Dyson spouts hot air
Dyson unveiled another household appliance with a space-age twist this week, tweaking its range of Air Multipliers to include a heating element.
The Dyson Hot has a similar look and feel to the company's other blowers, but warms rooms instead, with a target temperature you can set from the display on its base. It includes the touch-tilt body, adjustable airflow and a safety feature which shuts down the fan if it falls over. There's also a remote control.
Of course, there's a wee bit of innovative tech inside too, which does away with the inefficient motors, or whiffy dust trap elements conventional heaters rely on.
As with the Air Multiplier, the Dyson Hot draws air through a mixed flow impeller, which is then accelerated through a 2.5mm aperture set within a loop amplifier.
According to Dyson, the process "creates a jet of hot air that passes over an airfoil-shaped ramp channelling its direction... Surrounding air is drawn into the airflow, amplifying it 6 times."
The Dyson Hot is available from Dyson website and John Lewis for £270. It will see nationwide release in October. ®
There is no such thing as an inefficient fan heater; all "wasted" energy is turned into heat.
It doesn't matter how inefficient the motor is - this thing is designed to turn electrical energy into heat, and whether it's the motor or the heating element doing it, the same amount of heat will be produced for the same power consumption. If it were just a fan, the efficiency would be of interest.
So it's basically £270 for a fan heater. Many outrageous claims have been made about the "efficiency" of electric heaters, although apparently not in this case. Fan, convection, radiant, halogen, "ceramic" or overpriced Dyson, they all cost the same to run for a given heating capacity. The only way you can cheat is by using a storage heater, which is no more efficient but takes advantage of cheaper electricity.
You've got to hand it to the man, with all el reg reported government drones bemoaning that we can't have a google, facebook or anything because of our patent/ copyright laws, he's done quite well out of them.
No - what he is saying is that inefficiency is irrelevant because it achieves the same result as efficiency.
If the motor was 100% inefficient (i.e. the power was on but couldn't turn the fan - blades too heavy, something jammed in the system) the power being used still has to go somewhere - and it all goes to creating heat - which is the point of the whole thing anyway.
Course a 100% inefficient motor would probably result in a lot more heat than you were really looking for (not to mention lots of big red engines and men in wellies).