3 ms·
To pick just one (!) nit here... you're off by a factor of two or more on particle size, and certainly off by a factor of more than two on standard deviation of
by addaon 5y ago
To pick just one (!) nit here... you're off by a factor of two or more on particle size, and certainly off by a factor of more than two on standard deviation of that particle size. SARS-CoV-2 has a typical diameter closer to 100 nm than 300 nm [1], and a standard deviation of 60% of diameter would be exceptionally high for a spherical viron.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82852-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82852-7
- peterburkimsher 5y agoThank you for the correction to Assumption 1, that's helpful! "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer." https://github.com/dwmkerr/hacker-laws#cunninghams-law https://github.com/dwmkerr/hacker-laws#cunninghams-law If that is so, then is it possible to generate UV-C light with a wavelength of 100 nm?
- addaon 5y agoSure, but water's pretty much opaque to UV-A, so essentially you're just heating up the water the viron is suspended in -- which doesn't require any particular frequency specificity. And the virus viability period on a cloth mask once the water evaporates is so low that there's no reason to target it then.
- peterburkimsher 5y agoWhat is the virus viability period? I'm just asking for a standard deviation on "so low".
- addaon 5y agoDepends on material, etc, but single digit hours is the best estimate I've seen for dry cloth.