Thermal Resistance of Air-Filled Mattresses: Measurement Repeatability and the Effect of Selected Test Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is no standardized test method specifically for determining the thermal resistance (R-value) of air-filled mattresses. Unacceptable inter- and intra-laboratory variations in round-robin testing have been attributed to differences in the test apparatus and test parameters used. To identify relevant sources of variation, the repeatability of the guarded hotplate apparatus (in a double plate configuration) was first characterized, and then the effect of modifying selected test parameters on mattress thickness and thermal resistance was investigated. Two mattress types, in two different sizes, were examined: one contained air only while the other contained air plus a nonwoven polyester fill. It was found that repeatable outcomes could be attained when using the guarded hotplate apparatus (95 % repeatability limit of less than 0.08 m2K/W for all mattresses tested). The modification of test parameters had significant effects on mattress thickness or R-value, or both. External pressure, the temperature difference across the specimen, supplementary insulation, mattress size, and environmental conditions affected both the thickness and R-value of the test mattresses. Inflation pressure, over the range tested, did not have a significant effect on the R-value but did influence mattress thickness. This work highlights the need for the standardization of the test apparatus and test parameters and will aid in the development of a standardized test method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".