Danoff
Premium
- 34,009
- Mile High City
I posed this question to my anti-mask father. His response - that's for bacteria.
The Political Satire/Meme Thread
- Thread starter Danoff
- 13,800 comments
- 787,135 views
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,452
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Damn I also forgot to point out that his pore size info is also a mishmash of made-up crap and deliberate misinformation.
A cheap disposable mask has an average permeability of 0.37 µm (microns)
A Surgical mask has an average permeability of 0.34 µm (microns)
An n95 mask has an average permeability of 0.26 µm (microns)
This is despite the pore diameters being as follows:
Disposable: 20 to 100 µm (microns)
Surgical: 10 to 100 µm (microns)
N95: 10 to 65 µm (microns)
The rather simple reason being that none of these masks are made of a single layer, but rather multiple layers and they all (unsurprisingly and counter to the videos claim) exists as 3d structures, as such these larger (65 to 100 µm/micron) pores are crisscrossed over each other, with the end result being absurdly low levels of permeability even for the cheapest masks.
This is however why single layer cloth masks are not even close to being as effective as the cheapest multi-layer mask or filter insert (another false equivalence from the video).
So the 62 µm (microns) particles he's trying to scare people about, not an issue, not that I'm sure a peer reviewed and cited source will be a valid source for @VBR when compared to YouTube.
www.nature.com
A cheap disposable mask has an average permeability of 0.37 µm (microns)
A Surgical mask has an average permeability of 0.34 µm (microns)
An n95 mask has an average permeability of 0.26 µm (microns)
This is despite the pore diameters being as follows:
Disposable: 20 to 100 µm (microns)
Surgical: 10 to 100 µm (microns)
N95: 10 to 65 µm (microns)
The rather simple reason being that none of these masks are made of a single layer, but rather multiple layers and they all (unsurprisingly and counter to the videos claim) exists as 3d structures, as such these larger (65 to 100 µm/micron) pores are crisscrossed over each other, with the end result being absurdly low levels of permeability even for the cheapest masks.
This is however why single layer cloth masks are not even close to being as effective as the cheapest multi-layer mask or filter insert (another false equivalence from the video).
So the 62 µm (microns) particles he's trying to scare people about, not an issue, not that I'm sure a peer reviewed and cited source will be a valid source for @VBR when compared to YouTube.
Microstructure analysis and image-based modelling of face masks for COVID-19 virus protection - Communications Materials
Face masks are key for slowing the spread of COVID-19. Here, the microstructure of three common masks is determined by x-ray tomography, combined with image-based modelling of droplet permeability, revealing that N95 masks are best for droplet filtration.
www.nature.com
Last edited:
- 11,805
- Marin County
Don't N95 masks (maybe others) also have electrostatic properties that trap particles? There might have even been a 3rd trapping property they have that I'm not rememebering.Damn I also forgot to point out that his pore size info is also a mishmash of made-up crap and deliberate misinformation.
A cheap disposable mask has an average permeability of 0.37 µm (microns)
A Surgical mask has an average permeability of 0.34 µm (microns)
An n95 mask has an average permeability of 0.26 µm (microns)
This is despite the pore diameters being as follows:
Disposable: 20 to 100 µm (microns)
Surgical: 10 to 100 µm (microns)
N95: 10 to 65 µm (microns)
The rather simple reason being that none of these masks are made of a single layer, but rather multiple layers and they all (unsurprisingly and counter to the videos claim) exists as 3d structures, as such these larger (65 to 100 µm/micron) pores are crisscrossed over each other, with the end result being absurdly low levels of permeability even for the cheapest masks.
This is however why single layer cloth masks are not even close to being as effective as the cheapest multi-layer mask or filter insert (another false equivalence from the video).
So the 62 µm (microns) particles he's trying to scare people about, not an issue, not that I'm sure a peer reviewed and cited source will be a valid source for @VBR when compared to YouTube.
Microstructure analysis and image-based modelling of face masks for COVID-19 virus protection - Communications Materials
Face masks are key for slowing the spread of COVID-19. Here, the microstructure of three common masks is determined by x-ray tomography, combined with image-based modelling of droplet permeability, revealing that N95 masks are best for droplet filtration.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,452
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Quite possibly, which makes them even more efficient at what they do. All of which makes the claims made in the video even more dangerously inaccurate.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 35,267
- Downtown North Dakota
- Cy-Fi
Two shots, two donuts?
- 29,184
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Disgraceful, shame on you.
Last edited:
- 17,115
- United Kingdom
Similar threads
- Poll
