The key is that if they can be inhaled, they are < 100 microns. And then they stay on the air > 1 m and do NOT behave like ballistic droplets. Sometimes ppl resort to droplets that behave like aerosols, but then they are still "droplets". But there is no such thing, unphysical
-
-
That is the case only if you posit a dichotomy -- an all-or-none distinction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(I don't know how I got summoned to this thread but I would love to see a framework that explains how droplets could explain the empirical facts we observe. I'd be genuinely interested to see one; have been asking forever. There's one for aerosols, and it fits data and physics.)
-
We could start with how medical science somehow distinguishes between droplets and aerosols by a size that is not covered by physical measurements and unknown in physics/engineering. "Continuum" they say, but "5µm!" .
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Outside of my domain, but if surgical masks have some effectiveness at reducing spread (which I think they do), doesn’t that suggest some spread must result from droplet sized particles? I imagine it’s a continuum of particle sizes.
-
Good question.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.