Talk:Cohesion-tension theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you geeks put the computer term first? Why not have it as one of those pages with links too both since they are the same thing?

Fuckin nerds......

[edit] Merge with Transpirational pull

With regard to the merge the other page is correct. This page is wrong (capillary action in the xylem is not the primary force that pulls water up the xylem vessels). Also this article is more about water than the CT theory. It barely mentions why cohesion of water is important, never mentions adhesion or anything about the tension. Any merge should involve the rewrite of transpirational pull to incorporate the term Cohesion-tension theory. David D. (Talk) 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Transpirational Cohesion article is about a plant behavior and the cohesion-tension theory article is about theories of chemical properties. The two are closely related, and the cross reference in the transpirational cohesion article is correct. But merging the articles would eliminate valuable plant-related information from the conversation. I say, don't merge. Do improve the content of the cohesion-tension theory.

Yes, these are two different things. Capillary action in plants is just an example where you can see cohesion-tension.Lisamh 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment that "merging the articles would eliminate valuable plant-related information from the conversation". CT theory is specific to plants. It is also the same thing as transpirational pull. If the "cohesion-tension theory article is about theories of chemical properties" then it is worthless and there is even more reason to merge the two articles. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, CT theory relates only to plants, the basis of which is transpirational pull. I can't see how merging the two is a bad idea, if your worried that some valuable information would be eliminated you can just put it back - under a subheading if you feel it needs it.