If you are testing N95 masks with evaporated salt particles and measuring that with a very-fine sensor, what instrument or test measures actual viruses? Do hard salt particles and aerosolized viruses behave the same?
SPS30 is an optical scanner (laser) for “dust and other particulates” down to 0.3 micron.

If 0.3 micron is the limit of its capability (resolving power), voila!— 95% of better results while testing an N95.

Picking up even smaller organic matter like a virus?

Doubtful.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 5th Gen AZ Family “with cream cheese”

5th Gen AZ Family “with cream cheese” Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bullfrog35

Jan 2
🧵 on N95s:

A few reasons (many more exist) on why they don’t work and they can’t work:

1. There is no seal.
In our macroscopic world, that means “water tight”. If there is a millimeter-sized gap— it’s useless.

Even if fitted, once you talk or move your jaw—it’s compromised.
2. A 95% efficient mask at 0.3 micron is still not good enough to “stop” an aerosolized virus.

The N95 rating is nominal— not absolute, so it may be rated to stop some 0.3 micron particulates for a few moments, but that’s about it.
3. There is no known mechanical filtration method, like masks or a woven filter, to stop a virus or even smoke particles. ImageImage
Read 12 tweets
Nov 16, 2021
A breakdown of the @CDC Director’s Twitter video comment that:

“masks reduce the chance of infection by more than 80%.”

Her source is a sentence here from the CDC’s cloth mask study👇

There are 8 “small-number references” pertaining to this sentence which “prove the case”
Small-letter 5: masks stops droplets, not so good on aerosols:
Small-letter 6: $40 to view.

Small-letter 15: no aerosols mentioned
Read 7 tweets
Apr 14, 2021
@RMConservative Thread/

Remember when you were a kid, you would look out the window on those lazy days and see dust particles floating between you and the sunlight?
Our human vision is limited to around 40 microns, or the width of a human hair, so those dust particles were around that size and bigger.

The dust floated because air currents (flow) provided buoyancy/drag versus gravity trying to pull the dust down to the ground. Image
A brilliant physicist by the name of Stoke’s quantified this effect in a mathematical law named after him to explain the behavior of extremely small particles in a fluid or gas (air).
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(