Place a tissue paper inside the unstitched home made mask. The results are good. Also you can keep replacing the tissue papers to make it more effective
KEEP BREATHING IN YOUR CO2 AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS MORE COLDS MORE SINUS INFECTIONS MASK ARE MADE FOR LONG WEAR UNLESS IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE SHOULD LEARN TO DO MORE SEARCH ON THE FALSEHOOD OF MASK
Interesting. Would love to see this same demonstration but without a mask, demonstrating the "cough into your elbow" technique. QUESTIONs: 1. Does your study look at how long particles are suspended? (or just the distance traveled)? 2. Where can I read the findings / data from the study? Thanks!
Explain why there are 0 "alleged" deaths in Northern Territory Australia 0 "alleged" deaths under 40yrs age in Australia 30+ countries from dec-july with 0 "alleged" deaths Same countries which allowed exemptions to travel/quarantine still have 0 "alleged" Last fortnight California's first child "alleged" death (9 months) Does this "alleged" virus discriminate age Millions are AWAKE
@@theyredistortingyourrhthym8358 TELL ME WHY 260K PEOPLE DIE YEARLY AND IT CAN BE RESEARCHED ON THE CDC SITE AND WE DON'T HAVE DOUBLE DEATHS YET IN A YEAR WITH A DEADLY VIRUS THAT HAS BEEN MAINLY AT FLU SEASON
It's probably being downvoted because I'm sure this video is being used as "evidence" as to why masks work when in fact it proves the opposite. The low quality masks filter little to nothing, and the higher quality masks (surgical masks and N95s) provide so much resistance that it jets most of the air out the edges of the mask. The video states (and shows) that particles linger in the air for minutes and travel up to 12 feet in still air in only 1.5 minutes. This means the whole argument of "masks reduce the travel distance of particles" is completely irrelevant. The only people who think this video proves that masks work are the people who only consider the filtration ability of the mask material itself and completely disregard all other factors.
Published paper: aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018 Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets featured Physics of Fluids 32, 061708 (2020); doi.org/10.1063/5.0016018 Siddhartha Verma, Manhar Dhanak, and John Frankenfield
The ones I see most commonly are knit synthetic fabrics...which are relatively comfy and fold up to store easily in a pocket etc. How effective are they??
I am not sure what type of knit fabric you see, there are studies for the 90% Polyester/10% Lycra in combination with a sheet of cotton has a high protection rate. pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
@@debramulgrew4614 Debra if you mean do I fold up a dirty mask and take it home...no. We have two baskets at the door, one had clean masks, one is for your used mask...the used ones are washed in the laundry with soap and bleach. We are being as careful as we can as we fall into the risk factor group. Thanks though for just launching an all caps criticism rather than offering good advice or support.
One BIG problem with all face masks: the aerosolized virus is dispersed in the expelled air around the infected person. Depending on particle size, they stay airborne for minutes to hours. If YOUR mask doesn't filter out virus and really small aerosolized articles, which no face mask does, you are breathing them in. How many SARS-CoV-2 virus (the viral or infectious load) does it take to infect you? "The minimum infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is unknown so far, but researchers suspect it is low. “The virus is spread through very, very casual interpersonal contact,” W. David Hardy, professor of infectious disease at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Separation is probably much more effective.
My employer has recommended against the neck gaiters vs cloth face masks. Wasn’t sure why until seeing this, as I think you’re right...probably gaiters are same as bandana.
@@OmegaViper i think the copper is BS for protection- don't be lulled into a false sense of security. triple layer cotton is better. Fruit of the loom has 5 packs of triple cotton masks cheap. Sign up for their newsletter first and get 10% off your first orfer.white or black (white looks like recycled skivvies)
They are proven effective already there is little reason to continue to test them and waste time/money. The N95 filters 95% of virus, bacteria and other particles of a certain size, so even if this showed the plume going outward it would be filtered air.
@Gap Yes and the valve allows unfiltered air to escape. They are designed to protect the wearer only. It isn't clear from your comment if you understand that, so this comment is really for all those who don't.
@@SamuraiMerrick Filtered air is inhaled. But when in a sick person it gets contaminated with snot and moisture and exhaled through no filter just a check valve. It is not filtered air on the way out.
THROUGH AEROSOLS NOT WET DROPLETS WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND NOWHERE HAS ANYONE SAID WEAR A MASK TO STOP THE SPREAD THE SAID WEAR A MASK TO SLOW THE SPREAD FOR THE NEXT SO CALLED COVID FLU SEASON
I read about the study which showed that a bandana mask is the least effective. "Bandana mask" can mean a variety of things, so I was relieved to see that you had made a video. I watched this specifically to see what is meant by homemade bandana mask, and you didn't show the mask, even though you showed the others. Do you have an image, or at least a description?
The bandana's are just a piece of cloth folded over just like the train robbers in westerns. The cotton cloth is usually very thin and a loose weave. Meanwhile the handmade stitched mask is two cotton layers as well but of a heavier weave. Masks are proof against the virus completely but even the bare minimum reduces the chances of infection by a decent amount.
I would like to see this demonstration with real people rather than an artificial aerosol inside a model head. That aerosol could be strengthened to 10 metres without the mask or damped down to a few centimetres, but it does demonstrate the difference.
The air has to go somewhere. Notice how with folded, stitched and professional masks they re-direct a large amount the droplets up and over the head instead of straight forward which the they assume is the only direction air travels. The video specifically avoids to show these large droplet plumes which are re-directed.
The video does no such thing. If you notice the plume it's not moving in a very directed manner and is much smaller than the unmasked plume with is very narrow. Despite the air flowing around the air holes the velocity just isn't there. Combine that with social distancing guidelines and infection seems unlikely.
HAHAHAHA AEROSOLS WILL ALWAYS GET THROUGH A MASK UNLESS YOU'RE WEARING A HAZMAT HAT WHICH ALLOWS ONE TO BREATHE IN THEIR OWN AIR THAT IS PURIFIED THROUGH THE CLOSED OXYGENATED HOOD N95 IS FOR PAINTING WHICH STOPS YOU FROM BREATHING IN AIR BUT ALLOWS YOU TO BREATHE OUT WHEN THE VENT OPENS
@@debramulgrew4614 Public health is striving for source control and lowered spit particle inhalation coupled with distance, not BSL conditions. Spray painting conditions of constant fog and plumes of fine particles surrounding someone isn't what happens in daily life in a store for example. Histrionics.
I had noticed and realized a big mistake of this test/experiment, while you simulate the breathing as in and out, which seems to me you use a rubber pump right? okay if you act breath out that's mean you squeeze the rubber pump as we all hear it push the breeze/air but the mistake here when you let the rubber pump fill it self again in the same moment you need the pressure push without suck it back, you had to squeeze the rubber and your hand had to stay still for few minutes in the same position (squeezing) don't release open your hand to let it fill back or suck a mount of this breath out/breeze. I hope i could help and you could try this test again with considering this notice to be more credibility and reliability research.
Now why would you make such an awesome demonstration and have blurry video a a most critical point? Your just feeding the doubters by doing that crap. Focus the camera for crying out loud!
droplets are different from simulated fog machine particles. I question the aerobiology methods here. Use real humans if you are trying to make real-world assessments and recommendations. Too many pseudo-science experiments have been relegated to in-silico computer generated simulations
Yes, indeed. More organic results would be better but this would take time since uneven results would show. I believe this video only shows controlled air pressures for cough to see expected results with the use of different materials as masks.
I agree. Except that real humans produce much larger water vapor than the fine controlled mist created by a fog machine. And yet these examples show that there is still a distinct difference between masked and unmasked water vapor. On top of that the air pressure pushed out of the mask is substantially slower so even if the human water vapor was magically tinier by a full order of magnitude it's velocity would be hampered by the outgoing air pressure bottleneck. In short, these things work.
OK so it shows tha masks are basically useless. Thank you. Also, why is the air c( in the last part of the video) coming out forward, and then it curls over the head of the mannequin? Maybe it happens with little help from a fan? Looks like a fake to me
Please get some of the media folks to recreate this video. It’s trash. Maybe add voice over? (Also it’d be nice to have markers for distance in cough). And FYI: I’m not asking this to be snarky. I’m currently trying to convince my many family members around the country that face masks are good and not evil.
It's interesting that the stitched quilting cotton mask works even better than the store-bought one. I bought my two cotton masks because I liked the way they looked (so basically I have the best kind of masks by dumb luck, not science). People can choose their favorite saying or logo as a form of self-expression. Great opportunity missed.
False test, notice on the test of the sewn pleated mask the air was blowing back at the face of the test dummy. Please do not mislead us with something this important.
I don’t think they were being misleading. Air acts like a fluid. Think of waves hitting a rocky shore. They splash back. I still do question the methodology of a test dummy.
This is probably why some people claim they are contracting the Virus thru there eyes it blows back to the face and gets in under the Mask from the Top so there essentially giving the Virus to themselves.
@@JasonRasmussen Much of the water vapor was absorbed by the mask. The rest went up and out of the mask. HOWEVER, it did so with much less velocity and the plume around the head was much smaller. A better fitting mask would force air back through the filter material. Regardless even the poorly fitted mask reduced the plume size which is what really matters.
If anything this proves that masks don't work. The video itself shows and explains that particles linger in the air for minutes and travel up to 12ft in 1.5 minutes. Meaning the whole "masks reduce the travel distance of particles" is totally irrelevant especially when you consider that people constantly move around, and we create drag as we walk meaning these particles will follow you around for a good distance. Also notice how much air is escaping through the cracks around the mask. Because of how the light is positioned you can't see all of it, but what you can see is still substantial. It actually gets worse as the masks move up in quality. Air is always going to take the path of least resistance which is through all of the gaps around the edge of the mask. Anyone who wears glasses for any reason with a mask knows this all too well.
Excellent! Thank you for doing this study. Very clear demonstration
You spelled propaganda wrong
Place a tissue paper inside the unstitched home made mask. The results are good. Also you can keep replacing the tissue papers to make it more effective
KEEP BREATHING IN YOUR CO2 AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS MORE COLDS MORE SINUS INFECTIONS MASK ARE MADE FOR LONG WEAR UNLESS IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE SHOULD LEARN TO DO MORE SEARCH ON THE FALSEHOOD OF MASK
Interesting. Would love to see this same demonstration but without a mask, demonstrating the "cough into your elbow" technique. QUESTIONs: 1. Does your study look at how long particles are suspended? (or just the distance traveled)? 2. Where can I read the findings / data from the study? Thanks!
It said 1.5 minutes.
Without a face mask and no wind,
water droplets can linger in the air for a minute and a half. They didn’t give more information
@@jacobrobles688 yeah... anyways, it´s the viral load, the time of exposure... most of us might have gotten in contact with the virus already.
What is to down -vote here, people? Are you adverse to facts and truth?
Explain why there are 0 "alleged" deaths in Northern Territory Australia
0 "alleged" deaths under 40yrs age in Australia
30+ countries from dec-july with 0 "alleged" deaths
Same countries which allowed exemptions to travel/quarantine still have 0 "alleged"
Last fortnight California's first child "alleged" death (9 months)
Does this "alleged" virus discriminate age
Millions are AWAKE
@@theyredistortingyourrhthym8358 TELL ME WHY 260K PEOPLE DIE YEARLY AND IT CAN BE RESEARCHED ON THE CDC SITE AND WE DON'T HAVE DOUBLE DEATHS YET IN A YEAR WITH A DEADLY VIRUS THAT HAS BEEN MAINLY AT FLU SEASON
@@debramulgrew4614 fail incoming shills
It's probably being downvoted because I'm sure this video is being used as "evidence" as to why masks work when in fact it proves the opposite. The low quality masks filter little to nothing, and the higher quality masks (surgical masks and N95s) provide so much resistance that it jets most of the air out the edges of the mask. The video states (and shows) that particles linger in the air for minutes and travel up to 12 feet in still air in only 1.5 minutes. This means the whole argument of "masks reduce the travel distance of particles" is completely irrelevant.
The only people who think this video proves that masks work are the people who only consider the filtration ability of the mask material itself and completely disregard all other factors.
@@tortol4847 Yeah, well, I'll keep wearing my double masks until the scientists tell us we can stop. Good luck with whatever you are doing.
Published paper: aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018
Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets featured
Physics of Fluids 32, 061708 (2020); doi.org/10.1063/5.0016018
Siddhartha Verma, Manhar Dhanak, and John Frankenfield
Was the homemade stitched face mask only 2 layers of cotton? I use 2 layers of cotton and 1 layer fusible nonwoven interfacing.
So the stitched cloth mask successfuly redirects your droplets upwards and out the sides.
what type of laser light thing did they use?
The ones I see most commonly are knit synthetic fabrics...which are relatively comfy and fold up to store easily in a pocket etc. How effective are they??
I am not sure what type of knit fabric you see, there are studies for the 90% Polyester/10% Lycra in combination with a sheet of cotton has a high protection rate. pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
DEADLY VIRUS YOU FOLD UP AND TAKE HOME ?
@@debramulgrew4614 Debra if you mean do I fold up a dirty mask and take it home...no. We have two baskets at the door, one had clean masks, one is for your used mask...the used ones are washed in the laundry with soap and bleach. We are being as careful as we can as we fall into the risk factor group. Thanks though for just launching an all caps criticism rather than offering good advice or support.
One BIG problem with all face masks: the aerosolized virus is dispersed in the expelled air around the infected person. Depending on particle size, they stay airborne for minutes to hours. If YOUR mask doesn't filter out virus and really small aerosolized articles, which no face mask does, you are breathing them in. How many SARS-CoV-2 virus (the viral or infectious load) does it take to infect you?
"The minimum infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is unknown so far, but researchers suspect it is low. “The virus is spread through very, very casual interpersonal contact,” W. David Hardy, professor of infectious disease at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Separation is probably much more effective.
Where did that second area come from when you went out of focus? It seemed to appear out of no where
Hm, was considering a neck gaiter mask but thats probably as useful as the bandana... :/
That will probably be more comfortable in winter.... where I am we are haviing 99 (F) many days in a row.
@@macforme the one I was eyeing helps cool you off too, by copperfit
My employer has recommended against the neck gaiters vs cloth face masks. Wasn’t sure why until seeing this, as I think you’re right...probably gaiters are same as bandana.
@@OmegaViper i think the copper is BS for protection- don't be lulled into a false sense of security. triple layer cotton is better. Fruit of the loom has 5 packs of triple cotton masks cheap. Sign up for their newsletter first and get 10% off your first orfer.white or black (white looks like recycled skivvies)
Awesome.
I'm curious how N95 masks with valves perform.
They are proven effective already there is little reason to continue to test them and waste time/money. The N95 filters 95% of virus, bacteria and other particles of a certain size, so even if this showed the plume going outward it would be filtered air.
WITH a valve? like not wearing one at all
@@SamuraiMerrick yes to all that BUT _not the ones w/ valves_
@Gap Yes and the valve allows unfiltered air to escape. They are designed to protect the wearer only. It isn't clear from your comment if you understand that, so this comment is really for all those who don't.
@@SamuraiMerrick Filtered air is inhaled. But when in a sick person it gets contaminated with snot and moisture and exhaled through no filter just a check valve. It is not filtered air on the way out.
How was the visualization accomplished?
THROUGH AEROSOLS NOT WET DROPLETS WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND NOWHERE HAS ANYONE SAID WEAR A MASK TO STOP THE SPREAD THE SAID WEAR A MASK TO SLOW THE SPREAD FOR THE NEXT SO CALLED COVID FLU SEASON
I read about the study which showed that a bandana mask is the least effective. "Bandana mask" can mean a variety of things, so I was relieved to see that you had made a video. I watched this specifically to see what is meant by homemade bandana mask, and you didn't show the mask, even though you showed the others. Do you have an image, or at least a description?
The bandana's are just a piece of cloth folded over just like the train robbers in westerns. The cotton cloth is usually very thin and a loose weave. Meanwhile the handmade stitched mask is two cotton layers as well but of a heavier weave. Masks are proof against the virus completely but even the bare minimum reduces the chances of infection by a decent amount.
I would like to see this demonstration with real people rather than an artificial aerosol inside a model head. That aerosol could be strengthened to 10 metres without the mask or damped down to a few centimetres, but it does demonstrate the difference.
The air has to go somewhere. Notice how with folded, stitched and professional masks they re-direct a large amount the droplets up and over the head instead of straight forward which the they assume is the only direction air travels. The video specifically avoids to show these large droplet plumes which are re-directed.
Mostly they hit the mask and get caught. They have to be very small aerosol droplets to flow around turns and corners with the air.
The video does no such thing. If you notice the plume it's not moving in a very directed manner and is much smaller than the unmasked plume with is very narrow. Despite the air flowing around the air holes the velocity just isn't there. Combine that with social distancing guidelines and infection seems unlikely.
I use double stick tape on the inside perimeter of my homemade stitched mask.
HAHAHAHA AEROSOLS WILL ALWAYS GET THROUGH A MASK UNLESS YOU'RE WEARING A HAZMAT HAT WHICH ALLOWS ONE TO BREATHE IN THEIR OWN AIR THAT IS PURIFIED THROUGH THE CLOSED OXYGENATED HOOD N95 IS FOR PAINTING WHICH STOPS YOU FROM BREATHING IN AIR BUT ALLOWS YOU TO BREATHE OUT WHEN THE VENT OPENS
@@debramulgrew4614 Public health is striving for source control and lowered spit particle inhalation coupled with distance, not BSL conditions. Spray painting conditions of constant fog and plumes of fine particles surrounding someone isn't what happens in daily life in a store for example. Histrionics.
and regular breathing without a cough or sneeze?
Cool vaping vid
I had noticed and realized a big mistake of this test/experiment, while you simulate the breathing as in and out, which seems to me you use a rubber pump right? okay if you act breath out that's mean you squeeze the rubber pump as we all hear it push the breeze/air but the mistake here when you let the rubber pump fill it self again in the same moment you need the pressure push without suck it back, you had to squeeze the rubber and your hand had to stay still for few minutes in the same position (squeezing) don't release open your hand to let it fill back or suck a mount of this breath out/breeze.
I hope i could help and you could try this test again with considering this notice to be more credibility and reliability research.
Either N95 masks with special materials don't work as good as a homemade cotton material masks or this test is flawed.
That was not an N95. That was a dust mask like you'd use for construction.
@@huntstyle 3M "dust masks" are N95 rated. Depends on the manufacturer.
Now why would you make such an awesome demonstration and have blurry video a a most critical point? Your just feeding the doubters by doing that crap. Focus the camera for crying out loud!
How about normal to intense breathing through your nose and talking, not shouting?
I would like to see this done with a shield.
droplets are different from simulated fog machine particles. I question the aerobiology methods here. Use real humans if you are trying to make real-world assessments and recommendations. Too many pseudo-science experiments have been relegated to in-silico computer generated simulations
Yes, indeed. More organic results would be better but this would take time since uneven results would show.
I believe this video only shows controlled air pressures for cough to see expected results with the use of different materials as masks.
Says the pseudoscientist...
@@charlmarkane7681 I volunteer my son. His sneezes are profound.
I agree. Except that real humans produce much larger water vapor than the fine controlled mist created by a fog machine. And yet these examples show that there is still a distinct difference between masked and unmasked water vapor. On top of that the air pressure pushed out of the mask is substantially slower so even if the human water vapor was magically tinier by a full order of magnitude it's velocity would be hampered by the outgoing air pressure bottleneck. In short, these things work.
VAPE NASHE
OK so it shows tha masks are basically useless. Thank you. Also, why is the air c( in the last part of the video) coming out forward, and then it curls over the head of the mannequin? Maybe it happens with little help from a fan? Looks like a fake to me
Please get some of the media folks to recreate this video. It’s trash. Maybe add voice over? (Also it’d be nice to have markers for distance in cough).
And FYI: I’m not asking this to be snarky. I’m currently trying to convince my many family members around the country that face masks are good and not evil.
It's interesting that the stitched quilting cotton mask works even better than the store-bought one. I bought my two cotton masks because I liked the way they looked (so basically I have the best kind of masks by dumb luck, not science). People can choose their favorite saying or logo as a form of self-expression. Great opportunity missed.
False test, notice on the test of the sewn pleated mask the air was blowing back at the face of the test dummy. Please do not mislead us with something this important.
I don’t think they were being misleading. Air acts like a fluid. Think of waves hitting a rocky shore. They splash back. I still do question the methodology of a test dummy.
Uhhh... that's because the mask blocked it, dude.
@@huntstyle Redirected it. The air has to go somewhere, and one can clearly see it redirected up and over the head which they fail to measure.
This is probably why some people claim they are contracting the Virus thru there eyes it blows back to the face and gets in under the Mask from the Top so there essentially giving the Virus to themselves.
@@JasonRasmussen Much of the water vapor was absorbed by the mask. The rest went up and out of the mask. HOWEVER, it did so with much less velocity and the plume around the head was much smaller. A better fitting mask would force air back through the filter material. Regardless even the poorly fitted mask reduced the plume size which is what really matters.
Who down votes something like this? "Arrghh I hate science!"
If anything this proves that masks don't work. The video itself shows and explains that particles linger in the air for minutes and travel up to 12ft in 1.5 minutes. Meaning the whole "masks reduce the travel distance of particles" is totally irrelevant especially when you consider that people constantly move around, and we create drag as we walk meaning these particles will follow you around for a good distance. Also notice how much air is escaping through the cracks around the mask. Because of how the light is positioned you can't see all of it, but what you can see is still substantial. It actually gets worse as the masks move up in quality. Air is always going to take the path of least resistance which is through all of the gaps around the edge of the mask. Anyone who wears glasses for any reason with a mask knows this all too well.
This really shows nothing for a real life scenario use real people.
2558jmb: by doing it this way they can get consistent results. Something scientists kinda like.