the efficacy of the membrane was the subject of the test, not how the membrane was attached to your face
So the test wasn't testing masks. The test was testing mask materials (badly). Stop citing it as a test of masks.
absolutely meaningless
Of course it's not absolutely meaningless. They even apologise in the paper for failing to standardise airflow because they know themselves that it's a material factor.
this is NORMAL because if you were wearing a mask your airflow would be similarly obstructed
Similarly? No. There would be a difference. The mask wouldn't be fitted properly, it'll spend only half its time covering their nose, it'll be getting damp, it'll be getting contaminated and it'll be taken off to eat, to cough, maybe even to talk.
the environments would be completely different and the study would be POINTLESS. you'd be comparing apples to oranges
Ah, ok. You DO understand the point I'm making. The environments are completely different and the study is pointless.
take a science class
I did physics and chemistry. I was invited to become a chemical engineer. I chose a different career but along the way picked up the ability to read and assess academic papers.
His lack of knowledge means that he can't provide evidence to support your claim.
Your study does not constitute evidence.
I'm not going to deny science, but I am going to wait for some.
means nothing, they're just a testable subject
means nothing, the efficacy of the membrane was the subject of the test, not how the membrane was attached to your face
absolutely meaningless
all droplets are the same
take a science class
So the test wasn't testing masks. The test was testing mask materials (badly). Stop citing it as a test of masks.
Of course it's not absolutely meaningless. They even apologise in the paper for failing to standardise airflow because they know themselves that it's a material factor.
I feel I need to teach one. To you.
same exact thing. N95 is the rating of the material, not a rating of the mask on your face
i think you don't even understand what this means. the non-blocked group received more airflow because it wasn't blocked by the mask
this is NORMAL because if you were wearing a mask your airflow would be similarly obstructed
trying to match the airflow in the test would mean INCREASING the airflow in the cages that had mask blocks in place
would be like trying to draw conclusions from someone coughing in a house with the AC off and coughing with the AC on
the environments would be completely different and the study would be POINTLESS. you'd be comparing apples to oranges
take a science class
Similarly? No. There would be a difference. The mask wouldn't be fitted properly, it'll spend only half its time covering their nose, it'll be getting damp, it'll be getting contaminated and it'll be taken off to eat, to cough, maybe even to talk.
Ah, ok. You DO understand the point I'm making. The environments are completely different and the study is pointless.
I did physics and chemistry. I was invited to become a chemical engineer. I chose a different career but along the way picked up the ability to read and assess academic papers.
It's a skill you may find useful.