Bilz wrote:
>> Despite my quibbles,.I am very glad you got some good ribs this time!
>
> Seriously, dude? Was this post necessary? I have been on usenet for
> about 12 years now... I know how to quote... of course, that doesn't
> mean I do it correct every time.

That should be, "correctly".

Bluto©

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> I don't understand using all of that. Just a light rub and proper cooking is
> all you need. I sometimes put a little sauce on the side, but even that is
> rare and not needed. If the meat is cooked right, there is no need to add
> lots of other junk on it. We're cooking meat, not making candy.

Ain't that the truth. I was in North Carolina in April for a
local "hogfest" and tried the ribs at Smoked From Above in
Virgina Beach on the way back. This Q joint is highly recommended
by the local newspaper, but we couldn't believe how incredily
sweet and cloyingly sticky the ribs were. Just loaded with cooked-on
sweet sauce. Apparently some folks really like that.

Our ribs didn't do so well in the Hogfest, probably on account
of us not loading them with a bunch of sweet sauce. What can I
say.

Dana

Dana Myers wrote:
> This Q joint is highly recommended
> by the local newspaper, but we couldn't believe how incredily
> sweet and cloyingly sticky the ribs were. Just loaded with cooked-on
> sweet sauce. Apparently some folks really like that.
>
> Our ribs didn't do so well in the Hogfest, probably on account
> of us not loading them with a bunch of sweet sauce. What can I
> say.
>
Taste varies. The first time I visited the south and ordered iced tea,
I was stunned.... I have never tasted tea so sweet. Are they right? Am
I right to not sweeten my tea? No....it's a matter of taste and there's
no real right or wrong.

Same with Q. For a long time I've liked my que to have some real heat
to it, and a lot of smoke taste. Lately I've been just doing salt,
pepper and smoke and like the meat taste coming through more. I suspect
the folks at Hogfest wouldn't like either incarnation of my pork
ribs.... and that's OK.

Mike

--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

Once seen on road signs all over the United States:
If a gift
You must choose
Give him
One that
He can use
Burma-Shave

Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
> Hey Mike--shall we take turns being the spelling, grammar, and diction
> cops in afb? If we do that, we can probably offend all the regulars
> in about a week. (a week only because some regs only seem to check in
> about once a week)
>

Nah, I don't want to **** anyone off. But on the other hand, endless
quotes are a real issue for me.
> PS--your points were all correct and the explanations fairly well
> done.
>
Thanks. Of course, I still don't want to **** anyone off.... I just
want to see less unneeded quoting.

Mike



--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
Flash! Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Mike Avery" > wrote in message
> > It's easy to do use correct English here... too many teachers get
> > carried away with making it harder.
> >
> > Despite my quibbles,.I am very glad you got some good ribs this time!
> >
> > Mike
>
> Were lucky to have you hear, watching over hour grammar use. Him and me
> would be lost withought you.
> Thanks alot

I now try to avoid making grammar or spelling correction on NewsGroups,
unless specifically requested. E-mail is mo' bettah!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

EMOVETHIS wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:22:33 -0000, Bilz >
> >> [ . . . ]
> >Sorry for not being perfect.
>
> Well, dang. With that, you'll have to turn in your water-walking
> sandals.

Won't work for me. I've got wholes in my feat!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

Dana Myers wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> I don't understand using all of that. Just a light rub and proper
>> cooking is all you need. I sometimes put a little sauce on the side,
>> but even that is rare and not needed. If the meat is cooked right,
>> there is no need to add lots of other junk on it. We're cooking meat,
>> not making candy.
>
> Ain't that the truth. I was in North Carolina in April for a
> local "hogfest" and tried the ribs at Smoked From Above in
> Virgina Beach on the way back. This Q joint is highly recommended
> by the local newspaper, but we couldn't believe how incredily
> sweet and cloyingly sticky the ribs were. Just loaded with cooked-on
> sweet sauce. Apparently some folks really like that.
>
> Our ribs didn't do so well in the Hogfest, probably on account
> of us not loading them with a bunch of sweet sauce. What can I
> say.
>
> Dana
Which hogfest were you at? There have been quite a few here in NC in the last
couple of weeks.

I never liked Smoked From Above. You can not taste the meat. All you taste is
the sauce.

Chris

Bilz wrote:

<snip>

> Well, I must say, all the advice, and some stuff I read in the FAQ
> really paid off.

Glad it did. I started off here, too, several years back. A few dozen posts
later, and some experimenting, and I had some decent barbecue in my back
yard.

Keep it up, and you'll wind up with a whole 'nother addiction, errrr, hobby.


--
EZ
Traeger BBQ075 "Texas"
CharGriller Smokin Pro
Great Outdoors Smoky Mountain Wide Body
CharmGlow 3-burner All-Stainless Gas Grill
Weber Kettle One-Touch Silver 22-1/2"
Weber Kettle Smoky Joe Silver 14-1/2"

On 3-Jun-2007, "Tinman" > wrote:

> "Bilz" wrote:
> >
>
> What a disaster.
>
> Next time it's back to basics. And I think I'm done with TV-show-BBQ. Seems
> to be geared towards apartment-dwelling metrosexuals anyway (or at least the
> shows I happened to watch).
>
>
> --
> Mike

Mike, there is no substitute for skill with the basics. But first one
must identify what the basics are. This group pretty well spells
it all out if you can filter out some of the crap. Unless or until you can
reliably and repeatedly produce excellent "naked" ribs, no amount
of upbeat advice is going to help you. As many here agree, naked
ribs are the best anyhow. If it's sauce that you like, then by all means
use the cheapest vehicle possible to get it to your mouth. Bread
ought to work and it's pretty cheap pound for pound. If on the other
hand you would like the taste of some well prepared barbecued pork
or beef, then forget all that "Contest Winner" shit and learn to cook
the basics first.

Personally, I like the basics so well, I don't mess with the rest.
But I have been known to doctor up aged leftovers a bit. I have
some smoked chicken right now that's going to turn into curried
chicken with rice and vegetables.

Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

wrote:

> Personally, I like the basics so well, I don't mess with the rest.
> But I have been known to doctor up aged leftovers a bit. I have
> some smoked chicken right now that's going to turn into curried
> chicken with rice and vegetables.
>
> Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Sometimes I'd swear that the leftovers are better than the originals.

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.

hrbricker wrote

> rice and vegetables.
>
> Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Brick, Brick, Brick!

Vegetables aren't food. Vegetables are what food eats.
And all this time, I thought that you knew this.
;-)

BOB

ChrisGW wrote:

> Which hogfest were you at? There have been quite a few here in NC in the
> last couple of weeks.

We did the one in Edenton. We had a great time, and our chicken
did OK.

> I never liked Smoked From Above. You can not taste the meat. All you
> taste is the sauce.

Yes indeed, more like candy than meat. Apparently, some
folks really like that style.

Dana

"Nonnymus" > wrote in message
>
> Sometimes I'd swear that the leftovers are better than the originals.
>

There is a lot of truth to that. When you are cooking, the smoke is all
around you and gets on your clothes, in your nostrils, and you become
desensitized. The next day, after you've changed and showered and cleared
your nose, you get a better appreciation of the finer elements of the food.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
t...
>
> There is a lot of truth to that. When you are cooking, the smoke is all
> around you and gets on your clothes, in your nostrils, and you become
> desensitized. The next day, after you've changed and showered and cleared
> your nose, you get a better appreciation of the finer elements of the
food.

I always bath immediately after I've taken the food from the smoker for the
very reasons you've mentioned.

It also gives the meat a chance to rest.

Graeme

On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the ribs
>> with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so they had
>> equal time close to the fire box.
>
>Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount of cooking
>time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
>minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit.

I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
feet.
I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
10 cf in under 20 minutes.
The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
minutes.
Where did the 20 minute thing come from?

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton leaped to a wide lead in the
New Hampshire presidential poll Monday following
last week's debate. They love her up in New
Hampshire. Live Free or Die is the state's motto,
which coincidentally was also her husband's wedding vow.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the ribs
>>> with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so they had
>>> equal time close to the fire box.
>>
>> Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount of
>> cooking time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of times
>> you opened by 20 minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in
>> the pit.
>
> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
> feet.
> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
> minutes.
> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?

Experience.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message

> Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the
> > > > ribs with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so
> > > > they had equal time close to the fire box.
> > >
> > > Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount
> > > of cooking time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of
> > > times you opened by 20 minutes and that is how much longer it
> > > needed on in the pit.
> >
> > I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
> > I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10
> > cubic feet.
> > I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't
> > replace 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
> > The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
> > minutes.
> > Where did the 20 minute thing come from?
>
> Experience.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com

20 minutes? Surely you jest. On my Stump's, it's only 18 minutes, and on 2
of my Kamados, it's 16 and 16.5 minutes.
20 minutes. Feh!
;-)

BOB

BOB wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the
>>>>> ribs with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so
>>>>> they had equal time close to the fire box.
>>>>
>>>> Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount
>>>> of cooking time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of
>>>> times you opened by 20 minutes and that is how much longer it
>>>> needed on in the pit.
>>>
>>> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
>>> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10
>>> cubic feet.
>>> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't
>>> replace 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
>>> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
>>> minutes.
>>> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>
> 20 minutes? Surely you jest. On my Stump's, it's only 18 minutes,
> and on 2 of my Kamados, it's 16 and 16.5 minutes.
> 20 minutes. Feh!
> ;-)

Pfffffftttttt!!!! :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

BOB wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the
>>>>> ribs with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so
>>>>> they had equal time close to the fire box.
>>>>
>>>> Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount
>>>> of cooking time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of
>>>> times you opened by 20 minutes and that is how much longer it
>>>> needed on in the pit.
>>>
>>> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
>>> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10
>>> cubic feet.
>>> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't
>>> replace 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
>>> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
>>> minutes.
>>> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>
> 20 minutes? Surely you jest. On my Stump's, it's only 18 minutes,
> and on 2 of my Kamados, it's 16 and 16.5 minutes.
> 20 minutes. Feh!
> ;-)
>
> BOB

Couldn't tell you what it is on the WSM. I never peek until it's burned.

Bluetoe©

On 13-Jun-2007, Bill Funk > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the ribs
> >> with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so they had
> >> equal time close to the fire box.
> >
> >Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount of cooking
> >time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
> >minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit.
>
> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
> feet.
> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
> minutes.
> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?

I use an NB Silver. My ribs are done in four hours or less. How long do
yours take?

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:03:43 GMT, wrote:

>
>On 13-Jun-2007, Bill Funk > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:52:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Every 1/2 hour, I opened the smoke box to liberally spray the ribs
>> >> with apple juice. I flipped the ribs, and rotated them so they had
>> >> equal time close to the fire box.
>> >
>> >Every time you opened your pit, you needed to increase the amount of cooking
>> >time by as much as 20 minutes. Multiply the number of times you opened by 20
>> >minutes and that is how much longer it needed on in the pit.
>>
>> I hear this a lot, but I'm not quite convinced this is true.
>> I have a Black Diamond, and the smoke box is, I guess, maybe 10 cubic
>> feet.
>> I have a very hard time believing that that heat engine can't replace
>> 10 cf in under 20 minutes.
>> The meat itself has thermal inertia, and won't lose much heat in two
>> minutes.
>> Where did the 20 minute thing come from?
>
>I use an NB Silver. My ribs are done in four hours or less. How long do
>yours take?

Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate temp
than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps from
opening the door.
Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air? The
exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

Bill Funk wrote:

> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate temp
> than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps from
> opening the door.
> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air? The
> exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".

Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature; the
reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps will always
be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't only about reheating
air. Can you think of the other factors that can affect cooking time when
the cooking space is cooled down?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate temp
>> than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps from
>> opening the door.
>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air? The
>> exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>
>Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature; the
>reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps will always
>be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't only about reheating
>air. Can you think of the other factors that can affect cooking time when
>the cooking space is cooled down?

Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about reheating
the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal inertial to
withstand an open door for a minute or two without losing than a
degree or two at the surface.
It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about, it's the volume of exhaust.
That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by opening
the door by hot air from the firebox.
Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it, and
physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree to
disagree.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate temp
>>> than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>> from opening the door.
>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
>>> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>
>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature;
>> the reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps
>> will always be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't
>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>
> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about reheating
> the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal inertial to
> withstand an open door for a minute or two without losing than a
> degree or two at the surface.

Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that can prolong
the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why you simply associate
cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep insisting that opening a
door doesn't affect anything

And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.

> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,

And yet that's what you said.

> it's the volume of exhaust.

Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.

> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by opening
> the door by hot air from the firebox.

Uh, huh.

> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it, and
> physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree to
> disagree.

Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the anecdotal
evidence.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate temp
>>>> than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>>> from opening the door.
>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
>>>> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature;
>>> the reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps
>>> will always be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't
>>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>>
>> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about reheating
>> the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal inertial to
>> withstand an open door for a minute or two without losing than a
>> degree or two at the surface.
>
>Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that can prolong
>the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why you simply associate
>cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep insisting that opening a
>door doesn't affect anything

I diod not say it didn't affect anything; I specifically said it
doesn't add 20 minutes to the cooking time.
>
>And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.
>
>> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,
>
>And yet that's what you said.

No, it isn't. I was talkiung about the volume of gases coming from the
stack, in that that indicated it doesn't take 20 minutes to replace
the cold air with hot air.
>
>> it's the volume of exhaust.
>
>Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.

How else do you think the air in the cooking chamber is replaced with
hot air? Magic?
>
>> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by opening
>> the door by hot air from the firebox.
>
>Uh, huh.

OK, tell me: how do *you* think that cold air is turned into hot air?
>
>> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it, and
>> physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree to
>> disagree.
>
>Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the anecdotal
>evidence.

Actually, the physical; evidense you claim to have is only anecdotal.
Physical evidence is, for example, the amount of gasses exhausting
from the stack; this is what I said I was using, not the temps of the
exhaust.
We seem to have a disconnect here; I said we could agree to diasgree,
and you decided that waqsn't good enough.
Fine.
But if you really want to continue, I want you to *demonstrate* why
you're right. A simple, "Because I think so" won't cut it.
You'll need to explain *why* opening the door automatically adds 20
minutes to the cooking time. That means explaining why the fact that
the air is replaced much faster than that, and the fact that the meat
has more than enough thermal inertia to retain heat, somehow converts
to a magical 20 minutes.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>>>> from opening the door.
>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
>>>>> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature;
>>>> the reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps
>>>> will always be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't
>>>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>>>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>>>
>>> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about reheating
>>> the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal inertial to
>>> withstand an open door for a minute or two without losing than a
>>> degree or two at the surface.
>>
>> Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that can
>> prolong the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why you
>> simply associate cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep
>> insisting that opening a door doesn't affect anything
>
> I diod not say it didn't affect anything; I specifically said it
> doesn't add 20 minutes to the cooking time.

It definitely can. The fact that you don't understand all the processes
involved is sufficient evidence to understand your ignorance.

>> And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.
>>
>>> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,
>>
>> And yet that's what you said.
>
> No, it isn't.

Please go back and re-read what you said.

> I was talkiung about the volume of gases coming from the
> stack, in that that indicated it doesn't take 20 minutes to replace
> the cold air with hot air.

And replacing cold air with hot air ain't the only issue involved.

>>> it's the volume of exhaust.
>>
>> Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.

> How else do you think the air in the cooking chamber is replaced with
> hot air? Magic?

It's replaced with volume of exhaust, right? LOL!!!!

>>> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by
>>> opening the door by hot air from the firebox.
>>
>> Uh, huh.
>
> OK, tell me: how do *you* think that cold air is turned into hot air?

You keep being fixated on hot air vs cold air which is why you are wrong
about extending cooking times when you cool out the cooking chamber. Try to
think of other reasons why this can extend cooking time.

>>> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it,
>>> and physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree
>>> to disagree.
>>
>> Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the
>> anecdotal evidence.

> Actually, the physical; evidense you claim to have is only anecdotal.

Actually, it's not. It is reproducible. Which takes it out of the realm of
anecdotal speculation

> Physical evidence is, for example, the amount of gasses exhausting
> from the stack; this is what I said I was using, not the temps of the
> exhaust.

Again, we're talking extended cooking times, you keep focusing on gas.
LOL!!!!

> We seem to have a disconnect here; I said we could agree to diasgree,
> and you decided that waqsn't good enough.

The disconnect belongs to you. Now, Take your time and focus on what the
issue really is.

> Fine.
> But if you really want to continue, I want you to *demonstrate* why
> you're right. .... snip the spittle being thrown around.

Sure, come over anytime and I'll demonstrate it for you. It ain't my job to
be your tutor here, so try doing a bit of research prior to making false
statements.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>>>>> from opening the door.
>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
>>>>>> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air temperature;
>>>>> the reference was to increasing *cooking times*. BTW, Exhaust temps
>>>>> will always be much higher than temps at the grate, but it ain't
>>>>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>>>>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>>>>
>>>> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about reheating
>>>> the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal inertial to
>>>> withstand an open door for a minute or two without losing than a
>>>> degree or two at the surface.
>>>
>>> Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that can
>>> prolong the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why you
>>> simply associate cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep
>>> insisting that opening a door doesn't affect anything
>>
>> I diod not say it didn't affect anything; I specifically said it
>> doesn't add 20 minutes to the cooking time.
>
>It definitely can. The fact that you don't understand all the processes
>involved is sufficient evidence to understand your ignorance.

Well, are we now saying "can" instead of "will" or "does"?
Please enlighten me of my ignorance.
>
>>> And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.
>>>
>>>> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,
>>>
>>> And yet that's what you said.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
>Please go back and re-read what you said.

Here's what I said:
"Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no"."
Show me where I mentioned the temp of the exhaust.
Are you sure you're reading what I wrote correctly? It doesn't seem
so.
>
>> I was talkiung about the volume of gases coming from the
>> stack, in that that indicated it doesn't take 20 minutes to replace
>> the cold air with hot air.
>
>And replacing cold air with hot air ain't the only issue involved.

No, it's not, and I didn't say it was.
>
>>>> it's the volume of exhaust.
>>>
>>> Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.
>
>> How else do you think the air in the cooking chamber is replaced with
>> hot air? Magic?
>
>It's replaced with volume of exhaust, right? LOL!!!!

The volume of the exhaust is an excellent indicator of how fast hot
air from the firebox replaces the air in the cookbox.
Are you sure you want to continue this?
>
>>>> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by
>>>> opening the door by hot air from the firebox.
>>>
>>> Uh, huh.
>>
>> OK, tell me: how do *you* think that cold air is turned into hot air?
>
>You keep being fixated on hot air vs cold air which is why you are wrong
>about extending cooking times when you cool out the cooking chamber. Try to
>think of other reasons why this can extend cooking time.

I did; the meat loses some heat. But the thermal inewrtia isn't goinmg
to let it mlose much, and you've come up with nothing to indicate
anything else.
>
>>>> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it,
>>>> and physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree
>>>> to disagree.
>>>
>>> Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the
>>> anecdotal evidence.
>
>> Actually, the physical; evidense you claim to have is only anecdotal.
>
>Actually, it's not. It is reproducible. Which takes it out of the realm of
>anecdotal speculation

Then do so.
>
>> Physical evidence is, for example, the amount of gasses exhausting
>> from the stack; this is what I said I was using, not the temps of the
>> exhaust.
>
>Again, we're talking extended cooking times, you keep focusing on gas.
>LOL!!!!

I don't understand your problem, here.
It's heat that cooks the meat. The heaqt comes from the air around the
meaqt.
You do know that, right?
That hot air is made up of gases.
>
>> We seem to have a disconnect here; I said we could agree to diasgree,
>> and you decided that waqsn't good enough.
>
>The disconnect belongs to you. Now, Take your time and focus on what the
>issue really is.

Tell me what the issue really it.
It seems to me the issue is that the hot air (made up of gases) heats
the meat.
Do I have this wrong?
>
>> Fine.
>> But if you really want to continue, I want you to *demonstrate* why
>> you're right. .... snip the spittle being thrown around.
>
>Sure, come over anytime and I'll demonstrate it for you. It ain't my job to
>be your tutor here, so try doing a bit of research prior to making false
>statements.

I'd like you to do more than blow hot air (well, that would help you
cook!).
Instead of trying to rely on a reputation, explain your point. I have.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>>>>>> from opening the door.
>>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot
>>>>>>> air? The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air
>>>>>> temperature; the reference was to increasing *cooking times*.
>>>>>> BTW, Exhaust temps will always be much higher than temps at the
>>>>>> grate, but it ain't
>>>>>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>>>>>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about
>>>>> reheating the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal
>>>>> inertial to withstand an open door for a minute or two without
>>>>> losing than a degree or two at the surface.
>>>>
>>>> Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that
>>>> can prolong the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why
>>>> you
>>>> simply associate cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep
>>>> insisting that opening a door doesn't affect anything
>>>
>>> I diod not say it didn't affect anything; I specifically said it
>>> doesn't add 20 minutes to the cooking time.
>>
>> It definitely can. The fact that you don't understand all the
>> processes involved is sufficient evidence to understand your
>> ignorance.
>
> Well, are we now saying "can" instead of "will" or "does"?
> Please enlighten me of my ignorance.
>>
>>>> And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.
>>>>
>>>>> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,
>>>>
>>>> And yet that's what you said.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> Please go back and re-read what you said.
>
> Here's what I said:
> "Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no"."

> Show me where I mentioned the temp of the exhaust.
> Are you sure you're reading what I wrote correctly? It doesn't seem
> so.

Uh, perhaps fron your choice of words "10 CF of hot air" and "the exhaust
from the stack? So it does seem so.

>>
>>> I was talkiung about the volume of gases coming from the
>>> stack, in that that indicated it doesn't take 20 minutes to replace
>>> the cold air with hot air.
>>
>> And replacing cold air with hot air ain't the only issue involved.
>
> No, it's not, and I didn't say it was.

Sure you did.

>>>>> it's the volume of exhaust.
>>>>
>>>> Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.
>>
>>> How else do you think the air in the cooking chamber is replaced
>>> with hot air? Magic?
>>
>> It's replaced with volume of exhaust, right? LOL!!!!
>
> The volume of the exhaust is an excellent indicator of how fast hot
> air from the firebox replaces the air in the cookbox.
> Are you sure you want to continue this?

A thermometer works even better. Are *you* sure you want to continue?
Bwahahahahaha.

>>
>>>>> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by
>>>>> opening the door by hot air from the firebox.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, huh.
>>>
>>> OK, tell me: how do *you* think that cold air is turned into hot
>>> air?
>>
>> You keep being fixated on hot air vs cold air which is why you are
>> wrong about extending cooking times when you cool out the cooking
>> chamber. Try to think of other reasons why this can extend cooking
>> time.
>
> I did; the meat loses some heat. But the thermal inewrtia isn't goinmg
> to let it mlose much, and you've come up with nothing to indicate
> anything else.

You ain't even in the ballpark. But good try.

>>
>>>>> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it,
>>>>> and physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree
>>>>> to disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the
>>>> anecdotal evidence.
>>
>>> Actually, the physical; evidense you claim to have is only
>>> anecdotal.
>>
>> Actually, it's not. It is reproducible. Which takes it out of the
>> realm of anecdotal speculation
>
> Then do so.

Then do what? Show that opened doors on a pit increase cooking time? It's
been shown over and over by many folk. It's happened to me on any number of
occasions.

>>
>>> Physical evidence is, for example, the amount of gasses exhausting
>>> from the stack; this is what I said I was using, not the temps of
>>> the exhaust.
>>
>> Again, we're talking extended cooking times, you keep focusing on
>> gas. LOL!!!!
>
> I don't understand your problem, here.
> It's heat that cooks the meat. The heaqt comes from the air around the
> meaqt.
> You do know that, right?
> That hot air is made up of gases.

And yet that is still only one part of the issue.
>>
>>> We seem to have a disconnect here; I said we could agree to
>>> diasgree, and you decided that waqsn't good enough.
>>
>> The disconnect belongs to you. Now, Take your time and focus on what
>> the issue really is.
>
> Tell me what the issue really it.
> It seems to me the issue is that the hot air (made up of gases) heats
> the meat.
> Do I have this wrong?

Not all of it, but that is only one part.

>>
>>> Fine.
>>> But if you really want to continue, I want you to *demonstrate* why
>>> you're right. .... snip the spittle being thrown around.
>>
>> Sure, come over anytime and I'll demonstrate it for you. It ain't my
>> job to be your tutor here, so try doing a bit of research prior to
>> making false statements.
>
> I'd like you to do more than blow hot air (well, that would help you
> cook!).
> Instead of trying to rely on a reputation, explain your point. I have.

No, you've ranted on trying to insist on thinking that it's only about air
temp. And I don't rely on my reputation. I have to rely on my *skills* each
and every day.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Bill Funk > wrote:
> [everything snipped]
Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in my
killfile and it won't be for Dave.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
[ . . . ]

Dave, with all due respect, funk him! One more ah in my kf.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

Nick Cramer wrote:
> Bill Funk > wrote:
>> [everything snipped]

> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.

I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill is
a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner being a
bit late if he's minding the pit :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Nick Cramer wrote:
> > Bill Funk > wrote:
> >> [everything snipped]
> > Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
> > my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>
> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
> opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill
> is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner
> being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)

Too late, Dave. You're a better man than I am Gunga Bugg!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

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

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover
>>>>>>>> temps from opening the door.
>>>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot
snip

You are also not adressing one other issue;

If you are opening the box every 20-30 minutes, you are retarding the meats
temprature rise as well as allowing cold air into the chamber. Not only do
you have to re-heat the interior of the smoke chamber, the meat termds to
rest at temp (or drop a few degrees). This adds to the cook time
measurably.

Yes, it will not take 20 minutes to recover the heat in the smoker; but it
will probably take that long before the meat's temp starts to rise again.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:10:43 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover temps
>>>>>>>> from opening the door.
>>>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot
>>>>>>>> air? The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that nothing was said about replacing air
>>>>>>> temperature; the reference was to increasing *cooking times*.
>>>>>>> BTW, Exhaust temps will always be much higher than temps at the
>>>>>>> grate, but it ain't
>>>>>>> only about reheating air. Can you think of the other factors that
>>>>>>> can affect cooking time when the cooking space is cooled down?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since it's the hot air that cooks the food, it *is* about
>>>>>> reheating the air. The meat itaself has more than enouth thermal
>>>>>> inertial to withstand an open door for a minute or two without
>>>>>> losing than a degree or two at the surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not hardly. But apparently you don't know the other factors that
>>>>> can prolong the cooking, which is why I asked. That explains why
>>>>> you
>>>>> simply associate cubic inches of heating with cooking time and keep
>>>>> insisting that opening a door doesn't affect anything
>>>>
>>>> I diod not say it didn't affect anything; I specifically said it
>>>> doesn't add 20 minutes to the cooking time.
>>>
>>> It definitely can. The fact that you don't understand all the
>>> processes involved is sufficient evidence to understand your
>>> ignorance.
>>
>> Well, are we now saying "can" instead of "will" or "does"?
>> Please enlighten me of my ignorance.
>>>
>>>>> And the OP was talking more than a minute of two.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not the stack temp I'm talkign about,
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet that's what you said.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>
>>> Please go back and re-read what you said.
>>
>> Here's what I said:
>> "Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot air?
>> The exhaust from the stack indicates a solid "no"."
>
>> Show me where I mentioned the temp of the exhaust.
>> Are you sure you're reading what I wrote correctly? It doesn't seem
>> so.
>
>Uh, perhaps fron your choice of words "10 CF of hot air" and "the exhaust
>from the stack? So it does seem so.

It's pretty clear that's referring to the volume, not the temperature.
Note the usage of "10 CF of hot air".
>
>>>
>>>> I was talkiung about the volume of gases coming from the
>>>> stack, in that that indicated it doesn't take 20 minutes to replace
>>>> the cold air with hot air.
>>>
>>> And replacing cold air with hot air ain't the only issue involved.
>>
>> No, it's not, and I didn't say it was.
>
>Sure you did.

Show me.
>
>>>>>> it's the volume of exhaust.
>>>>>
>>>>> Volume of exhaust? uh, sure, ok.
>>>
>>>> How else do you think the air in the cooking chamber is replaced
>>>> with hot air? Magic?
>>>
>>> It's replaced with volume of exhaust, right? LOL!!!!
>>
>> The volume of the exhaust is an excellent indicator of how fast hot
>> air from the firebox replaces the air in the cookbox.
>> Are you sure you want to continue this?
>
>A thermometer works even better. Are *you* sure you want to continue?
>Bwahahahahaha.

Since it was you who decided to continue this after I tried to stop
it, it would seem the ball is in your court.
>
>>>
>>>>>> That's what indicates a replacement of the colde air let in by
>>>>>> opening the door by hot air from the firebox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, huh.
>>>>
>>>> OK, tell me: how do *you* think that cold air is turned into hot
>>>> air?
>>>
>>> You keep being fixated on hot air vs cold air which is why you are
>>> wrong about extending cooking times when you cool out the cooking
>>> chamber. Try to think of other reasons why this can extend cooking
>>> time.
>>
>> I did; the meat loses some heat. But the thermal inewrtia isn't goinmg
>> to let it mlose much, and you've come up with nothing to indicate
>> anything else.
>
>You ain't even in the ballpark. But good try.

Why?
Do you have anything to offer besides attitude and bullshit?
>
>>>
>>>>>> Again, I have heard this, but with only anecdotal evidence for it,
>>>>>> and physical evidence that says it isn't true, I guess we'll agree
>>>>>> to disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, bubba, but the physical evidence is there, backing up the
>>>>> anecdotal evidence.
>>>
>>>> Actually, the physical; evidense you claim to have is only
>>>> anecdotal.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's not. It is reproducible. Which takes it out of the
>>> realm of anecdotal speculation
>>
>> Then do so.
>
>Then do what? Show that opened doors on a pit increase cooking time? It's
>been shown over and over by many folk. It's happened to me on any number of
>occasions.

It seems that you're practised at backtracking.
I asked about the 20 minute claim. You have consistantly offered no
evidence about it, and have tried to change the premise.
>
>>>
>>>> Physical evidence is, for example, the amount of gasses exhausting
>>>> from the stack; this is what I said I was using, not the temps of
>>>> the exhaust.
>>>
>>> Again, we're talking extended cooking times, you keep focusing on
>>> gas. LOL!!!!
>>
>> I don't understand your problem, here.
>> It's heat that cooks the meat. The heaqt comes from the air around the
>> meaqt.
>> You do know that, right?
>> That hot air is made up of gases.
>
>And yet that is still only one part of the issue.

Why? Do you offer anything besides claims to know?
>>>
>>>> We seem to have a disconnect here; I said we could agree to
>>>> diasgree, and you decided that waqsn't good enough.
>>>
>>> The disconnect belongs to you. Now, Take your time and focus on what
>>> the issue really is.
>>
>> Tell me what the issue really it.
>> It seems to me the issue is that the hot air (made up of gases) heats
>> the meat.
>> Do I have this wrong?
>
>Not all of it, but that is only one part.

What are the other parts? Do you know, or is bullshit your
stock-in-trade?
>
>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>> But if you really want to continue, I want you to *demonstrate* why
>>>> you're right. .... snip the spittle being thrown around.
>>>
>>> Sure, come over anytime and I'll demonstrate it for you. It ain't my
>>> job to be your tutor here, so try doing a bit of research prior to
>>> making false statements.
>>
>> I'd like you to do more than blow hot air (well, that would help you
>> cook!).
>> Instead of trying to rely on a reputation, explain your point. I have.
>
>No, you've ranted on trying to insist on thinking that it's only about air
>temp. And I don't rely on my reputation. I have to rely on my *skills* each
>and every day.

Show me the skills.
So far, you've offered attitude and bullshit.
If you think you're teaching something, you're right: you're teaching
haqt when you don't know the answer, you can't admit it.
What, pray tell, cooks BBQ besides the hot air in the cooking chaber?
Magic?
If you don't know why the 20 minute figure, just say so. I understand
that.
I also understand you know BBQ; that's obvious to anyone who reads
AFB. But it shure seems that, when challanged on one specific point,
you cop an attitude, and instead of either giving a straight answer,
or simply saying, "I don't know", then attempting to bully the other
person into giving up simply because you are so good at BBQ. That
doesn't cut it.
If you know the answer, simply tell us. If you don't, stop the
bullshit and say so.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

On 18 Jun 2007 03:22:40 GMT, Nick Cramer >
wrote:

>"Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>[ . . . ]
>
>Dave, with all due respect, funk him! One more ah in my kf.

You don't know either, eh?

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:18:10 -0600, "Shawn"
> wrote:

>Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:08:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:08:54 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:57 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using the NBBD, about 5, but I may well be using a lower grate
>>>>>>>>> temp than you do. (About 225 or so, by remote thermometer)
>>>>>>>>> This, though, does not mean it takes 20 minutes to recover
>>>>>>>>> temps from opening the door.
>>>>>>>>> Again, does it really take 20 minutes to replace 10 cf of hot
>snip
>
>You are also not adressing one other issue;
>
>If you are opening the box every 20-30 minutes, you are retarding the meats
>temprature rise as well as allowing cold air into the chamber. Not only do
>you have to re-heat the interior of the smoke chamber, the meat termds to
>rest at temp (or drop a few degrees). This adds to the cook time
>measurably.
>
>Yes, it will not take 20 minutes to recover the heat in the smoker; but it
>will probably take that long before the meat's temp starts to rise again.
>

"Probably"?
Is there no answer for the 20 minute claim other than guesses?
Guys, I'm not saying that opening the door doesn't add to the cookng
time.
I'm specifically asking where the "20 minute" claim comes from; what
measurements were made that says, "when you open the cooking chamber
door, it adds 20 minutes to the cooking time".
Since so many seem to believe it, I'm asking, "Why?"
Here, I get, "probably". Elsewhere I get attitude and bullshit.
If the 20 minute claim is based on guesswork and nothing else, it's
really OK to say so. Honest. I won't think less of anyone for saying,
"I don't know."

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

On 18 Jun 2007 03:18:48 GMT, Nick Cramer >
wrote:

>Bill Funk > wrote:
>> [everything snipped]
>Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in my
>killfile and it won't be for Dave.

Another who doesn't know?
This can be stopped eaqsily: give an answer.
I tried to stop it; Dave decided to bullshit his way into more.
Can you say, "The answer is ...", or, "I don't know"?
That's all it takes.
The question is pretty easy, given the responses so far. But no one
wants to give it.
Why is that?


--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Nick Cramer wrote:
>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>> [everything snipped]
>
>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room in
>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>
>I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes that
>opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm sure Bill is
>a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just plan for dinner being a
>bit late if he's minding the pit :-)

Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't prolong
cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute claim.
I've repeated it several times.
Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?
The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus repeated
it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise "20
minutes" claim. WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
about that.
But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20 minutes
isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the cooking
time." That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
Am I right?

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement
speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school
graduations. Normally when she tells people
how they should live, they are not required
to sit still for it.

Bill Funk wrote:

.....Snip the tiresome crap

>If you know the answer, simply tell us. If you don't, stop the
> bullshit and say so.

Tell us? Most everyone already has experienced the effects of prolonged
cooking from opening the door of the pit repeatedly. Heck, elsewhere in this
thread, someone else even gave you the second reason out of the three major
reasons why that is so. It's not my job to be your tutor.

Keep focusing on hot air, though. LOL!!!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:23:17 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Nick Cramer wrote:
>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>> [everything snipped]
>>
>>> Ya know, I'm getting bored with this thread. I may hafta make room
>>> in
>>> my killfile and it won't be for Dave.
>>
>> I'm done with it, Nick. I can't believe someone actually believes
>> that opening a pit won't prolong cooking time, but such is life. I'm
>> sure Bill is a good guy, so hold off on the kill-file. I'll just
>> plan for dinner being a bit late if he's minding the pit :-)
>
> Ah, here's the problem: I *NEVER* said opening he door doesn't prolong
> cooking time. I very specifically asked about the 20 minute claim.
> I've repeated it several times.

Yeah, we know. You repeated and repeated and repeated. You refuse to listen
and listen and listen.

> Are you ready to admit the 20 minutes is only a guess, or instead
> offer some sort of actual reason for "20 minutes"?

20 minutes for whom? For the OP? Reading his post will answer THAT question.
There are three major factors that determine how long cooking time is
affected when a pit is opened, and you keep focusing on one: hot air.

> The reason I ask this, in case you don't get it, it because this has
> been said many times, and when you, one of the admitted gurus repeated
> it, I wanted to know the rationale behind a fairly precise "20
> minutes" claim.

To whom was it said? The OP? What did the OP say in his post?

> WHen you camne back with an attitude and insults, I
> figured out very quickly that you don't like being questioned; sorry
> about that.

Insults, bubba? ROTFLOL!!!! If I'd called you the putrid spawn of a
protoplasmic slut, THAT would be an insult. But I didn't.

> But you could have very easily said something like, "Well, 20 minutes
> isn't exact, but openng he door will obviously add to the cooking
> time."

Instead of trying to put words into my mouth why didn't you just answer the
OP with your opinion?

> That would have been an excellent answer, and from what you
> wrote above, it seems that that is the actual answer.
> Am I right?

Not for the OP. If anything, my 20 minutes was conservative.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com