Date:         Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:50:25 -0800
Reply-To:     mike miller <mwmiller@CWNET.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         mike miller <mwmiller@CWNET.COM>
Subject:      Re: Another Electric Blanket Option .. although not cheap
Comments: To: Larry Chase <lchase@attglobal.net>
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2001112722573467@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I've actually tried electric pads vs. electric blankets.  Blanket was
warmer, no question.  Maybe it's a matter of blanket losing heat to the air
vs. body losing heat to the air, and it's better for the blanket to do it?

> From: Larry Chase <lchase@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
> Reply-To: Larry Chase <lchase@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:57:34 -0500
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Another Electric Blanket Option .. although not cheap
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:02:18 -0800, Aristotle Sagan
> <killer_jupiter@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> Good idea except for two things...
>> 1.) Trucks run all the time. Hence current draw is not an issue. It would
> be
>> an issue in a van.
>> 2.) Electric blankets lose very little heat if they are place under another
>> blanket. Like my 1979 era Alpacan Wool blanket that kept me warm in an
>> unheated house in Ohio when it was -15F.
>>
>>
> Tim ..... SJ Neighbor,
>
> A small correction to your post.
>
> The purpose of the design of this Electric mattress pad was so that
> Truckers wouldn't have to run their trucks all night. It cycles on and off
> to minimize current draw. So the 6 amps number is about 50% higher than
> actual usage, according to Manf. Although even 3 amps or so isn't
> insignificant.
>
> As to your blanket on top of the electric blanket you use ..... great idea
> to insulate and minimize heat loss. Would think that a blanket on top, even
> covered, would still be a bit less efficient than a elec. blanket on the
> mattress.
>
> But then I what the heck do I know.
>
> lchase 85Westy
> Campbell, CA
>