Piedmont wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
>> Piedmont wrote:
> Hey, Duwop
>
> What I mean is that when using lump, which is carbon, you need to add
> seasoned firewood that still gives off a "smoke" is required for a
> smoke flavor. Lump, regardless of it's original species, oak, maple,
> hickory, etc has no "smoke", if you see smoke it's probably from new
> or old grease and drippings.
>

Damn, really? So why do we read so often the reccomendation to burn down
wood logs down to coals before using? I'm sure you've seen picture where
someones burning down a bunch a wood in a burn barrell. Someone should tell
them boys they're doing it wrong.
The lump brand I use tends towards the low side of doneness if you know what
I mean, brown still shows in spots and some of it looks more like singed
wood than coal. And it makes a lot of smoke, especially when starting up. So
maybe I'm not using lump cuz it sure dont seem to fit your definition.
Or maybe your definition only fits what you're using?? But I don't recognize
your definition fitting Royal Oak all that well either because it makes
smoke too. Not burnt fat smoke neither.
I'm not using a vert or a gasser so I dont eat my drippings. And all this
time I thought it was smoke coming out the chimney, damn, thanks for
straightening me out man.
It's not wood smoke according to you, and it's not fat cuz they dont hit the
flame.

Well, I'll figure it out one of these days, but with your permission, I'm
gonna keep fooling myself and my friends into tasting wood smoke without
using firewood.



Dale
--