Are Dyson Heaters Energy-Efficient? (Running Cost Check)

Dyson heaters are no more energy-efficient than regular space heaters. But even if they were, it would take up to 7 years of running them to make up for the cost.
See the full investigation here: heatertips.com...
My advice: Do not fall for marketing claims, get any regular heater. Heaters all do the same job. It does not matter which company is producing them.
Any questions? Comment down below!

[@RELISIX]

You've done this whole review without having the product with you - it seems like you should probably test it yourself before sharing your thoughts? Thanks for the video regardless though! It was helpful

[@prabathjb]

In your calculation you are calculating the 30% power bill reduction and calculating the total price of a Dyson in repayment terms . If you have any brain you should calculate how much more you have to pay for a Dyson against a normal heater. Also 12 cents per KWH is a dream . I pay 38cents per KWH .

[@heatertips]

Hello, I do have a brain and I did account for the price difference. There is no need to insult. Ready the full linked article with all technical calculations in my website. 12 Cents per Kilowatt-hour was the average electricity cost in the US 2 years ago. Dyson heater prices rose similarly with inflation. So, the essence of this video holds true.

[@prabathjb]

KZbin comment section is no yo comment on your web article. It is to comment on your video . Entirely stupid video . Just buy a Dyson and use a smart power outlet and measure real time power consumption while running them side by side on tow similar rooms. Just don’t talk hypothetical garbage .

[@Glenno7]

Don't know about where you are, but in Australia most portable space heaters here are 2000 - 2400 Watts. anything producing heat uses about the same amount of power to produce the same heat, but the secret sauce with Dyson and why they work so well is that with their technology/ability to produce large volumes of air that fill a room so quickly with warm air, it makes you "feel" warm. So then the thermostat will throttle back the heat/power, getting you the savings. As heat rises, most room heaters give you cold spots around the room and that's why you feel the need to sit In Front of them. Also if you have cold spots, the thermostats will give a false reading making the element run longer and costing more. I've tried just about every type of portable heater, and the Dyson saves the most and heats the most - the only drawback is I'm not so much the fan of dry hot air. We use reverse cycle air conditioners in the main part of the house, because in Oz it's the cheapest way to heat, but for the rest of the house we have 5 dysons, nothing like saying "hey Siri" turn on the heater and in 5 minutes having a warm room.

[@baits9301]

Your right , i live in Melbourne and have split systems throughout , In the tv room i have a 5kw system , if i have the fan on medium . doesn't heat the room that well , but if i have it on high fan , it gets very hot . So yes , the volume of air getting heated makes a huge difference , because air is the best insulation , that your trying to heat .

[@christopherwilson6527]

I think you misunderstand the difference between efficiency and power consumption. Just because it uses more power, it can be more efficient with that power. For one the space heater just heats one side of the room via convection. The Dyson blows that warm air around the room make the whole room feel warmer.

[@heatertips]

No, I don't get it wrong. As an engineer, I know this topic inside out. Have a look: heatertips.com/are-dyson-heaters-energy-efficient-a-critical-review/ The distribution of heat does not affect the technical energy efficiency of a device. The technical energy efficiency of all space heaters is identical (100%), since input power = output power. You are talking about perceived energy efficiency. That is: how warm you feel, not how warm it is. But even that is not better in a Dyson heater. And you're getting it wrong. A Dyson fan blows the heat throughout the entire room and, therefore, achieves the lowermost possible overall temperature (assuming all heat is evenly mixed in your room) and thus the lowermost possible perceived energy efficiency. High perceived efficiency comes from localized heat (as in infrared heaters).

[@keagonrice]

@@heatertipsactually you are wrong, it’s not perceived heat, if you run them both for 3 hours, and it’s 90° next to your space heater and 65° on the other side of the room, and with the Dyson it will be 78 in the whole room with no cold or hot spots, so you can turn the Dyson off, the spacer heater stays on, get off KZbin with your terrible advice everybody disagrees with you

[@able880]

The only way to have a room were the heat is constant through out the room is by circulating the air via a ceiling fan or some other type of ventilation - That's when space heaters are used -

[@buildingutopia7617]

​@keagonrice The fan will create forced convection stopping high heat from concentrating at the ceiling. This will reduce unwanted heat loss from above. But, you may also get forced convection increasing losses over windows. It probably depends on context.

[@kennyp2531]

What about the air purification in the Dyson? Could this be part of the reason it requires more power? For many of us this a main reason for wanting the Dyson, so that we get heat/cool/air purification all in one

[@heatertips]

Yes, the air purification causes additional power loss. Dyson Hot and Cools have built-in filters which the air passes through. But pushing the air through a filter requires energy.

[@melindavannispen]

All the Dyson Air Multiplier™ fans run at a maximum of 65W. Thats a 95% energy saving compared to portable airconditioning.

[@Mr_Nobody_CA]

You just saved me $400

[@twestedwog]

i just ordered the Dyson ...thanks

[@excimer78]

Thank you for this video. You made me cancel my order and I buy regular heaters instead. Also what is very weird about Dyson is that they don't give any information about energy consumption. That's also an alarm for me.

[@heatertips]

So glad I helped you!

[@bryanseo5459]

7 years? Why would you calculate the time to make up the entire cost of buying a Dyson? You obviously have to account for buying a cheaper space heater as well. I’m not a doctor but I can see how circulating heated air increases efficiency rather regular space heaters that lets heat merely rise upwards to the ceiling.

[@heatertips]

The 7 years are the time a Dyson heater would take to make up for its increased initial cost when compared to a regular space heater, given the advertising claims of Dyson are real. So, 7 years is the best possible scenario. Circulating heat around a room merely changes the heat distribution, not the heating efficiency. Heat distribution affects the perceived heat efficiency. But you can just as well get a non-Dyson space heater with a built-in fan, or an infrared heater, which has a much better directional heat profile. Also: Even circulated heat will rise to the ceiling after a short time.

[@prabathjb]

Spot on , There are serious errors in this calculation. And the guy don’t even have a Dyson heater to compare .

[@Panzerbeast]

Also if you’ve never owned one and used it in harsh winters, you can’t critique. This thing is cheaper to run than my oil heating system.

[@bobtommi2430]

And your calculations of capital cost recovery are completely wrong, so fundamentally misleading.

[@cmontuori12865]

Dyson moves the air quicker. Which means it will heat up quicker, and. then shut down. Plus it also filters the air. Great if you have pets.

[@bobtommi2430]

The problem with this is that you are talking in the abstract. In the real world we find that our two small Dyson heaters warm up large spaces more quickly and more evenly than any other heaters that we have ever owned. There is no comparison. We love them.

[@mpatm2607]

Like the multi-function capability of Dyson (hot/cool/air purifier). Living in a multi season environment the oil radiator wouldn’t work for me. As with any product, one would only purchase pricey products on sale.

[@tariqbokhari6435]

Awesome! Thank you for your review!

[@frankryan782]

I bought 1500w oil filled radiator screwfix uk . £35 It has built in everything including timer. . An oil filled rad is just that paying more for a fancy name is > crazy

[@Panzerbeast]

The Dysons have air purifiers…. A standard air heater does not.

[@Changderson]

Another expense is the filter, Dyson's are programmed to request a change each year... and they're not cheap.

[@angelaburress8586]

But that’s the same for your furnace so

[@reggierizaev]

It's so hard to find their power consumption! In the Dyson website the power consumption is not mentioned! Thank you for the review.

[@xb5801]

Dyson filters air, other heaters don’t.

[@heatertips]

Air filtration accounts for ~2-3% of a Dyson's energy consumption. It does not make the Dyson a better product in any way. I'd argue a dedicated air purifier such as the Levoit Core 300 + a dedicated heater such as a Dr. Infrared or a Heat Storm is the superior option, and it's just a fraction of the cost.

[@So_called-v1j]

I have a dyson purifier without heat and also a small hot/cold dyson fan without purification function. As far as function the purifier is quite impressive I smoke outside mainly but if I pass by it with a cigarette in my hand it powers on and does its thing. But the heat and cool thing it does heat yes but cooling is just a fan nothing special. Is consumes more because the way to it manipulate the air to come out without a visible fan in other words its the price for looking cool. Lol you can clean the filter btw in the purifier and reset its cycle if you want.

[@LefterisEleftherious]

It's important to note that when a device specifies it uses 2000 watts, it doesn't necessarily mean the output is also 2000 watts. In any system, there are inherent losses to consider. Efficiency, calculated as Efficiency (%) = (Useful output power / Input power) * 100, is a critical factor. Dyson, for example, claims higher efficiency in their products. Generally, older devices tend to be less efficient. This is an important aspect to address in your video, as it's inaccurate to assume that physics allows the output to equal the input without losses. Every device incurs losses. For instance, a device with 97% efficiency consuming 1000 watts would yield an output of 970 watts, with the 30 watts typically lost as heat. Dyson's claim revolves around their superior efficiency in minimizing these losses.

[@RodrigoPuhlmann]

Yes, but losses are (in most of cases and like you wrote) heat in fact. Therefore, in an electric heating system the efficiency will always be close to 100%. For instance, every time you touch an equipment (e.g. notebook, power supply, lamp, engine), if it's warmer than the room temp, it means it's losing energy in form of heat, thus, compromising its efficiency. (as normally you don't buy a notebook to produce heat) In an electric heating system, they are going after the heat itself so there is not much to loose in other forms of energy, unless it is generating noise, luminosity, vibration and etc., but this would probably not be much, thus, it won't compromise the efficiency significantly. Another example, If you have a short-circuit between the phase and neutral cables (without a breaker) in an electric installation, it will consume a lot of energy, and almost all of it will become heat through the cables (and a bit of luminosity and noise), resulting probably in melting the rubber around the cooper and possibly leading to fire. Therefore, heat is considered a low-quality energy form as it is the final form of all energy conversion. (e.g. a car slowing down, transforming kinetic energy into heat through friction), therefore, in an electric heating system there is not much room for losing energy. (As for efficient air circulation/distribution and etc., it's another topic)

[@TruthDefender]

That's a poor review. Do you even own a Dyson heater?

[@heatertips]

It's not a review. I explain why a Dyson heater (contrary to Dyson's advertising claims) physically can't be more efficient than any other electric space heater. For that, I don't need to own a Dyson heater. I'd even be a hypocrite of my own stance if I owned one despite the false marketing.

[@mat2941]

@@heatertips the efficiency claim comes from how it distributes air evently across the room, reaching target temps quicker than a conventional fan heater. Is it better to suck up 1500Wh for 1 hour or 2000Wh for 20 minutes? I hope i’ve got my point across.

[@christopherwilson6527]

Ye he doesn’t get the difference between power consumption and efficiency

[@terrypeacock7046]

What type of heater would you recommend for a garden/outdoor room?

[@WhiteWhale8M8]

Thank you for the informative video, discerning insights and detailed article. I found myself inquiring about Dyson's offerings in the realm of heaters and landed on your video. Your video served as a valuable confirmation, a parallel conclusion I arrived at too, that procuring such an item would be ill-advised, as it lacks innovation and presents a rather onerous investment with a protracted payback period. It was quite discernible that their discourse predominantly revolved around artfully marketing the rudimentary tenets of physics. Spotted a typo on your article you may wish to correct, to change Dyson's assumed running costs from $168 per month to per year. Great job.

[@heatertips]

Hi mate, thank you for the feedback! I fixed the typo!

[@peaceloads1368]

thank you short an sweet!😁😁😁

[@ooksters-yf4oh]

Thank you for this review!

[@carolynkosin6256]

Thank you