Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What are the best materials for making a DIY ~0.3 micron mask at home to filter in the coronavirus?
72 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
Apr 6, 2020, 5:53:39 PM4/6/20
to
Is constructing a ~0.3 micron filtered face mask on-topic for a.h.r?
<https://i.postimg.cc/xqVXRK5R/diymask01.jpg>
If so, here's my DIY design today based on the suggestions in the NYT:
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZYdLhmgG/diymask02.jpg>
1. I didn't have hair ties, so I used Costco chicken elastic, doubled over.
2. The ~0.3um particle filter is a rectangle of vacuum cleaner bag cloth.
3. The cotton bandana is simply to comfortably hold the filter to the face.
o It's Time to Make Your Own Face Mask
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/opinion/coronavirus-n95-mask.html>
o What's the Best Material for a Mask?
<https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-homemade-mask-material-DIY-face-mask-ppe.html>
o What Are The Best Materials for Making DIY Masks?
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/>
o Can DIY Masks Protect Us from Coronavirus?
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect-virus-coronavirus/>
Notice dish towels & vacuum cleaner bags aren't all that bad.
o Also doubling up on layers doesn't do help all that much.
Mostly, these Covid-19 masks keep the virus "in", and not "out", where the
virus is, of course, smaller than 0.3um (which is the size of the carrier),
where the actual virus is on the order of smaller than 0.1um, but at that
size, due apparently to Brownian motion and other effects, particles that
size bounce around more to hit the filter media.
More details are in the article above, where this thread is just for ideas
on making a quick but effective home DIY SARS-CoV-2 droplet filter mask.
--
Every thread to Usenet should strive to add on-topic technical value.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xqVXRK5R/diymask01.jpg>
If so, here's my DIY design today based on the suggestions in the NYT:
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZYdLhmgG/diymask02.jpg>
1. I didn't have hair ties, so I used Costco chicken elastic, doubled over.
2. The ~0.3um particle filter is a rectangle of vacuum cleaner bag cloth.
3. The cotton bandana is simply to comfortably hold the filter to the face.
o It's Time to Make Your Own Face Mask
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/opinion/coronavirus-n95-mask.html>
o What's the Best Material for a Mask?
<https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-homemade-mask-material-DIY-face-mask-ppe.html>
o What Are The Best Materials for Making DIY Masks?
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/>
o Can DIY Masks Protect Us from Coronavirus?
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect-virus-coronavirus/>
Notice dish towels & vacuum cleaner bags aren't all that bad.
o Also doubling up on layers doesn't do help all that much.
Mostly, these Covid-19 masks keep the virus "in", and not "out", where the
virus is, of course, smaller than 0.3um (which is the size of the carrier),
where the actual virus is on the order of smaller than 0.1um, but at that
size, due apparently to Brownian motion and other effects, particles that
size bounce around more to hit the filter media.
More details are in the article above, where this thread is just for ideas
on making a quick but effective home DIY SARS-CoV-2 droplet filter mask.
--
Every thread to Usenet should strive to add on-topic technical value.
hub...@ccanoemail.ca
Apr 6, 2020, 6:12:36 PM4/6/20
to
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:23:36 +0530, Arlen Holder
<arlen...@anyexample.com> wrote:
>Is constructing a ~0.3 micron filtered face mask on-topic for a.h.r?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/xqVXRK5R/diymask01.jpg>
>
>If so, here's my DIY design today based on the suggestions in the NYT:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZYdLhmgG/diymask02.jpg>
>
>1. I didn't have hair ties, so I used Costco chicken elastic, doubled over.
>2. The ~0.3um particle filter is a rectangle of vacuum cleaner bag cloth.
>3. The cotton bandana is simply to comfortably hold the filter to the face.
>
Mine was quick & cheap & disposable :
<arlen...@anyexample.com> wrote:
>Is constructing a ~0.3 micron filtered face mask on-topic for a.h.r?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/xqVXRK5R/diymask01.jpg>
>
>If so, here's my DIY design today based on the suggestions in the NYT:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZYdLhmgG/diymask02.jpg>
>
>1. I didn't have hair ties, so I used Costco chicken elastic, doubled over.
>2. The ~0.3um particle filter is a rectangle of vacuum cleaner bag cloth.
>3. The cotton bandana is simply to comfortably hold the filter to the face.
>
https://imgur.com/a/qIPmbog
A wire-tie taped on for a nose-clamp was an afterthought ..
It fits quite well, and adjustable by trimming with scissors
< for child size >
John T.
Clare Snyder
Apr 6, 2020, 9:12:51 PM4/6/20
to
ones closer to 100 micron.The coroma virus is .06 to .14 microns. How
effective is that coffee filter mask???
A HEPA filter filters to .3 micron - but due to Brownian Motion can
catch SOME particles down to roughly .15 microns - due to turbulence
in fluid flow and possibly electrostatic attraction.
An N95 catches 95% of particles down to .3microns
An active HEPA filter catches 99.7 of particles at .3microns.
If I need to make masks I'll use the Hepa filterr bags for my CanaVac
central vac. 99.4%.
hub...@ccanoemail.ca
Apr 6, 2020, 10:01:12 PM4/6/20
to
On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 21:12:47 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:
D I Y masks are not about protecting the wearer -
it's about keeping the wearer's spit drops off of things.
How many microns in a spit drop ? sneeze drop ..
John T.
wrote:
it's about keeping the wearer's spit drops off of things.
How many microns in a spit drop ? sneeze drop ..
John T.
Clare Snyder
Apr 7, 2020, 1:12:54 AM4/7/20
to
very effective. Might reduce the range by a few percent though - - - -
Arlen Holder
Apr 7, 2020, 2:56:38 AM4/7/20
to
In response to what <hub...@ccanoemail.ca> wrote :
> Mine was quick & cheap & disposable :
>
> https://imgur.com/a/qIPmbog
>
> A wire-tie taped on for a nose-clamp was an afterthought ..
> It fits quite well, and adjustable by trimming with scissors
> < for child size >
> John T.
Hi John T,
Given the goal is to design and build an effective mask at home...
Thank you for showing your use of the coffee filter material in your photo!
o Googling, I found the CDC also recommends we use coffee filters!
o *Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
I saw Clare's subsequent post about the size of the filtering, where it
seems we need to look up the scientific details on how they work on
droplets containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Slate says the SARS-CoV-1 coronavirus is about 100 nanometers (~0.1um):
o *Do Surgical Masks Stop the Coronavirus?*
<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html>
But, of course, the virus isn't what we're filtering - we're filtering
droplets which contain the virus, where those droplets are far larger.
but they still managed to capture 69% of 1-micron particles."
"The researchers stepped it up a notch by shooting .02-micron
Bacteriophage MS2 particles at the masks. These are even smaller than
coronavirus particles. Again, the surgical mask captured more particles,
but the homemade cloth mask captured 51% of these nanoparticles."
"Across 21 volunteers, the homemade cotton masks captured 50% of 0.02-1
micron particles, compared with 80% for the surgical mask. Thus, DIY
masks still managed to capture particles while people were actually
wearing them. Based on this data, the researchers concluded that
homemade masks would be better than nothing."
Of course, if it only takes a few particles to get us infected, I'm not
sure what the real benefit of blocking half of them might be.
Do we know the minimum dosage that gets us infected?
o For example, could it be as low as a single virion?
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful sharing of facts for common benefit.
> Mine was quick & cheap & disposable :
>
> https://imgur.com/a/qIPmbog
>
> A wire-tie taped on for a nose-clamp was an afterthought ..
> It fits quite well, and adjustable by trimming with scissors
> < for child size >
> John T.
Given the goal is to design and build an effective mask at home...
Thank you for showing your use of the coffee filter material in your photo!
o Googling, I found the CDC also recommends we use coffee filters!
o *Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
I saw Clare's subsequent post about the size of the filtering, where it
seems we need to look up the scientific details on how they work on
droplets containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Slate says the SARS-CoV-1 coronavirus is about 100 nanometers (~0.1um):
o *Do Surgical Masks Stop the Coronavirus?*
<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-surgical-masks-china.html>
But, of course, the virus isn't what we're filtering - we're filtering
droplets which contain the virus, where those droplets are far larger.
o Can DIY Masks Protect Us from Coronavirus?
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect-virus-coronavirus/>
"The DIY masks captured fewer particles than the surgical mask,
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect-virus-coronavirus/>
but they still managed to capture 69% of 1-micron particles."
"The researchers stepped it up a notch by shooting .02-micron
Bacteriophage MS2 particles at the masks. These are even smaller than
coronavirus particles. Again, the surgical mask captured more particles,
but the homemade cloth mask captured 51% of these nanoparticles."
"Across 21 volunteers, the homemade cotton masks captured 50% of 0.02-1
micron particles, compared with 80% for the surgical mask. Thus, DIY
masks still managed to capture particles while people were actually
wearing them. Based on this data, the researchers concluded that
homemade masks would be better than nothing."
Of course, if it only takes a few particles to get us infected, I'm not
sure what the real benefit of blocking half of them might be.
Do we know the minimum dosage that gets us infected?
o For example, could it be as low as a single virion?
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful sharing of facts for common benefit.
Cindy Hamilton
Apr 7, 2020, 6:32:33 AM4/7/20
to
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:53:39 PM UTC-4, Arlen Holder wrote:
The best materials for making a mask are ones you have on hand. If
all you have is a bandanna, then that's the best material.
A co-worker who is not particularly handy (by my standards, at least)
discovered he had a couple of N95 masks left over from refinishing some
furniture.
Cindy Hamilton
The best materials for making a mask are ones you have on hand. If
all you have is a bandanna, then that's the best material.
A co-worker who is not particularly handy (by my standards, at least)
discovered he had a couple of N95 masks left over from refinishing some
furniture.
Cindy Hamilton
Arlen Holder
Apr 7, 2020, 12:01:25 PM4/7/20
to
In response to what Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote :
>> D I Y masks are not about protecting the wearer -
>>it's about keeping the wearer's spit drops off of things.
>>How many microns in a spit drop ? sneeze drop ..
>> John T.
> 5 to 15, generally speaking - for aerosolized sneeze - so still not
> very effective. Might reduce the range by a few percent though - - - -
The virus itself, is huge for a virus, but still pretty tiny, around 100nm,
or about 0.1um (approximately, to round numbers).
But what matters is the "spit" size, which, if it's 5um to 15um, then
that's what we need to filter "in" when we're at close quarters.
One problem, as noted prior, is whether it's at all useful shielding "most"
of the particles, where it could be like machine-gun bullets, where only
one needs to get out to infect someone else.
Still, the news is abuzz with home-made DIY mask designs, such as this:
o *How to make a non-medical coronavirus face mask ĄV no sewing required*
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/06/how-to-make-no-sew-face-mask-coronavirus>
In that article, sans sewing, they make a mask out of an old T-shirt,
with a paper towel as the absorbent central material.
This (clickbait?) news article says an unpublished paper reports:
"QuiltersĄŚ cotton, a tightly woven high-thread-count fabric, can filter
out some 70% to 79% of small particles including viruses... '
That's better than surgical masks, which Segal said filter out only
65% of particles. (N95 masks offer the highest level of protection
filtering out 95% of air particles.)
o So what materials do come out on top?
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-fabrics-are-more-effective-than-others-for-making-diy-face-masks-heres-which-ones-are-best-2020-04-07>
"Vacuum cleaner bags ranked higher than tea towels,
but theyĄŚre considerably more difficult to breathe through"
And yet:
"Tea towels are better to use for a mask than T-shirts or pillowcases"
o *Addressing COVID-19 Face Mask Shortages* (Stanford Medicine)
<https://stanfordmedicine.app.box.com/v/covid19-PPE-1-1?mod=article_inline>
There's another simple design in MarketWatch over here:
o *When you canĄŚt buy a mask, make it yourself*
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-might-be-the-simplest-no-sew-diy-coronavirus-mask-2020-04-03>
--
Usenet is so much more valuable, and pleasant, when people share solutions.
>> D I Y masks are not about protecting the wearer -
>>it's about keeping the wearer's spit drops off of things.
>>How many microns in a spit drop ? sneeze drop ..
>> John T.
> 5 to 15, generally speaking - for aerosolized sneeze - so still not
> very effective. Might reduce the range by a few percent though - - - -
or about 0.1um (approximately, to round numbers).
But what matters is the "spit" size, which, if it's 5um to 15um, then
that's what we need to filter "in" when we're at close quarters.
One problem, as noted prior, is whether it's at all useful shielding "most"
of the particles, where it could be like machine-gun bullets, where only
one needs to get out to infect someone else.
Still, the news is abuzz with home-made DIY mask designs, such as this:
o *How to make a non-medical coronavirus face mask ĄV no sewing required*
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/06/how-to-make-no-sew-face-mask-coronavirus>
In that article, sans sewing, they make a mask out of an old T-shirt,
with a paper towel as the absorbent central material.
This (clickbait?) news article says an unpublished paper reports:
"QuiltersĄŚ cotton, a tightly woven high-thread-count fabric, can filter
out some 70% to 79% of small particles including viruses... '
That's better than surgical masks, which Segal said filter out only
65% of particles. (N95 masks offer the highest level of protection
filtering out 95% of air particles.)
o So what materials do come out on top?
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-fabrics-are-more-effective-than-others-for-making-diy-face-masks-heres-which-ones-are-best-2020-04-07>
"Vacuum cleaner bags ranked higher than tea towels,
but theyĄŚre considerably more difficult to breathe through"
And yet:
"Tea towels are better to use for a mask than T-shirts or pillowcases"
o *Addressing COVID-19 Face Mask Shortages* (Stanford Medicine)
<https://stanfordmedicine.app.box.com/v/covid19-PPE-1-1?mod=article_inline>
There's another simple design in MarketWatch over here:
o *When you canĄŚt buy a mask, make it yourself*
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-might-be-the-simplest-no-sew-diy-coronavirus-mask-2020-04-03>
--
Usenet is so much more valuable, and pleasant, when people share solutions.
dpb
Apr 7, 2020, 12:49:08 PM4/7/20
to
On 4/7/2020 11:01 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
...
> One problem, as noted prior, is whether it's at all useful shielding "most"
> of the particles, where it could be like machine-gun bullets, where only
> one needs to get out to infect someone else.
...
Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
population of those being spread is of benefit.
Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
--
...
> One problem, as noted prior, is whether it's at all useful shielding "most"
> of the particles, where it could be like machine-gun bullets, where only
> one needs to get out to infect someone else.
Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
population of those being spread is of benefit.
Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
--
Thomas
Apr 7, 2020, 5:58:25 PM4/7/20
to
I just wear 2 real masks at a time.
Arlen Holder
Apr 7, 2020, 7:49:29 PM4/7/20
to
In response to what Thomas <cano...@gmail.com> wrote :
> I just wear 2 real masks at a time.
Let's try to be scientific if we can...
I'm not sure if you're joking as I didn't see a smiley, but if not, then
recall that one of the references I quoted tested multiple layers, finding
two layer much more effective than a single layer, for a variety of
reasons.
We could dig up that reference, but I only point out that potential logical
fallacy of "doubling up", simply because now that the hoi polloi are
wearing face masks en masse, all the silly thought processes of non
scientific humans will be taking root as old wives tales.
At Costco today, I'd estimate over 85% were wearing masks in the store:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Zn1fMmD3/diymask04.jpg>
I wonder if they all fully realize what "direction" the masks are supposed
to protect? (just like with the "baby on board" signs)
BTW, this was what a guy at Costco was wearing today... where, let's
remember, the mask is, just like those baby-on-board signs, pointed in the
wrong direction for most people to comprehend what it actually
accomplishes. :)
<https://i.postimg.cc/tJsNhckc/diymask03.jpg>
The whole point is to be scientific about the problem set.
--
The hoi polloi think science is intuitive while scientists know it's not.
> I just wear 2 real masks at a time.
I'm not sure if you're joking as I didn't see a smiley, but if not, then
recall that one of the references I quoted tested multiple layers, finding
two layer much more effective than a single layer, for a variety of
reasons.
We could dig up that reference, but I only point out that potential logical
fallacy of "doubling up", simply because now that the hoi polloi are
wearing face masks en masse, all the silly thought processes of non
scientific humans will be taking root as old wives tales.
At Costco today, I'd estimate over 85% were wearing masks in the store:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Zn1fMmD3/diymask04.jpg>
I wonder if they all fully realize what "direction" the masks are supposed
to protect? (just like with the "baby on board" signs)
BTW, this was what a guy at Costco was wearing today... where, let's
remember, the mask is, just like those baby-on-board signs, pointed in the
wrong direction for most people to comprehend what it actually
accomplishes. :)
<https://i.postimg.cc/tJsNhckc/diymask03.jpg>
The whole point is to be scientific about the problem set.
--
The hoi polloi think science is intuitive while scientists know it's not.
Davej
Apr 7, 2020, 7:57:18 PM4/7/20
to
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 4:58:25 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote:
> I just wear 2 real masks at a time.
Yeah, 95 + 95 = 190% of particles.
> I just wear 2 real masks at a time.
I ordered some HEPA vacuum bags but apparently they are stuck in some mailroom somewhere. I since have read that HEPA filter material needs to be used with caution because they usually contain micro-particles of glass fibers -- especially if you cut the material. Another safer material that is suggested is Halyard H600 sterile wrap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZBbkn-g-vE
But don't most of us already own an ordinary painting and woodshop-style
3M mask?
Arlen Holder
Apr 7, 2020, 7:57:57 PM4/7/20
to
In response to what dpb <no...@none.net> wrote :
> Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
> given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
> population of those being spread is of benefit.
>
> Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
To claim "of course it's useful" must mean that you've assessed the facts,
where I have seen grown scientists seriously debate whether even the N95
mask is useful, let alone the DIY masks we're gonna make.
Given, oh, say, trillions of viral particles in a single sneeze (maybe only
billions?), and given only about 20% to about 60% of the particles are
captured by the DIY masks - and given that it may take only a single
droplet to infect someone, I'm not so sure as you are that "of course" it's
useful.
IMHO, it _may_ be useful; it might not be.
o We'll only know from actual science and not from intuition.
Certainly the use of masks, en masse, by the hoi polloi, has been debated
in the scientific community in the past few months, where it takes time for
a scientific consensus to emerge.
--
Highly intuitive paople, IMHO, are almost always wrong simply because
science is not intuitive even for the smartest people who have ever lived,
let alone us.
> Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
> given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
> population of those being spread is of benefit.
>
> Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
where I have seen grown scientists seriously debate whether even the N95
mask is useful, let alone the DIY masks we're gonna make.
Given, oh, say, trillions of viral particles in a single sneeze (maybe only
billions?), and given only about 20% to about 60% of the particles are
captured by the DIY masks - and given that it may take only a single
droplet to infect someone, I'm not so sure as you are that "of course" it's
useful.
IMHO, it _may_ be useful; it might not be.
o We'll only know from actual science and not from intuition.
Certainly the use of masks, en masse, by the hoi polloi, has been debated
in the scientific community in the past few months, where it takes time for
a scientific consensus to emerge.
--
Highly intuitive paople, IMHO, are almost always wrong simply because
science is not intuitive even for the smartest people who have ever lived,
let alone us.
Davej
Apr 7, 2020, 8:11:18 PM4/7/20
to
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6:57:57 PM UTC-5, Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what dpb wrote :
outdoor markets and large electric fans blowing air down the isles, but
all we have are the masks. If they reduce the droplets they are doing
something in your favor. Wear your scuba gear if you are too worried. The
best solution is to stay home in your basement.
> In response to what dpb wrote :
>
> > Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
> > given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
> > population of those being spread is of benefit.
> >
> > Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
>
> To claim "of course it's useful" must mean that you've assessed the facts,
> where I have seen grown scientists seriously debate whether even the N95
> mask is useful, let alone the DIY masks we're gonna make.
>
> Given, oh, say, trillions of viral particles in a single sneeze (maybe only
> billions?), and given only about 20% to about 60% of the particles are
> captured by the DIY masks - and given that it may take only a single
> droplet to infect someone, I'm not so sure as you are that "of course" it's
> useful.
Ideally grocery stores should be on warm tropical islands with open
> > Of course it's useful; anything that minimizes the distribution of a
> > given number of individual virus that are spread or reduces the
> > population of those being spread is of benefit.
> >
> > Only talking in what percentage of effectiveness is...
>
> To claim "of course it's useful" must mean that you've assessed the facts,
> where I have seen grown scientists seriously debate whether even the N95
> mask is useful, let alone the DIY masks we're gonna make.
>
> Given, oh, say, trillions of viral particles in a single sneeze (maybe only
> billions?), and given only about 20% to about 60% of the particles are
> captured by the DIY masks - and given that it may take only a single
> droplet to infect someone, I'm not so sure as you are that "of course" it's
> useful.
outdoor markets and large electric fans blowing air down the isles, but
all we have are the masks. If they reduce the droplets they are doing
something in your favor. Wear your scuba gear if you are too worried. The
best solution is to stay home in your basement.
micky
Apr 8, 2020, 1:15:32 AM4/8/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Davej
They, even someone here, claims those paper masks are only good for one
use. Of course that's an 8 hour day, and i only wear mine for 30
minutes to go to the grocery store, so I get 16 trips, and more if it
hasn't fallen apart.
use. Of course that's an 8 hour day, and i only wear mine for 30
minutes to go to the grocery store, so I get 16 trips, and more if it
hasn't fallen apart.
Clare Snyder
Apr 8, 2020, 2:19:39 AM4/8/20
to
Clare Snyder
Apr 8, 2020, 2:21:08 AM4/8/20
to
partners, as long as it hasn't split - --
Ralph Mowery
Apr 8, 2020, 11:31:55 AM4/8/20
to
In article <68rq8flnap9b8158o...@4ax.com>,
cl...@snyder.on.ca says...
car . The first one finishes. The 2 nd couple forgot their condoms so
took the first one and turned it inside out. The girl gets knocked up.
DNA test shows it is the 1 st boy's sperm that did it and he is
responsiabel for the child.
cl...@snyder.on.ca says...
> That's like saying you can use a condom numerous times with numerous
> partners, as long as it hasn't split - --
>
>
I like the story (which is suppose to be true) where 2 couples are in a
> partners, as long as it hasn't split - --
>
>
car . The first one finishes. The 2 nd couple forgot their condoms so
took the first one and turned it inside out. The girl gets knocked up.
DNA test shows it is the 1 st boy's sperm that did it and he is
responsiabel for the child.
Arlen Holder
Apr 8, 2020, 11:57:28 AM4/8/20
to
In response to what Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote :
> I like the story (which is suppose to be true) where 2 couples are in a
> car .
Speaking of wearing protection in a car, I should have snapped photos, but
on my way back from Costco, I saw _numerous_ people wearing the stuff in
the car.
Note that one of the references I quoted specifically says not to wear the
mask in the car, which we can dig up for more details.
The key point though is that the _science_ is what matters in terms of what
materials we make the DIY mask out of, and what use model we employ.
For example, it's fallacious, IMHO, from the standpoint of what the mask is
designed to do, for someone to count wearing it ten times for three minutes
as the same as wearing it once for a half hour.
There are _other_ factors involved, such as proper hands-off donning &
removal procedures (which all surgeons are well aware of, for example).
--
Usenet is a public archive of useful polite technical discussions.
> I like the story (which is suppose to be true) where 2 couples are in a
> car .
on my way back from Costco, I saw _numerous_ people wearing the stuff in
the car.
Note that one of the references I quoted specifically says not to wear the
mask in the car, which we can dig up for more details.
The key point though is that the _science_ is what matters in terms of what
materials we make the DIY mask out of, and what use model we employ.
For example, it's fallacious, IMHO, from the standpoint of what the mask is
designed to do, for someone to count wearing it ten times for three minutes
as the same as wearing it once for a half hour.
There are _other_ factors involved, such as proper hands-off donning &
removal procedures (which all surgeons are well aware of, for example).
--
Usenet is a public archive of useful polite technical discussions.
Arlen Holder
Apr 8, 2020, 11:57:29 AM4/8/20
to
In response to what Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote :
> If they reduce the droplets they are doing
> something in your favor.
Maybe. Maybe not.
o For example, does wearing a bullet-proof suit protect an infantryman?
"Of course", right?
o But then, why don't infantrymen always wear a bullet-proof suit?
My point is that the "of course" assumption was purely intuitive..
Whether or not it's pragmatic or even scientific valid, remains to be seen,
which is why we ask for facts in this thread on how best to build a DIY
mask that actually does the job it's supposed to do.
> Wear your scuba gear if you are too worried.
Think about what you just said.
o Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
That same fallacy is the reason I posit those "baby on board" signs are
pointed in the wrong direction.
As to your fallacy, I know some of the respondents to this thread indicated
they do know _why_ we're wearing the masks.
o But it seems you don't seem to understand (based on your statements).
Think about it for a moment...
o Do you see the fallacy in your argument about "me" wearing scuba gear if
I'm worried about the virus?
I hope so, as a _lot_ of people don't seem to realize what the masks do.
--
Usenet is a public permanent archive of useful technical discussions.
> If they reduce the droplets they are doing
> something in your favor.
o For example, does wearing a bullet-proof suit protect an infantryman?
"Of course", right?
o But then, why don't infantrymen always wear a bullet-proof suit?
My point is that the "of course" assumption was purely intuitive..
Whether or not it's pragmatic or even scientific valid, remains to be seen,
which is why we ask for facts in this thread on how best to build a DIY
mask that actually does the job it's supposed to do.
> Wear your scuba gear if you are too worried.
o Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
That same fallacy is the reason I posit those "baby on board" signs are
pointed in the wrong direction.
As to your fallacy, I know some of the respondents to this thread indicated
they do know _why_ we're wearing the masks.
o But it seems you don't seem to understand (based on your statements).
Think about it for a moment...
o Do you see the fallacy in your argument about "me" wearing scuba gear if
I'm worried about the virus?
I hope so, as a _lot_ of people don't seem to realize what the masks do.
--
Usenet is a public permanent archive of useful technical discussions.
Cindy Hamilton
Apr 8, 2020, 12:18:35 PM4/8/20
to
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-4, Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
> > I like the story (which is suppose to be true) where 2 couples are in a
> > car .
>
> Speaking of wearing protection in a car, I should have snapped photos, but
> on my way back from Costco, I saw _numerous_ people wearing the stuff in
> the car.
I put my cloth mask on at home and take it off when I return, AFTER washing
> In response to what Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
> > I like the story (which is suppose to be true) where 2 couples are in a
> > car .
>
> Speaking of wearing protection in a car, I should have snapped photos, but
> on my way back from Costco, I saw _numerous_ people wearing the stuff in
> the car.
my hands. It would be crazy to take it off in the car.
Cindy Hamilton
micky
Apr 8, 2020, 1:16:38 PM4/8/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:31:45 -0400, Ralph Mowery
If the story is supposed to be true, and all admit that the 2nd couple
used the first's, then istm whoever turned it inside out is more
responsblle than the first boy. and in the story he didn't do it, so I
doubt that part of the story and so I doubt all of it.
It's not whose sperm it is that decides who is financially responsible.
Imagine if someone stole sperm from a sperm bank and used it to
impreganate a girl. Who has to pay for the kid's expenses?
used the first's, then istm whoever turned it inside out is more
responsblle than the first boy. and in the story he didn't do it, so I
doubt that part of the story and so I doubt all of it.
It's not whose sperm it is that decides who is financially responsible.
Imagine if someone stole sperm from a sperm bank and used it to
impreganate a girl. Who has to pay for the kid's expenses?
Grumpy Old White Guy
Apr 8, 2020, 1:20:53 PM4/8/20
to
It's *always* the taxpayers. Always!
Welfare democrats don't pay income tax..
--
Get off my lawn!
Clare Snyder
Apr 8, 2020, 2:59:13 PM4/8/20
to
the poor donor COULD take the hit.
Ed Pawlowski
Apr 8, 2020, 4:01:48 PM4/8/20
to
democrat. I get no welfare or assistance of any kind. I paid NO tax
in 2018.
Jim Joyce
Apr 8, 2020, 6:58:11 PM4/8/20
to
>Welfare democrats don't pay income tax..
I'm starting to see a pattern. It looks like welfare benefits generally
aren't taxable, regardless of political affiliation.
Arlen Holder
May 8, 2020, 12:02:28 PM5/8/20
to
UPDATE:
This thread started in early April, where, a month later, face masks are
now required attire for everyone inside a nearby Costco store...
<https://i.postimg.cc/7ZpgFmBn/corona02.jpg>
Some people are taking it to the extreme, I think, as shown here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHcw8ZdF/corona01.jpg>
Yet most simply follow the (rather voluminous) new rules.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6p7rbDhQ/corona03.jpg>
See also:
o Life with COVID-19, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android>
--
Just like with the "baby on board" signs, I think they're all pointed in
the wrong direction, where the real danger is who is behind the wheel/mask.
This thread started in early April, where, a month later, face masks are
now required attire for everyone inside a nearby Costco store...
<https://i.postimg.cc/7ZpgFmBn/corona02.jpg>
Some people are taking it to the extreme, I think, as shown here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHcw8ZdF/corona01.jpg>
Yet most simply follow the (rather voluminous) new rules.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6p7rbDhQ/corona03.jpg>
See also:
o Life with COVID-19, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android>
--
Just like with the "baby on board" signs, I think they're all pointed in
the wrong direction, where the real danger is who is behind the wheel/mask.
Arlen Holder
Jul 26, 2020, 8:55:53 AM7/26/20
to
UPDATE
o *Face Masks for the General Public by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative*
<https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/05/04/face-masks-for-the-general-public.html>
o *Testing Shows Type of Cloth Used in Homemade Masks Makes a Difference*
<https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference>
o *DIY Cloth Face Coverings*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
See also:
o *The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks*
<https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk/news/the-environmental-dangers-of-employing-single-use-face-masks-as-part-of-a-covid-19-exit-strategy>
--
o *What are the best materials for making a DIY ~0.3 micron mask at home to filter in the coronavirus?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/Mz_aRrYW_Ow>
o *Face Masks for the General Public by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative*
<https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/05/04/face-masks-for-the-general-public.html>
o *Testing Shows Type of Cloth Used in Homemade Masks Makes a Difference*
<https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference>
o *DIY Cloth Face Coverings*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
See also:
o *The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks*
<https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk/news/the-environmental-dangers-of-employing-single-use-face-masks-as-part-of-a-covid-19-exit-strategy>
--
o *What are the best materials for making a DIY ~0.3 micron mask at home to filter in the coronavirus?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/Mz_aRrYW_Ow>
Arlen Holder
Aug 9, 2020, 6:46:44 PM8/9/20
to
Update, dateline today:
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083/F1.large.jpg>
Some masks _increase_ the number of particles (e.g., fleece), while many
(most actually) decrease the number of particles.
o Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083>
"We compared a variety of commonly available mask types and observed that
some mask types approach the performance of standard surgical masks, while
some mask alternatives, such as neck fleece or bandanas, offer very little
protection."
"For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a
factor of two and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The
effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. "
"We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck
fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller
droplets (see Supplementary Fig. S5), which explains the apparent increase
in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller
particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink
faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive."
"Furthermore, the performance of the valved N95 mask is likely affected
by the exhalation valve, which opens for strong outwards airflow. While the
valve does not compromise the protection of the wearer, it can decrease
protection of persons surrounding the wearer. In comparison, the
performance of the fitted, non-valved N95 mask was far superior."
--
This newsgroup died the day it became a chitchat group for amusement.
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083/F1.large.jpg>
Some masks _increase_ the number of particles (e.g., fleece), while many
(most actually) decrease the number of particles.
o Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083>
"We compared a variety of commonly available mask types and observed that
some mask types approach the performance of standard surgical masks, while
some mask alternatives, such as neck fleece or bandanas, offer very little
protection."
"For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a
factor of two and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The
effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. "
"We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck
fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller
droplets (see Supplementary Fig. S5), which explains the apparent increase
in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller
particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink
faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive."
"Furthermore, the performance of the valved N95 mask is likely affected
by the exhalation valve, which opens for strong outwards airflow. While the
valve does not compromise the protection of the wearer, it can decrease
protection of persons surrounding the wearer. In comparison, the
performance of the fitted, non-valved N95 mask was far superior."
--
This newsgroup died the day it became a chitchat group for amusement.
0 new messages