I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a bbq
nut, I'm a math geek. I know just enough about each of them to get in
trouble. Regardless, whenever I smoke a butt, I track cooking times in
minutes per pound for various stages in the cooking process - 100 deg, 110
deg, 120 deg, etc. It helps me monitor whether I'm cooking too fast or too
slow, compared to previous "good" results. After looking at the info for
several cookings, a pattern seemed to evolve. Crunching the numbers a
little, it was amazing how well "minutes per pound" vs. "food temperature"
could be described by a quadratic curve. R-squared values for individual
cookings are usually .99+, and even when combining multiple cookings,
R-squared is above .97. My question - are there any actual
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results - luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results - luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob


Rob, may I suggest your are overthinking this? Look at it this way, how come
a three minute egg is a three minute egg for any egg? Why can I grill my
steaks the same temp+time+thickness and get the same results? You could use
a lot of different equations and as long as you input realtively consistant
data you'll get relatively consistant output. Same in, same out.

"Rob" wrote in message
. com...
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek. I know just enough about each of them to get in
trouble. Regardless, whenever I smoke a butt, I track cooking times in
minutes per pound for various stages in the cooking process - 100 deg, 110
deg, 120 deg, etc. It helps me monitor whether I'm cooking too fast or too
slow, compared to previous "good" results. After looking at the info for
several cookings, a pattern seemed to evolve. Crunching the numbers a
little, it was amazing how well "minutes per pound" vs. "food temperature"
could be described by a quadratic curve. R-squared values for individual
cookings are usually .99+, and even when combining multiple cookings,
R-squared is above .97. My question - are there any actual
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results - luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob

I think you need to decrease you powers of observation and increase your
consumption of alcohol (beer) you have way too much time on your hands - put
it to a better use.

lol

Dimitri

"Rob" wrote in message
. com...
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek. I know just enough about each of them to get in
trouble. Regardless, whenever I smoke a butt, I track cooking times in
minutes per pound for various stages in the cooking process - 100 deg, 110
deg, 120 deg, etc. It helps me monitor whether I'm cooking too fast or too
slow, compared to previous "good" results. After looking at the info for
several cookings, a pattern seemed to evolve. Crunching the numbers a
little, it was amazing how well "minutes per pound" vs. "food temperature"
could be described by a quadratic curve. R-squared values for individual
cookings are usually .99+, and even when combining multiple cookings,
R-squared is above .97. My question - are there any actual
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results - luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob


Are your shoes tied right now?

Jack

A Quadratic equation in fact is used to predict thermal propagation in a
solid, liquid or gaz. So, not surprizing. Problem is to find thermal
gradient in order to not burn the outside and get the inside just juicy. As
far as your input parameters, thermal conductivity is different from one
piece to the other because of the variation in grease content and probably
density of the meat.

So while, I appreciate your effort, I'm not sure it's applicable as a
general law of barbecueing "GLB" but then again, I'm no Einstein do maybe
you just discovered the Rob's GLB !


"Rob" a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek. I know just enough about each of them to get in
trouble. Regardless, whenever I smoke a butt, I track cooking times in
minutes per pound for various stages in the cooking process - 100 deg, 110
deg, 120 deg, etc. It helps me monitor whether I'm cooking too fast or too
slow, compared to previous "good" results. After looking at the info for
several cookings, a pattern seemed to evolve. Crunching the numbers a
little, it was amazing how well "minutes per pound" vs. "food temperature"
could be described by a quadratic curve. R-squared values for individual
cookings are usually .99+, and even when combining multiple cookings,
R-squared is above .97. My question - are there any actual
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results - luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob

Rob wrote:
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to
being a bbq
nut, I'm a math geek. I know just enough about each of them to get in

trouble. Regardless, whenever I smoke a butt, I track cooking times
in
minutes per pound for various stages in the cooking process - 100
deg, 110
deg, 120 deg, etc. It helps me monitor whether I'm cooking too fast
or too
slow, compared to previous "good" results. After looking at the info
for
several cookings, a pattern seemed to evolve. Crunching the numbers a

little, it was amazing how well "minutes per pound" vs. "food
temperature"
could be described by a quadratic curve. R-squared values for
individual
cookings are usually .99+, and even when combining multiple cookings,

R-squared is above .97. My question - are there any actual
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why
a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results -
luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob


Just to be clear, this post wasn't by me!

Rob (who would much rather drink beer, have a tooth pulled or anything
other than crunch numbers)
Q for all!

"Duwop" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results -
luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob


Rob, may I suggest your are overthinking this? Look at it this way, how
come
a three minute egg is a three minute egg for any egg? Why can I grill my
steaks the same temp+time+thickness and get the same results? You could
use
a lot of different equations and as long as you input realtively
consistant
data you'll get relatively consistant output. Same in, same out.

Duwop, you missed the point. I run the #'s for the same reason I run the
smoker - I enjoy it. For me, it just adds another level of fun to the whole
process. As long as the smoker is smokin' and the beer is cold, I don't
really sweat the data, but I was surprised at the consistency of the
results, even across several smokings. Just curious if any other pitman-geek
had seen anything similar. BTW, Saturday's bbq turned out great, and the
curve had an R-Squared of .993. G Regardless, thanx for the feedback.

"Rob" wrote in message news:n%Q8e.75778

snip

Duwop, you missed the point. I run the #'s for the same reason I run the
smoker - I enjoy it. For me, it just adds another level of fun to the
whole process. As long as the smoker is smokin' and the beer is cold, I
don't really sweat the data, but I was surprised at the consistency of the
results, even across several smokings. Just curious if any other
pitman-geek had seen anything similar. BTW, Saturday's bbq turned out
great, and the curve had an R-Squared of .993. G Regardless, thanx for
the feedback.

I understand the need however cooking is an art not a science. No matter
how good the equation there are far too many variables to make the equation
effective as example:

The ambient temperature and anticipated change in temperature.
The ambient humidity and any anticipated change therein.
The wind direction and speed along with the BTU loss in the chamber due to
the heat loss.
The amount of wood used for the "smoke" and the amount of heat generated y
the wood itself.
Any fluctuation(s) in the heat source.
The mass and the temperature of the meat at the start.

I'm sure there are other variables.

Dimitri

"Rob" wrote:
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek.[ . . . ]

Rob, Consider putting your math skills to more productive use, e.g.
determining the diameter of the event horizon of a black hole consisting of
all the known matter in the known Universe, etc. That should getcha through
a couple of brews. g

Post some pics oof yer food on a.b.f, too! ;-)

--
Nick. To send your support to Any of Our Troops in Harm's Way, go to:
http://anysoldier.com/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Rob" wrote:
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek.[ . . . ]

Rob, Consider putting your math skills to more productive use, e.g.
determining the diameter of the event horizon of a black hole consisting of
all the known matter in the known Universe, etc. That should getcha through
a couple of brews. g

Post some pics oof yer food on a.b.f, too! ;-)

--
Nick. To send your support to Any of Our Troops in Harm's Way, go to:
http://anysoldier.com/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Duwop" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
mathematicians/statisticians out there who can help me understand why a
quadratic equation does such a great job of predicting the results -
luck,
coincidence, something real going on?
Thanks,
Rob


Rob, may I suggest your are overthinking this? Look at it this way, how
come
a three minute egg is a three minute egg for any egg? Why can I grill my
steaks the same temp+time+thickness and get the same results? You could
use
a lot of different equations and as long as you input realtively
consistant
data you'll get relatively consistant output. Same in, same out.

Duwop, you missed the point. I run the #'s for the same reason I run the
smoker - I enjoy it. For me, it just adds another level of fun to the whole
process. As long as the smoker is smokin' and the beer is cold, I don't
really sweat the data, but I was surprised at the consistency of the
results, even across several smokings. Just curious if any other pitman-geek

had seen anything similar. BTW, Saturday's bbq turned out great, and the
curve had an R-Squared of .993. G Regardless, thanx for the feedback.

I would be extremely intrested in you doing three butts simultaneously
and then reporting the results according to your mathematical equation.
I want to see how you mathematically account for the time difference
between three identical sized butts. In my time zone they an be a
whole hour apart.


Brick (Keep the shiny side up)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 18-Apr-2005, "Jack Schidt®" wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message

snip

Are your shoes tied right now?

Jack

You're my man Jack. Most all of us know that most of it is in
the wrist. You sure God ain't going to figure it out with a spread
sheet. Sorry but that's the way it is.

If I put all of my cooks in a speadsheet, I would get a nice
average. Wonderful, half of my cooks would be under done
and half would be over done. Some small percentate would
be "Good Eats"

Brick (Keep the shiny side up)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Brick" wrote in message
Duwop, you missed the point.

Et tu Brick?

And here I thought I was just answering the question that actually existed
as written.

Butt, maybe I'm just being literal here.

"Brick" wrote in message
Duwop, you missed the point.

Et tu Brick?

And here I thought I was just answering the question that actually existed
as written.

Butt, maybe I'm just being literal here.

wrote:

"Rob" wrote:
I know this is going to sound freakin' weird, but in addition to being a
bbq nut, I'm a math geek.[ . . . ]

Rob, Consider putting your math skills to more productive use, e.g.
determining the diameter of the event horizon of a black hole consisting of
all the known matter in the known Universe, etc.

Would that be "known" in a biblical sense?

-CAL