Steamer or hair dryer versus Ice.

In my line of work, I sometimes have to melt great quantities of ice. My coworkers use a steamer and swear by it. But when I've watched them use it, I notice it adds water to the problem. Too much water=more towels needed than necessary.

My hair dryer works. Melts and uses no water. I know everyone is going to say "use a heat gun". Nope. Nope. Nope. The area we work in is plastic and cheap. I've used a heat gun in the past and it will melt that plastic liner quicker than you can react. 
 

so, my question? Does a steamer have some scientific advantage for melting ice faster than a hair dryer would? One adds water, one evaporates it. 

I have one spot under the kitchen sink that freezes when it gets below zero (mostly because SWMBO stacks cleaning supplies around it so no air movement),  but I digress.  Heat guns warm it up too fast and split the galvanized pipe.  Hair dryer and patience.

When the water changes phase it gives up a lot of heat that will melt the ice.

About 970 btu per lb of steam. So if they are using a gallon of water (steam) in 10 minutes thats about 48,300 btu/hr or 12.7 kW heater.

Whats a hair dryer? Under 2000 watts?

(Hopefully I did math right)

Steam gets its melting power from the phase change, not the temperature. 220 degree steam will cut through ice without getting anything else super hot, even if you get close. A hairdryer held too close can melt plastic. The steam requires less skill to avoid screwing up.

These are the answers I needed. Thanks folks! (Off to amazon to find a steamer that is not from Cleveland.)

This is where the difference between heat and temperature come into play.

Put a pot of water on the stove with a thermometer in it.  As the temp rises to 212F it starts to boil, but it stays at 212F for the whole boil.  You're still adding heat at the same rate, but the heat is being absorbed by the conversion from liquid to gas.  That's why steam burns are typically worse than hot water burns.  Steam at 212F has so much more heat energy in it than water at 212F.

I don't have the numbers in front of me to do a real math-y thing, but hair dryers typically heat air to about 200F, so the temperatures are about the same as steam, however the steam certainly carries more heat since it had to go through a state change to get there.  I don't know how much, but a LOT more.

I would try it and see how it does.  Might be worth the extra towels.

So I did a quick lookup.  One kg of steam at 100C contains 417.5 kJ of energy and occupies 1.7 cubic meters.  One kg of air at 100C contains about 72 kJ of energy and occupies 1.3 cubic meters.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Damn dude. Damn. You do this everytime. You're a frickin scientist or something right? Thanks, once again, Curtis!

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

So I did a quick lookup.  One kg of steam at 100C contains 417.5 kJ of energy and occupies 1.7 cubic meters.  One kg of air at 100C contains about 72 kJ of energy and occupies 1.3 cubic meters.

The difference in your situation (OP) isn't as big as these numbers would have you to believe.  What's the wattage of the steamers in use?

The absolute maximum rate either can melt ice is governed by their input wattage.  Both are essentially 100% efficient (at converting energy to heat.  Slightly less in directing that energy at the target).  I highly doubt the steamer is any higher wattage than the hair dryer.

Convection might be a different story though.  You can reflect radiant heat off ice.  Hot steam might be significantly less likely to reflect off ice than hot air.

In reply to ProDarwin :

Very true.  My numbers are assuming you're introducing the same mass of each medium to the ice.

Vajingo said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Damn dude. Damn. You do this everytime. You're a frickin scientist or something right? Thanks, once again, Curtis!

Physics and chemistry always just clicked for me.  No formal degree in it, but I was pre-med for 3.5 years before I switched to music theater.  Dad was a science teacher, my uncle is an electronic and mechanical engineer, my ex wife was a veterinarian and pharmacy tech/geek

Fun things about my Uncle (and totally off-topic):  He developed the urethane finish used on Remington's gun stocks, and he was also hired by Toyota to engineer a flaw into the Camry and Corolla.  Toyota's research in the 80s suggested that people were not as engaged with their car owning experience because they were too reliable and therefore "Wasure yasui" which translates basically to "forgettably mundane".  Toyota USA called it Reliability Blindness.  By engineering an inexpensive, easy-to-replace part that anyone can do, it makes the car feel more reliable.  If you never have to fix anything, you don't think about reliability and go blind to it.  If you have to replace a $10 power steering reservoir cap, it reminds you that "damn, this thing is really reliable."  Basically, they determined that a car with a $10 easy fix is perceived by the owner as more reliable than a car that never fails.