The Guardian, a paper I like to read, has published this:

https://www.theguardian.com/thefilter/2024/nov/07/the-8-best-electric-heaters-tried-and-tested-from-traditional-stove-style-units-to-modern-smart-models

 

It just goes to show that some journalists need to go back to school.

 

To save you reading it, even though it is a short article, here is a performance summery.  The only power figure I could not verify was the Dyson, it had 240W, so think someone at Dyson dropped a zero.

Name Price Power Type ΔT Noise dB Enclosure T Running Costs H W D Mass Belray 275 2000 Convection 5.2 28 87.2 44 57 79.3 8 19.3 Russel Hobbs 49 2000 Oscillating Fan 6.3 51 59.1 46 33.5 15.5 14.8 1.9 Dyson 549 2400 Fan 8.2 58 64.7 59 76.4 20.5 13 5.7 Everhot 1225 1500 Stove Convection 3.8 34 105.2 38 50.8 48.7 41 40 Swan 12.99 700 Fan 2.4 56 60.4 16 14 11 12 0.63 Duux Threesixty 86.73 1500 Fan 7.6 54 58.3 45 30 22 22 2.4 Devola 119.95 1500 Convection 6.4 34 44.6 45 47 65 8 7.68 VonHaus 42.99 1500 Oil Convection 2.7 33 70.6 22 62 33.5 24 6.9

38 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

some journalists need to go back to school.

 

 

 

They were not uderstanding physics in the first place.

 

It’s a shame that … it’s expensive to run. All that fancy functionality comes with an added energy cost.

 

 

At least  this article measured how the heat spread. I have recently read similar reviews where the lowest powered one is automatically rated the most economical. 

The previous day the review would be leggings or toys or some such, and maybe fashionistas would despair at my ignorance if i wrote it.