Masks don't prevent transmission of Viruses

CFM said:
That's not a link. Are you stupid thinking it is?
Click to expand...

These Freudian slips of suicidal Christiananality pedophilia frustration of lynching enforcement not being able to baptise thine eyes by urinations while asserting individuals convert to national religion preyer hypnotism so as to be free at last from any coronavirus sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming just as malfeasance in researching thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament - absentee ballots arsonists for those burning Bush's 9/11 Arab "death to the infidels" health care plan continuation thinking. Is CFM = coronavirus fascist masochist....
 
The Swedish Plan guy:
In June, Tegnell described the rush to lock down in the rest of Europe and the US as “it was as if the world had gone mad”. He appears more emollient today, but he still displays signs of disbelief at the approaches of others. Adopting face masks is “more of a statement than actually a measure”. He adds: “Face masks are an easy solution, and I’m deeply distrustful of easy solutions to complex problems.”
Click to expand...
https://www.ft.com/content/5cc92d45-fbdb-43b7-9c66-26501693a371
 
saltydancin said:
These Freudian slips of suicidal Christiananality pedophilia frustration of lynching enforcement not being able to baptise thine eyes by urinations while asserting individuals convert to national religion preyer hypnotism so as to be free at last from any coronavirus sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming just as malfeasance in researching thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament - absentee ballots arsonists for those burning Bush's 9/11 Arab "death to the infidels" health care plan continuation thinking. Is CFM = coronavirus fascist masochist....
Click to expand...

^^^^^This stupid motherfucker would do the world a favor if he'd perform a retroactive abortion on himself.
 
CFM said:
^^^^^This stupid motherfucker would do the world a favor if he'd perform a retroactive abortion on himself.
Click to expand...

Keep on trying to corner the market in medical malpractice shares since in the USA it's third in death tolls, where masks factor in somewhere.
 
Last edited:
CFM said:
No doubt you have a long history of being a coward.
Click to expand...

Another false statement from you but I understand why you are so pissed off at me for pointing out your hateful racism, anti-American attitudes and violent nature.

Examples:
CFM said:
^^^^^This stupid motherfucker would do the world a favor if he'd perform a retroactive abortion on himself.
Click to expand...
CFM said:
Not all Trump supporters on this forum use "deplorable" in their name to mock the cunt.

You're a nigger. By using the term you used, you attach a color to the term. I don't.
Click to expand...
CFM said:
What you don't get is those that your cunt Hillary called deplorable aren't actually that. It was a way for her to show her inferior left wing mentality. She had to have an excuse for that. It's why people mock her.

I didn't reveal anything about myself using that term. The term has nothing to do with color. You're a nigger and you're not black.
Click to expand...
 
gfm7175 said:
Masks don't stop viruses, dude... Their pores are too large.
Click to expand...

smaller particles, like 0.01-micron particles are even easier to capture than 0.3 micron particles. It seems counterintuitive that 0.3 micron particles would be harder to capture than 0.01 microns (30 times smaller). That is because we think of filters like a net, thinking that if a particle is smaller than the holes in the net, it gets through
“The MPPS included particles with a diameter between 0.04 and 0.1 μm. As seen in Figure 1 (left), particles that are smaller or larger than the MPPS are captured with higher filtration efficiency. Filtration via diffusion (most noticeable for particles smaller than 0.1 μm) actually increases as particle size decreases. Other research has confirmed that filter efficiency increases with decreasing particle size, even for particles as small as 0.003 μm (much smaller than that of virus)

https://www.sphosp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Letter-in-response-to-N-95-use-RA-Final.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/50/3/259/169677
The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms. Assuming that these mechanisms are independent, the single-fiber collection efficiency can be obtained from the following equation: ER = 1-(1-ED)(1-ER) where ED is the single-fiber efficiency due to diffusion and ER is the single-fiber efficiency due to interception.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf
Filtration theory of particulate removing respirators is well understood and has been extensively described.4,5 For particles smaller than 100 nm, diffusion is the dominant removal mechanism. Brownian diffusion is caused by collisions between particles and air molecules.
Filtration theory may be well understood by some. By others like gfm and evmetro, they simply ignore all the science

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

In another study, researchers shot actual virus particles at N95 masks. The masks captured over 95% of virus particles. Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses.





For those of you like gfm that can't read -
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
smaller particles, like 0.01-micron particles are even easier to capture than 0.3 micron particles. It seems counterintuitive that 0.3 micron particles would be harder to capture than 0.01 microns (30 times smaller). That is because we think of filters like a net, thinking that if a particle is smaller than the holes in the net, it gets through
“The MPPS included particles with a diameter between 0.04 and 0.1 μm. As seen in Figure 1 (left), particles that are smaller or larger than the MPPS are captured with higher filtration efficiency. Filtration via diffusion (most noticeable for particles smaller than 0.1 μm) actually increases as particle size decreases. Other research has confirmed that filter efficiency increases with decreasing particle size, even for particles as small as 0.003 μm (much smaller than that of virus)

https://www.sphosp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Letter-in-response-to-N-95-use-RA-Final.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/50/3/259/169677
The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms. Assuming that these mechanisms are independent, the single-fiber collection efficiency can be obtained from the following equation: ER = 1-(1-ED)(1-ER) where ED is the single-fiber efficiency due to diffusion and ER is the single-fiber efficiency due to interception.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf
Filtration theory of particulate removing respirators is well understood and has been extensively described.4,5 For particles smaller than 100 nm, diffusion is the dominant removal mechanism. Brownian diffusion is caused by collisions between particles and air molecules.
Filtration theory may be well understood by some. By others like gfm and evmetro, they simply ignore all the science

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

In another study, researchers shot actual virus particles at N95 masks. The masks captured over 95% of virus particles. Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses.



For those of you like gfm that can't read -
Click to expand...

A skinny girl has a much harder time getting herself through a small opening than a fatty fatty 2x4 porker girl?? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
smaller particles, like 0.01-micron particles are even easier to capture than 0.3 micron particles. It seems counterintuitive that 0.3 micron particles would be harder to capture than 0.01 microns (30 times smaller). That is because we think of filters like a net, thinking that if a particle is smaller than the holes in the net, it gets through
“The MPPS included particles with a diameter between 0.04 and 0.1 μm. As seen in Figure 1 (left), particles that are smaller or larger than the MPPS are captured with higher filtration efficiency. Filtration via diffusion (most noticeable for particles smaller than 0.1 μm) actually increases as particle size decreases. Other research has confirmed that filter efficiency increases with decreasing particle size, even for particles as small as 0.003 μm (much smaller than that of virus)

https://www.sphosp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Letter-in-response-to-N-95-use-RA-Final.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/50/3/259/169677
The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms. Assuming that these mechanisms are independent, the single-fiber collection efficiency can be obtained from the following equation: ER = 1-(1-ED)(1-ER) where ED is the single-fiber efficiency due to diffusion and ER is the single-fiber efficiency due to interception.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf
Filtration theory of particulate removing respirators is well understood and has been extensively described.4,5 For particles smaller than 100 nm, diffusion is the dominant removal mechanism. Brownian diffusion is caused by collisions between particles and air molecules.
Filtration theory may be well understood by some. By others like gfm and evmetro, they simply ignore all the science

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

In another study, researchers shot actual virus particles at N95 masks. The masks captured over 95% of virus particles. Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses.





For those of you like gfm that can't read -
Click to expand...

Thanks for these links as doubt those layers in masks have even been considered in stopping particles by some.
 
gfm7175 said:
A skinny girl has a much harder time getting herself through a small opening than a fatty fatty 2x4 porker girl?? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Sort of like fishing hook sizes. #32 is really miniscule while going up in size to a #1, but then sizes increase further from #1/0 to #20/0.....but then sometimes there's no eye to thread.....
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
smaller particles, like 0.01-micron particles are even easier to capture than 0.3 micron particles. It seems counterintuitive that 0.3 micron particles would be harder to capture than 0.01 microns (30 times smaller). That is because we think of filters like a net, thinking that if a particle is smaller than the holes in the net, it gets through
“The MPPS included particles with a diameter between 0.04 and 0.1 μm. As seen in Figure 1 (left), particles that are smaller or larger than the MPPS are captured with higher filtration efficiency. Filtration via diffusion (most noticeable for particles smaller than 0.1 μm) actually increases as particle size decreases. Other research has confirmed that filter efficiency increases with decreasing particle size, even for particles as small as 0.003 μm (much smaller than that of virus)

https://www.sphosp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Letter-in-response-to-N-95-use-RA-Final.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/50/3/259/169677
The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms. Assuming that these mechanisms are independent, the single-fiber collection efficiency can be obtained from the following equation: ER = 1-(1-ED)(1-ER) where ED is the single-fiber efficiency due to diffusion and ER is the single-fiber efficiency due to interception.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf
Filtration theory of particulate removing respirators is well understood and has been extensively described.4,5 For particles smaller than 100 nm, diffusion is the dominant removal mechanism. Brownian diffusion is caused by collisions between particles and air molecules.
Filtration theory may be well understood by some. By others like gfm and evmetro, they simply ignore all the science

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

In another study, researchers shot actual virus particles at N95 masks. The masks captured over 95% of virus particles. Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses.





For those of you like gfm that can't read -
Click to expand...

If brownian motion is what you claim stops viruses from passing through masks, please explain what happens at the overlap threshold. 0.3 is a size that is tougher, since net filtering of larger sizes can barely touch it and brownian motion hardly touches sizes this big. Are you really sure you want to claim brownian motion allows masks to stop transmission of viruses?

Also, why do you keep referring to n95 when you reference mask specs, when the general public is actually using surgical or cheap cloth masks? Quit trying to scam.
 
Evmetro said:
If brownian motion is what you claim stops viruses from passing through masks, please explain what happens at the overlap threshold. 0.3 is a size that is tougher, since net filtering of larger sizes can barely touch it and brownian motion hardly touches sizes this big. Are you really sure you want to claim brownian motion allows masks to stop transmission of viruses?

Also, why do you keep referring to n95 when you reference mask specs, when the general public is actually using surgical or cheap cloth masks? Quit trying to scam.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you had watched the video since you couldn't read the scientific papers or what I quoted from them.

Here, let me make it big and with crayon colors for you.

The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms.


The third process that works with larger particles is impaction.
The same process works with all masks. The only difference is effectiveness based on the fibers and how they are laid out.

Another important little science tidbit for you and gfm... (large crayon colors for you again.)

Once the particle is collected onto a fiber, it will adhere to the filter fiber due to Van der Waals forces.
 
Evmetro said:
If brownian motion is what you claim stops viruses from passing through masks, please explain what happens at the overlap threshold. 0.3 is a size that is tougher, since net filtering of larger sizes can barely touch it and brownian motion hardly touches sizes this big. Are you really sure you want to claim brownian motion allows masks to stop transmission of viruses?
Also, why do you keep referring to n95 when you reference mask specs, when the general public is actually using surgical or cheap cloth masks? Quit trying to scam.
Click to expand...

Apparently $0.25 pin ball machine playing doesn't compute where if a particle passes thru one hole what's going to happen if the next hole & randomly sequential ones will all be lined up in a row....
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Perhaps if you had watched the video since you couldn't read the scientific papers or what I quoted from them.

Here, let me make it big and with crayon colors for you.

The capture of particles ranging from 10 to 1000 nm by a mechanical fibrous filter is driven primarily by the diffusion and interception mechanisms.


The third process that works with larger particles is impaction.
The same process works with all masks. The only difference is effectiveness based on the fibers and how they are laid out.

Another important little science tidbit for you and gfm... (large crayon colors for you again.)

Once the particle is collected onto a fiber, it will adhere to the filter fiber due to Van der Waals forces.
Click to expand...

The size and color of your font is not clarifying which mask you are referring to, and it certainly is not a quote of something you dispute from the article that the thread is about.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Another false statement from you but I understand why you are so pissed off at me for pointing out your hateful racism, anti-American attitudes and violent nature.

Examples:
Click to expand...
CFM has always proven himself to be a brainless coward, much like his feckless leader. The military doesn't have a Commander in Chief, they have a Coward in Chief.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top