Mask math

[EvMetro]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

 

[EvMetro]

shut your mouth shitizen and LAYER UP

bwhahahaha

I'm guessing by the way you evaded the opening post that you are a lefty.

 

[flacaltenn]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

The protection probably rises as the square of the number of masks. So 2 is probably close to 4 times better, instead of just twice as good. From the geometry of the weave on IDENTICAL material. But at more than ONE -- without a "one way" exhale valve, you're gonna get Hypercapnia. Too much CO2 in the blood and you won't even be able to stand up. If you notice the people double-masked in D.C. the 1st mask always has a exhale valve on it. The 2nd one is for show..

The Federal medical wizards have NEVER INSTRUCTED the American public on how to safely wear masks. How to determine secure fit, or storage or cleaning. Or not to REUSE -- disposable masks. I saw John Kerry take off his mask and wipe his nose just yesterday with a hand and contaminate everything on the podium and possibly himself.

Makes ya think it's more about show and feelings than "science".. It's REALLY good at reducing transmission if an INFECTED person is masked up. Even with a cloth mask. But it really does little to make you safer. Number of infections will be attenuated somewhat -- but 85% of the people infected were REGULARLY wearing a mask (of some type) in public..

 

[MaryL]

I am watching a YouTube mortician saying there are huge number of Covid deaths in LA just laying about.
She doesn't elaborate on the age and race & income level. I am thinking this is typical of California, the current leaders don't give a flying F about the living...let alone the dead. Of course I cant find her diatribe NOW against the Californian government , she was almost in tears. MEDIA=youtube]LUpMPAiyHkI[/MEDIA]

 

[EvMetro]

If one were to form a math equation about how many times larger the effective holes are when layering masks, what other information would need to be known besides the distance between the masks and if the masks all used the same fabric?

 

[Slade3200]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

Think of it this way. The virus is like a particle of sodium in salt water. A mask is like a screen door. Throw a bucket of salt water against a screen door. You won’t get soaked but you may get sprayed. The more screen doors the more splash gets blocked. The less salt you get on your skin. I’m gonna go make popcorn now

 

[petro]

This one only requires one layer for those fearing the evil virus.

After a few minutes, worries about the virus will simply fade away.

Scientific Fact.

 

[EvMetro]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

Think of it this way. The virus is like a particle of sodium in salt water. A mask is like a screen door. Throw a bucket of salt water against a screen door. You won’t get soaked but you may get sprayed. The more screen doors the more splash gets blocked. The less salt you get on your skin. I’m gonna go make popcorn now

Math isn't your thing?

 

[flacaltenn]

If one were to form a math equation about how many times larger the effective holes are when layering masks, what other information would need to be known besides the distance between the masks and if the masks all used the same fabric?

First pass estimate would be to know the size of weave of material, Assume both or all masks are the same. With your idealized model of the gaps, overlay the two layers so as to get a minimum resultant gap. Figure out from geometry or just estimating from a model on transparent materials the decrease in the gaps. Because of stretch and alignment of the layers, the AVERAGE gap reduction gives you the increase in efficiency.

If mask are treated with silver or other metals that serve as bacterial/viral blocks, the efficiency goes up A LOT over just cloth. Another thing, the Federal Chief Medicine men/women are not advising the public on.

 

[Slade3200]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

Think of it this way. The virus is like a particle of sodium in salt water. A mask is like a screen door. Throw a bucket of salt water against a screen door. You won’t get soaked but you may get sprayed. The more screen doors the more splash gets blocked. The less salt you get on your skin. I’m gonna go make popcorn now

Math isn't your thing?

You’re right. My engineering degree was photoshopped. Damn you busted me

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- MOST CLOTH MASKS (including the ones my neighbor made for me) are already 2 layers of material.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The N-95 mask was rated to .30 microns while the China Virus was variously sized between .05-.20 microns.

This means there will still be significant Transmission through the mask.

Masks don't stop transmission, that is a fact.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The "official personnel" recommending stacks of masks are making fun of the mask wearers.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The masks aren't there to stop the virus but to stop the droplets in breath (sneezes, coughs, etc.) that the virus uses as a vehicle.

 

[Thoth001]

There have been a few threads recently where the idea of two, three, four, or more masks be used, and now I want to know how the math works. If the holes or pores on a mask that are intended to trap a virus are 1000 times larger than the virus, how would one calculate how many times larger the effective holes would be for two, three, four, or more masks stacked together? It gets complicated for me when I take into account that the distance between the stacked masks is probably at least 1000 times larger than the virus.

Well there is this, so now they are just being totally loony with 2 and 3 masks. Just ridiculous. I think they just want to see how much the sheep will listen to them and how far they can push it. If they keep going, everyone will just die, because they can't breath from all the masks.

The New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?query=TOC

On March, 8 2020 — Dr. Anthony Fauci advised healthy Americans against wearing face masks.

In April 2020 — The CDC said Americans should be wearing face masks for the COVID.

In May 2020 — Dr. Anthony Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine have admitted that masks are little more than symbols. Virtue signaling.

On January 25, 2021 — Dr. Fauci told healthy Americans to wear two masks instead of one.

Dr. Fauci Backtracks on Wearing Multiple Face Masks After Pushing It Just One Week Ago | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

On March, 8 2020 — Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Thoth001]

The masks aren't there to stop the virus but to stop the droplets in breath (sneezes, coughs, etc.) that the virus uses as a vehicle.

I didn't know, non living things can drive.

The Deception of Virology & Vaccines: Why CV-19 Is Not Contagious | Principia Scientific Intl.

Viruses Are Not Living Organisms
Firstly, viruses are not living organisms or living microbes. They do not have a respiratory system, nor do they have a nucleus or digestive system.

Viruses are not alive and viruses are not contagious. The fear behind Coronavirus, for instance, is wholly unwarranted.

Forget everything you think you know about viruses and bacteria. You have been lied to. The science of virology is based upon the study of viruses. However, no real footage of viral activity exists.

Read all:

The Deception of Virology & Vaccines: Why CV-19 Is Not Contagious | Principia Scientific Intl.

This post intends to go to the heart of virology and vaccination itself and what vaccination is propped up by – the entirety of virology and vaccine science is predicated on one thing—that viruses are infectious agents that cause disease. Without this theory, vaccines would not be ‘effective’ or...

principia-scientific.com

 

[Obiwan]

 

[Thoth001]

View attachment 451367

Fauci was also part of the Aids crisis:

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr. Fauci's AIDS Predictions Were Also WAY OFF THE MARK | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Need More Reasons Not to Trust Dr. Fauci? Here You Go

pjmedia.com

This guy is worse then a weatherman. It is astonishing how he still has a job.

 

[Obiwan]

View attachment 451367

Fauci was also part of the Aids crisis:

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr. Fauci's AIDS Predictions Were Also WAY OFF THE MARK | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Need More Reasons Not to Trust Dr. Fauci? Here You Go

pjmedia.com

This guy is worse then a weatherman. It is astonishing how he still has a job.

You would think that, after he spent $7.4 million of our money for China to study the virus, he might have actually taken the time to learn something about it.....

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research (newsweek.com)

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.



The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.

 

[Thoth001]

View attachment 451367

Fauci was also part of the Aids crisis:

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr. Fauci's AIDS Predictions Were Also WAY OFF THE MARK | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Fauci Fun Facts: Dr.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Need More Reasons Not to Trust Dr. Fauci? Here You Go

pjmedia.com

This guy is worse then a weatherman. It is astonishing how he still has a job.

You would think that, after he spent $7.4 million of our money for China to study the virus, he might have actually taken the time to learn something about it.....

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research (newsweek.com)

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.



The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.

Well, as the late great Kary Mullis said about Fauci.