#CoronaHoax2020 — A Chain-Link Fence to Stop Mosquitoes…

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
3,956
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

My 10× objective, with a numerical aperture of 0.2, can theoretical resolve detail down to about two to four microns. My most extreme objective, a 100× oil-immersion objective with an NA of 1.25, can theoretically resolve detail down to about 0.3 to 0.6 of a micron. So, at 0.2 of a micron, the very largest #CoronaHoax2000 virus is smaller than I can possibly hope to be able to see with my microscope.

zPICT0001_1K.JPG



I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

ZSC_0574_5_6_1200x556.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
3,956
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Not sure what your point is. Mask dont stop you from getting the virus. They just help keep you from spreading it by limiting the distance your water vapor travels.
Repeat after me…

“Bahhhhh. Baaaaaaaaah. Baaaaaaaaaaaah.”

There, that's a good little sheep. Now you just run along, and don't bother to think for yourself, or open your eyes and try to see what's going on all around you. Just believe what your masters tell you to believe.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Not sure what your point is. Mask dont stop you from getting the virus. They just help keep you from spreading it by limiting the distance your water vapor travels.
Repeat after me…

“Bahhhhh. Baaaaaaaaah. Baaaaaaaaaaaah.”

There, that's a good little sheep. Now you just run along, and don't bother to think for yourself, or open your eyes and try to see what's going on all around you. Just believe what your masters tell you to believe.
Is that the best response you can come up with? You dumbfuck. You thought masks kept you from catching a virus thats that small? :laughing0301:
 
OP
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
3,956
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Is that the best response you can come up with? You dumbf•••. You thought masks kept you from catching a virus thats [sic] that small?
Says the mute donkey who is trying to argue that these masks are of any use at all against the virus.

Like I said, a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes.

Your masters want you to think that wearing a mask helps stop the spread of this disease. Your masters are lying to you, and you are too ignorant, too gullible, and too submissive to even think of questioning their lies.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Is that the best response you can come up with? You dumbf•••. You thought masks kept you from catching a virus thats [sic] that small?
Says the mute donkey who is trying to argue that these masks are of any use at all against the virus.

Like I said, a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes.

Your masters want you to think that wearing a mask helps stop the spread of this disease. Your masters are lying to you, and you are too ignorant, too gullible, and too submissive to even think of questioning their lies.
Only a fucking retard actually thinks no mask is better than some barrier to the spread. It must hurt to be that fucking stupid. :laughing0301:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
12,366
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

View attachment 341827


I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

View attachment 341829
Experimental error dude.. Measurement scale is fine.. What's NOT fine is your depth of focus is very limited.. N95 mask has MULTIPLE layers.. You cannot focus on all layers at once. So you're only seeing tiny (maybe 50 to 100microns thick slices thru the depth of the material..

A scanning electron microscope of the material in an N95 mask that trapped "road dust".



What LOOKS like a gap in the material is actually just due to focus depth..

Grabbed it from here...

 
Last edited:

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
It must hurt to be that f•••ing stupid.
I wouldn't know. How much pain are you actually in? Not that I give a solid digestive waste.
None at all I cant even imagine being as stupid as you. The pain must be intolerable. Come on dude. You really had no idea about this did you? :)
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

View attachment 341827


I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

View attachment 341829
Experimental error dude.. Measurement scale is fine.. What's NOT fine is your depth of focus is very limited.. N95 mask has MULTIPLE layers.. You cannot focus on all layers at once. So you're only seeing tiny (maybe 50 to 100microns thick slices thru the depth of the material..

A scanning electron microscope of the material in an N95 mask that trapped "road dust" driving thru the desert...

I'm wondering why he even wasted time doing the experiment when way smarter people have already done it. In a perfect world the mask would keep everything out but the world isnt perfect. Not only are there holes large enough for some of the virus to get through there is no seal.
 
OP
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
3,956
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Experimental error dude.. Measurement scale is fine.. What's NOT fine is your depth of focus is very limited.. N95 mask has MULTIPLE layers.. You cannot focus on all layers at once. So you're only seeing tiny (maybe 50 to 100microns thick slices thru the depth of the material..
So what?

What can get through one layer, can get through all of them.

And as I mentioned in introducing my second image, it's focus-stacked from multiple images at different depths, to increase depth of field.

A scanning electron microscope of the material in an N95 mask that trapped "road dust" driving thru the desert...
Road dust is a lot bigger than a virus. Big enough that some of it will stick in such a mask. Even so, I'd bet that at least as much dust got through that mask as was stopped by it.

The dust particles in your image appear to range in size from about ten or twenty microns, to about fifty or sixty microns. At least a hundred to a thousand times as big aas the #CoronaHoax2020 viruses.

You give no indication of the scale in your image [Correction: I see that there is a scale on that image, confirming that yes, it's on a similar scale to mine], but in spite of having been made by electron microscopy, it doesn't appear to be on a very much different scale than my images, nor to show very much more detail.
 
Last edited:

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
64,807
Reaction score
8,772
Points
2,030
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

My 10× objective, with a numerical aperture of 0.2, can theoretical resolve detail down to about two to four microns. My most extreme objective, a 100× oil-immersion objective with an NA of 1.25, can theoretically resolve detail down to about 0.3 to 0.6 of a micron. So, at 0.2 of a micron, the very largest #CoronaHoax2000 virus is smaller than I can possibly hope to be able to see with my microscope.

View attachment 341827


I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

View attachment 341829
Next time, check with your teacher or academic counselor before you start an experiment. They can help you avoid mistakes such as yours that can make your project unacceptable.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
12,366
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

View attachment 341827


I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

View attachment 341829
Experimental error dude.. Measurement scale is fine.. What's NOT fine is your depth of focus is very limited.. N95 mask has MULTIPLE layers.. You cannot focus on all layers at once. So you're only seeing tiny (maybe 50 to 100microns thick slices thru the depth of the material..

A scanning electron microscope of the material in an N95 mask that trapped "road dust" driving thru the desert...

I'm wondering why he even wasted time doing the experiment when way smarter people have already done it. In a perfect world the mask would keep everything out but the world isnt perfect. Not only are there holes large enough for some of the virus to get through there is no seal.
Quality control has been an issue.. you cannot 100% test these things. Because they need to remain sterile.. And attending doctors/nurses use some kind of mask in conjunction with a full length face shield... Imagine how INEFFICIENT a couple layers of cloth are !!!
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
12,366
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
And as I mentioned in introducing my second image, it's focus-stacked from multiple images at different depths, to increase depth of field.
Focus stacked how? How many slices? Where in the material were you looking? THere's a lot of folds and stuff.. The material is not completely flat..


Road dust is a lot bigger than a virus. Big enough that some of it will stick in such a mask. Even so, I'd bet that at least as much dust got through that mask as was stopped by it.
It in the definition of the N95 standard.. Can't be quibbled over.. It STOPS 95% of "non oil particles" that are 0.3 microns or larger.. NOT EXACTLY DESIGNED for "fluid borne viruses"... But that's the guarantee when you buy one...

As I said above you cannot TEST 100% of them.. And there's reports of a lot cheap junk being imported... But chances of a citizen scoring REAL ONES if they're not in health services right now is close to ZERO...
 

keepitreal

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
5,827
Reaction score
2,053
Points
1,060
Location
Chiraq
Not sure what your point is. Mask dont stop you from getting the virus. They just help keep you from spreading it by limiting the distance your water vapor travels.
Repeat after me…

“Bahhhhh. Baaaaaaaaah. Baaaaaaaaaaaah.”

There, that's a good little sheep. Now you just run along, and don't bother to think for yourself, or open your eyes and try to see what's going on all around you. Just believe what your masters tell you to believe.
ROFLMFAO ROFLMFAO ROFLMFAO

That is EXACTLY what I randomly do at work or in the store....
baa like a sheep

ROFLMFAO...too funny
 
OP
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
3,956
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Focus stacked how? How many slices? Where in the material were you looking? THere's a lot of folds and stuff.. The material is not completely flat..
Three images in that stack. I think I took five or six in that sequence, starting above the material, with nothing in focus, and taking small steps downward until again, nothing was in focus. The three images in the middle ended up containing all the in-focus content, for as much depth as was visible.

Depth of field isn't really such a big issue with this objective. It gets to be a much bigger limitation when I get to my 100×, but it's not practical to use that on this type of specimen anyway.


It in the definition of the N95 standard.. Can't be quibbled over.. It STOPS 95% of "non oil particles" that are 0.3 microns or larger.. NOT EXACTLY DESIGNED for "fluid borne viruses"... But that's the guarantee when you buy one...

As I said above you cannot TEST 100% of them.. And there's reports of a lot cheap junk being imported... But chances of a citizen scoring REAL ONES if they're not in health services right now is close to ZERO...
I can't vouch for the quality, but the packaging clearly indicates it to be an N95 mask. This is one that a local fire station was handing out to the public a few years ago, when there were a lot of big fires burning in northern California, and the air here in Sacramento was so bad that the Air Quality Index was somewhere in the 400 to 500 range, due to all the smoke. I never ended up using it, and in fact, never even opened the package until today.

In any event, I think it ought to be obvious, no matter what is claimed, that when you're taking about virus-sized particles, this mask might stop a few of them, but certainly not nearly 95% nor anything close to that.

On the scale of what my microscope can see, even with this modest 10× objective, the gaps are pretty sizable, and we're talking about objects getting through those gaps that are so tiny that even in its most extreme configuration, my microscope has no hope of being able to resolve them.
 
Last edited:

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Focus stacked how? How many slices? Where in the material were you looking? THere's a lot of folds and stuff.. The material is not completely flat..
Three images in that stack. I think I took five or six in that sequence, starting above the material, with nothing in focus, and taking small steps downward until again, nothing was in focus. The three images in the middle ended up containing all the in-focus content, for as much depth as was visible.

Depth of field isn't really such a big issue with this objective. It gets to be a much bigger limitation when I get to my 100×, but it's not practical to use that on this type of specimen anyway.


It in the definition of the N95 standard.. Can't be quibbled over.. It STOPS 95% of "non oil particles" that are 0.3 microns or larger.. NOT EXACTLY DESIGNED for "fluid borne viruses"... But that's the guarantee when you buy one...

As I said above you cannot TEST 100% of them.. And there's reports of a lot cheap junk being imported... But chances of a citizen scoring REAL ONES if they're not in health services right now is close to ZERO...
I can't vouch for the quality, but the packaging clearly indicates it to be an N95 mask. This is one that a local fire station was handing out to the public a few years ago, when there were a lot of big fires burning in northern California, and the air here in Sacramento was so bad that the Air Quality Index was somewhere in the 400 to 500 range, due to all the smoke. I never ended up using it, and in fact, never even opened the package until today.

In any event, I think it ought to be obvious, no matter what is claimed, that when you're taking about virus-sized particles, this mask might stop a few of them, but certainly not nearly 95% nor anything close to that.

On the scale of what my microscope can see, even with this modest 10× objective, the gaps are pretty sizable, and we're talking about objects getting through those gaps that are so tiny that even in its most extreme configuration, my microscope has no hope of being able to resolve them.
So you want everyone to believe you know more than real scientists and you cant even get your experiment right? Gimme a break man. You have no clue what the fuck youre talking about. :laughing0301:
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,550
Reaction score
12,273
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Earlier today, I put an N95 mask under my microscope, to see how wide the spacing is between the fibers of which it is comprised. I used two different methods to photograph the result.

First, here is a picture taken by a method that I've used for years, which produces a moderate-quality image, but for which I've worked out all the bugs and all the relevant calibrations. With the 10× objective and the 15× eyepiece in place, I used a cheap point&shoot-type digital camera pointed into the eyepiece. The numbered scale that you see in this image is built into the 15× eyepiece, and when used with the 10× objective, the space between the numbered ticks represents a distance of 122 microns. A micron is 1⁄1000 of a milometer; a millimeter is usually the distance between the smallest ticks on most metric rulers.

From this, we can see that the gaps between fibers in this N95 mask are typically around 50 microns or so. Cheaper surgical-type masks, and almost certainly nearly all fabric masks, surely have even larger gaps. So, anything about fifty microns or so should be able to get through this mask; get down to about ten or twenty microns, and this mask would be no obstacle at all.

The #CoronaHoax2020 virus ranges in size from about 0.05 to 0.2 of a micron. At the smaller end of it's range, the #CoronaHoax virus is about a thousand times smaller than what this mask can reliably be expected to block.

My 10× objective, with a numerical aperture of 0.2, can theoretical resolve detail down to about two to four microns. My most extreme objective, a 100× oil-immersion objective with an NA of 1.25, can theoretically resolve detail down to about 0.3 to 0.6 of a micron. So, at 0.2 of a micron, the very largest #CoronaHoax2000 virus is smaller than I can possibly hope to be able to see with my microscope.

View attachment 341827


I very recently acquired an adapter to connect my much-better camera, a Nikon D3200, to my microscope. This goes in place of the eyepiece, only using the objective as the only optical component. I've still got some bugs to work out, as far as using it to get the best image, and as far as calibrating the combinations of my D3200 connected via this adapter, to my different objective, as far as how size is scaled. The image below was taken using the same 10× objective that I used to take the above picture. I took three different pictures, focused slightly differently, and focus-stacked them, to improve depth-of-field.

View attachment 341829
Clearly the reprehensible right isn’t going to stop propagating ridiculous lies and misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

This thread is yet another example of that.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top