Talk:Waterbed

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Home Living Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

My waterbed has used a daily average of 3.7kWh in February in Hong Kong.

That may be true and even interesting to some people, but it's hardly encyclopedic knowledge. More appropriate would be what consumer organizations have to say. Also, a price in USD is highly uninformative if we don't know what the price of a kWh is in the US. Perhaps you could state kWh per year instead.

Furthermore, the two statements:

The quality of sexual intercourse is reduced, as the energy of movement is absorbed by the water, instead of the partner's clitoris.

the Sexual Revolution was under way, and Hall's waterbed became enormously popular

seem a non sequitur. Can somebody explain? I don't have sexual intercourse a waterbed.   ;-)
—Herbee 00:20, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

• Sorry it took someone 2 years to respond, Herbee! To respond to your question: it can be very difficult for a couple to balance or coordinate with the wave action of the old-style single chambered mattresses. Anyone who's even sat down too fast on one will know how much momentum can be generated by even small movements, much less the continuous and rythmic motions required of coitus. It can be done, but it takes some effort to adapt. It's generally less true with modern mattresses.
• Also, I hope what I added under "Advantages/Disadvantages" is adequate. The above is a weird non-sequitur, not to mention a little bizzare, I feel what I added puts it in contex. I feel that this article DOES need to have some sort of comment of this nature: it's a bed! Most people associate beds and bedrooms at sometime or another with sex, and I think it's significant enough for a Wikipedia article. The statement would be more appropriate for a "Waterbeds in Popular Culture" heading, but I don't have enough material on that to make the heading myself. Durty Willy 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From personal experience (I've had a waterbed for about 6 years now): A modern mattress while it does make a difference to sexual experience does not make it more "difficult". It has pros and cons, and it's probably a nice change for someone who hasn't done it before, but all things considered I'd say it equals out. Different: Yes, Better/Worse: No. --.Tom. 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A waterbed needs to be heated to 32-38 °C to avoid kidney problems and other health risks.

Hm, do waterbeds actually get kidney problems? But seriously, is there any evidence for this? Googling didn't turn anything up.

Novalis 09:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't find anything on that, either. I'm going to delete after a few days unless someone can cite a source. TaintedMustard 23:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been sleeping in a waterbed heated to about 28°C for 6 years now. No kidney prolems or other health issues. I'd also like a citation for the 30°C temperature suggestion, because 27-29°C (depending on personal preference) is what our vendor told us when we bought it. --.Tom. 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely surprised by the content of this article. First, the idea that a waterbed needs to be heated.. I and everyone I know require a great deal of cooling-down to sleep properly (fans, etc) and the one time we had a waterbed, its cooling effect was delightful. Secondly, the derision of the sloshing-motion.. That's sort of the entire reason we got one. At least when we were kids, it was FUN!

Guess it depends on where you live in regards to the heat. I imagine that most people who live in Nevada probably don't spend much to heat a waterbed. Personally, I turn my waterbed heater off during the summer, but the idea of crawling onto a cold water bed when it's below freezing outside... no thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.76.128.217 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I live in Cleveland, OH. We get plenty of below-freezing weather and I don't have waterbed heater. Sure, it's a bit cold when you get in, but it's not really any colder than a normal bed when you first get under the covers on a cold night. The "necessity" of a waterbed heater is frankly dramatically overstated (especially, of course, by those selling them). I'm sure it'd be nice but it's no more necessary than an electric blanket is. Pimlottc 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the constant temperature does both. If it's cold outside, the waterbed feels warm because it's considerably warmer than the rest of your home. If it's hot, it cools you down because it's still colder than your body temperature.--.Tom. 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the source for the statement that a foam mattress cover reduces the heating need by 60%. I have had a waterbed since 1985 with a matress cover (not sure what material it is made of) such that I do not use a heater at all. The mattress cover alone provides sufficient insulation from the cold water. 204.44.5.4 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we square the assertion that Hall was unable to patent his invention due to prior art by Heinlein with the fact that this page contains a link to the patent Hall did, in fact, receive for this invention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnvillani (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed uncited false statement. Please revert me if it turns out not to be false. Drama-kun (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any reference to the alleged patent by William Hooper in 1883 or 1851. This is an urban legend that can be found in many online sources, but there is no record of such an patent application in the Patent Office records. William Hooper was a chemist (not a doctor or surgeon) who marketed rubber water-filled cushions for medical purposes in the nineteenth century, but he never patented them.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh what a surprise, some/one/bot removed a criticism by‎ 2.99.238.16 at 21:44, 22 March 2014‎

• Internal bubbles can be noisy.

Witheringipedia, Wikipedia used to be great didn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.225.236 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if I change the pro/con list into a more cohesive, measured couple of paragraphs as per the recommendation on Wikipedia:Pro and con lists? If there is no response, I will do so within a couple days. Thanks. Jlevi (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No edits in over a year, no response. Time to be bold.Jlevi (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]