Sounds cool but for such experimentation you would want relatively fast experimental iterations to get anywhere, and this would take literal ages. You can play around with growth speed of course but that’s a different question and might be in some ways opposed to achieving height.
replyI don't think so. You don't have to reach the height limit just to iteratively develop the initial implementation of the pump system. A system that actively moves water would push it out the top so you've got an observable phenomenon to work with.
replyI’m sure there will be a ton of unexpected complexities that arise only when you are trying to push the limits, like in all engineering domains. And it’s all a highly interconnected system, you cannot expect to dramatically change the water flow without impacting others aspects.
replyI know it is quite distant, but from my experience in large-scale data engineering, 90% of the time goes in addressing subtle issues that can only be observed hours into a job, the rest of the issues are quickly resolved earlier. I am assuming that such complexities will be so much harder in physical systems, and even more so in biological systems.
There are obviously other factors limiting tree growth, like compressive strength.
replyI seem to recall for some long-ago course that the 8,000m peaks are up around the compresssive limit so yoou couldn't really have a taller mountain.
replyIn theory you can always have taller mountains if you just have a (exponentially!) wider base. But given all sorts of practical constraints, Earth mountains are pretty much limited to <10 km.
replyMostly true on Earth, but not on other planets with lower gravity, and AFAIK it depends on the rock type. Hence why you have Olympus Mons on Mars (or insanely tall ice mountains on Pluto, when that material couldn't form such a steep talus angle on Earth).
replyWell, yes, I'm talking about ~1g on earth. And, also yes, rock type makes a difference but I assume there is some commonality with the tallest peaks.
replyWhich would also serve as reasonable challenges for genetic and molecularbiological engineering so ... what's your point?
replyOr do you mean to suggest that the failure of any accepted tree height records to surpass the maximum capillary distance can be explained by some other factor? (Based on your other comment it seems safe to assume that isn't what you meant but anyhow.) That seems far too convenient given that the observed cutoff is within the expected range.
I was referring to your "500m trees" which would be over 3x taller than the tallest trees ever seen.
reply> 500m
reply500ft is taller than the max ever, not 1640 ft