|WikiProject Industrial design||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Concern over Flame Retardants
- 2 another suggestion
- 3 Where is that page??????
- 4 Beds are not only for sleeping??
- 5 medical usages
- 6 Problems with the mattress
- 7 Origins with Dynamic Systems
- 8 Properties
- 9 External Links
- 10 Hazards Section Reference
- 11 Chemicals released during the making are not a hazard
- 12 Aircraft seat safety
- 13 New
- 14 Gel is not cooler
- 15 Initial expense citation needed
- 16 Steady-state behavior
Concern over Flame Retardants
There seems to be a concern that memory foam, due to its highly flammable characteristics, has to be doused in cancer-causing fire retardants that are already banned in Europe. In addition, it offgasses which made it impossible to use on any space mission. I'm not sure how to cite this information since I read about it off the web, any ideas?
- That seems to be due to agents such as PBDEs and whatnot. Not all manufacturers apparently use this in their memory foam though. A blanket statement such as the above isn't so useful, and the information at all shouldn't be added to the site unless you can cite multiple web sites (and not just one sensationalist one or one PR industry one; need some scientifically sound and reputable source). 126.96.36.199 01:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- PBDE 188.8.131.52 01:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- As well, according to the web (grain of NaCl, blah blah), "The first generation of memory foam never got off the ground. It was too brittle and tended to break down after a year or two. NASA forgot about it." Not the stench, the crappyness of the early material. ( http://www.Bsleep.com/ ). 184.108.40.206 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Where is that page??????
I really need that informational page that was linked some time ago. Why was it removed? Family Guy Guy 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know I'm three months late in answering you but if something was linked in the article before, you can find it again in the article's history. --Darren Lee 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Beds are not only for sleeping??
Removed obvious statement and subsequent warning about having sex, er, "bedroom activities" on memory foam. Not needed for this article. Soonercary 23:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Back in 1982, this bit of research was carried out in the hospital where I worked:
a small memory foam cushion was used under the sacral area of elderly patients having broken hips fixed. This sacral area is a very at risk area for pressure sores post-op. A small pressure device was used to record the pressure under the sacrum during the procedure - any pressure that exceeds the patient's systolic blood pressure is known the exacerbate the risk of pressure sores.
During this test, the pressure on the sacrum was found to be considerably reduced and during the period the cushion was in use the incidence of pressure sores was considerably reduced.
Unfortunately the paper the doctor submitted with his findings is lost but suffice it to say that most operating tables mattresses are now made of memory foam.
Problems with the mattress
I've been researching tempurpedic mattresses and this article as well as the memory foam article ignore the problems with tempurpedic. Some sample issues are:
1) The memory foam absorbs body heat and many people complain about getting too hot as they are surrounded by the heated foam.
2) After about a year or two the mattresses tend to lose their original properties and Tempurpedic only warranties the mattresses for workmanship and that their lifetime(20 year) warranty doesn't cover the normal wearing down of their mattresses in just a couple of years.
3) Many people suffer from back pain as the mattress ages.
4) The memory foam absorbs common allergans that can present problems over time.
http://www.myfoammattress.net/guide/complaint.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Origins with Dynamic Systems
Looks like it was developed for airplane seats, not shuttle seats (NASA page).
Although the NASA page says Charles Yost founded Dynamic Systems, the Tempur-Pedic About page says it was Ned Yost. Perhaps one is a middle name?
Who wrote this? Some kind of company? "We" "our"...not suitable for an encyclopaedic article. I have taken the information from it and rephrased it. I don't know enough about the topic to say what is right and wrong, but I know a leaflet paragraph when I see one.
EDIT: My encyclopeadic writing isn't great either, but it's better than the old I think. I've left in the bit about "some say IDF..." but I think it either needs to be clarified or removed.
Hazards Section Reference
I believe www.viscoelasticmattresstopper.net is the best fitting source for the hazards and smell of mattresses section. If you read the about section on the website it describes why the owner is an expert on the topic, however due to user: Ronz issues I took the liberty of contacting him via his website's email. His name is Chris, he spent the last 2 month of last semester (Oct and Nov) doing his final project a university business class on this exact topic. He also told me that he has owned multiple memory foam mattresses and two different brands of memory foam toppers. His website describes almost word for word the experiences that are included in the hazards section of the Wikipedia entry. After searching through Google for multiple hours it was the single most credible source for the hazards section of the wiki entry. The way it stands, then wiki entry is un-credible stating characteristics of this mattress with nothing and no one verifying them. This article perfectly fixes that problem, it is a website that is purely sharing information without any ads of any sort. I personally found it extremely helpful in my research when I was contemplating making a purchase of this specific product, and was completely baffled as to why it had been removed when I returned. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- This source fails both WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. If no one is even going to bother claiming otherwise, it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? Anti-X organization is a credible source for primary information about X? --John Moser (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Chemicals released during the making are not a hazard
I mean, off course those chemicals are toxic, but not to the people using the final product I think that part should be removed, your mattress or earplugs won't release any of those nasty chemicals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Aircraft seat safety
The article states "Memory foam was developed...to improve the safety of aircraft cushions." There is no explanation on how memory foam is any safer than other foam. Rsduhamel (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this an awkward sentence? "It is often seen[by whom?] as a good compromise between the comfort of a soft mattress and the solidness of a firm one." Really, comfort and solidness are opposites to most folks? This is an opinion, not a fact. Hmmm, lets dump "comfort" and "solidness" for ditching the entire sentence altogether. It's not adding anything and it means a lot of soul searching to find two opposing verbs that describe our own personal sleep preferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettjor (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not opinion; it's wrong. Mattresses have support and comfort, and modern firm mattresses often provide hard foam and inner-spring layers beneath readily-compressible comfort layers such as cotton, wool, polyester batting, memory foam, or latex foam. These more-plush layers remove pressure points and supply comfort, while the stable support layers provide all of the advantages of traditional firm mattresses. Rather than compromise, modern mattresses are engineered. --John Moser (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added May 11, 2012
- New New Section There was no New section on this page so I added it.
- Contradiction? The Contradict tag was added to the article in Sept 2011, but there is no material on this page to support that claim. I would suggest the tag be removed.
- Use of Talk Page As I just read in the [Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages|Wikipedia Tutorial], it seems that Talk pages are not for discussion about the subject matter of the page, only about the page itself. It seems there is much here discussing the subject matter. Some of it would seem to be of interest to the reader of the page, such as the Engineering evaluation. I would like to contribute to that with additional material and add it to the article, though I don't have the time/inclination to get references (seems like Wikipedia is very interested in references these days). So, should I move the content from this Talk Page to the Article Page and start with it being unreferenced?
- Cleanup of Talk Page Should a Talk Page ever be cleaned up? It seems like several inquiries here are resolved and included in the Article. Some are dated. Is it fair game to clean up the talk page?
Gel is not cooler
"TUVRheinland did a study comparing gel infused memory foam to Tempur-Pedic’s proprietary material. Tempur material has an open cell structure, which allows airflow, making it more breathable than traditional memory foam. In the study, the most popular gel infused memory foam actually tested warmer on the sleep surface than the open cell Tempur material, over an eight hour period. Testing anywhere from one to one and a half degree warmer. The gel memory foam may initially be cooler to the touch, but actually gets warmer through out the night than the Tempur material." --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Initial expense citation needed
Do we really need citations for statements like, "Memory foam was initially too expensive for widespread use?" This is an artifact of technical progress and markets (luxuries) and is true of everything from steel and coal to the iron lung and OLED screens. Specific figures such as the several-thousand-dollar price tag of a queen-sized bed require specific citation, of course. --John Moser (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I hear of benefits of memory foam mattresses and pillows, but from an engineering standpoint, I don't see how there can be any steady-state difference in behavior between memory foam and conventional foam (with the possible exception of reaction to heat). As I understand it, memory foam can be described as a damped spring rather than an undamped spring. The transient response of these is different, so I can understand the potential for transient g-force-control applications, but for applications where the user is stationary, as in a bed, I don't see how memory foam could help. Can someone comment on this? —BenFrantzDale 05:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- My thoughts on why it works
- Sure! First, if there were no difference at all, it is unlikely that it would have the current market niche and position -- so, I presume there is a difference (I don't use the product). There are 2 basic ways to combine viscosity and elasticity: 1. in parallel (a dampened spring), and 2. in series (a spring where the anchor point moves in a viscous fashion). In case 1, there is no difference at steady state, while in case 2, there is.
- Practically speaking, the difference is then the reaction of the mattress to the force. When the material can "rearrange" itself (viscous response), the reaction is spread out over a wider area, reducing pressure points. The allows better blood flow, and reduces the need to interrupt the sleep by changing body positions. -- Paul Balliet 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Paul, thanks for the response. I almost believe you, but not quite :-)
- First, if I understand you correctly you describe a spring and damper in series, like so:
- Theoretically, under a constant force, this system will stretch or compress infinitely because the damper will just keep changing length. To prevent this, a simple model used in modeling creep is to put a second spring in parallel with the damper so the system stabalizes but still has some instantanious spring-like behavior. But then the steady-state behavior is again governed only by the springs since the observed behavior has dx/dt=0 and since the damper only responds when there is motion. ——Ben FrantzDale 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm no engineer but when you use viscofoam in a stationary environment, specifically with a mattress(and pillows) then the heat reactive qualities cause the mattress to mould itself to your body. The idea being that your spine is kept in alignment as you sleep, which seems like a good idea to me!
Not all memory foam is flammable, I work alongside a company who developed their memory foam - water based so it is NOT flammable and cannot catch fire, fair enough it will smoke but it is not a fire hazard for the home. www.oromedhealthcare.com SiriusPro 11:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
@BenFrantzDale: @BenFrantzDale: I have to say, I also don't see the benefit of memory foam in a steady-state situation. Any open-cell foam doesn't compress like a spring; it exerts a fairly constant force that is nearly independent of displacement, over a range of displacement. So in a steady state, it shouldn't matter if it's "memory" foam or just open-cell polymer foam, each point on the foam still exerts a constant force on the object laying on it.
It seems to me that the "memory" feature of retaining a deformity for a short period is just a gimmick to sell mattresses. I am not seeing any advantage to a foam that happens to preserve a deformation for a brief period.
I'm trying to find sources that discuss the benefit of memory foam versus non-memory open-cell polymer foam in the context of mattresses, but any search gets muddled by results that take it for granted that the benefit exists. If such sources can be found, they would be good to reference in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)