I will be remembered for my contribution to understanding circulation in trees and plants, but also for relating the same principles to circulation in animals and humans.

I will also be remembered for my experiments with water filled tubes at Brixham and for applying a great deal of common sense to how correct posture over long periods can beneficially influence the body.

My question still stands. How many gravestones have you found with a list of qualifications etched into them?

Ben V:
Andrew, the problem is not that you do not have certificates to say you can do something, the problem is that you are not qualified because you do not tackle the hard facts of the issue, i.e. the energy calculations etc, in short, the maths.

At present, you may be remembered by people here as finding something interesting, but then sticking arrogantly to a hypothesis that does not add up. Not a grand achievement. Wouldn't it be better to be thought of as someone who developed a hypothesis that added to science? Or someone who took criticism well and thoroughly answered the questions of all his critics, collaborating and working well with people?

Does it not concern you that many people here do not think you are correct? Even after years? If you are correct, you should be able to prove it to them, in their language, using a full understanding of the science involved. You have either chosen not to bother, or you can't do so and refuse to ask for help, or you know that your hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny. Which one is it, Andrew?

The one that it is is not listed there. It is test the experiments for yourself and see for yourselves how a tiny amount of salt can move many times it's own volume around simple tubular experiments.

My critics can't be bothered to repeat these simple experiments and would rather believe that leaves on trees can somehow suck water up to well over a hundred metres vertically. The trees can't do this any more than a powerful pump could do it, so why do we keep churning out this garbage when it is unsupported? This is what led me to question the literature and quite rightly so!

BenV
So it's everyone else's fault?

They do not have time, enthusiasm or facilities to do your experiments - it is your responsibility to put it in a language that they can understand and either accept or further question.

You've also missed the point again - it's not the results that cause controversy, it's the explanation and extension to plants and animals.

THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ANDREW - DO THE REAL SCIENCE AND EITHER YOUR CRITICS, OR YOUR HYPOTHESIS, WILL FALL. REFUSE TO DO THE REAL SCIENCE AND YOU FAIL YOURSELF AT THE FIRST HURDLE.

Remember Ben,
I read the GCSE Biology book by D.G. Mackean to find an answer to what trees were doing with salts, approaching the question of fluid transport in plants and trees with an open mind, a mind that vaguely remembered the biology lessons from many years ago “too many years ago”.

None of it made sense to either me or Don Mackean who wrote the book.

This led to the hypothesis about a density flow rather than the pathetic explanations, which incidentally are still adhered to even though no one has demonstrated any working model. The experiments followed after the hypothesis, not to add credence but to test the density flow and to test the 10 meter limit also referred to inside the same text book.

The initial experiments, the ones before the Brixham experiment were attended by a very proficient physicist and dear friend “Adrian Van Sweden” who gave me lot’s of reasons why the experiment would fail and then lot’s of questions about why it did not fail together with sitting on a step with his hands over his eyes shaking his head saying repeatedly “this is not possible” “Why was this never mentioned in the literature?” “Why do I find it so hard to accept?” Adrian also helped with the Brixham Experiments. He was also a former engineer for South West Water and a person who found a great deal of benefit from sleeping inclined, recovering circulation to his feet, toes, hands, fingers, lips, nose which were blue due to a heart defect and metal valve which incidentally could be heard missing beats at night while sleeping flat and should, according to a doctor we met have fibrillation, adding all metal valves have fibrillation, yet Adrian’s didn’t any more!

Most of my time over the years has been spent helping people to recover from a range of illnesses. I have found it both rewarding and intriguing and far more useful than trying to convince some people who obviously do not want to be convinced of anything outside of the convenient box.

given the fact that most schools and colleges have a budget that could easily afford a bit of plastic tubing, a length of strong string to pull the experiment up, a pinch of salt and a couple of empty bottles, it is hardly a question of resources now is it?