Dave wrote:

> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 3:35 pm, Dave > wrote:
> >
> > > Not really, the water is there to help avoid temperature >spikes.
> > > When it evaporates, it cools the pit.
> >
> > The water is in the cooker as a heat sink to help keep the
> > temperature up.

> Yes, the lower the water, the less cooling effect and therefore more
> spikes. The water isn't much of a heat sink since the highest temp
> it can possibly maintain is 212F. Also, it would seem that the
> surface area isn't constant as you stated, but decreases as the water
> level decreases.

Don't forget the latent heat of vaporization. That's a bigger heat
absorption mechanism that raising the temperature.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

wrote:
> On Nov 29, 3:35 pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>> Not really, the water is there to help avoid temperature >spikes. When it evaporates, it cools the pit.
>
> The water is in the cooker as a heat sink to help keep the temperature
> up. Personal experience with a water bowl will tell you the lower the
> water gets, the more susceptible to temp spikes the cooker is while in
> use. We know since the same surface area is exposed for evaporation
> whether the water bowl is completely full, or 1/8 full yields
> completely different (opposite) results, you can see that the actual
> evaporation has little to do with function of the water in the bowl as
> a coolant.

Incorrect. The rate of evaporation has everything to do with the
temperature in the cooker. To understand this, forget about the surface
area of the water, and forget about the measured temperature of the
water. Instead, think about the water as a mass and think about units of
thermal energy. 1 cubic foot of water requires a lot more thermal energy
to change states than 1/2 cubic foot of water, and once the state is
changed how much thermal energy is required to maintain the gaseous
state. Hence, when the water pan is low, the amount of energy required
to make steam is less. The excess energy remains in the cooker. OTOH,
when the pan is full and the water has been brought to a boil it
contains a GREAT deal of thermal energy and that energy exits the cooker
through the vents as steam.

> In fact, using your model, the lower the bowl is in water the more
> aggresively it would boil or convert to vapor since the btu intake
> would be significantly reduced as the mass of the water reduces.
> Again in this model, increased vaporization would lead to a _colder_
> smoker, not a hotter one prone to termperature spikes. Field
> experience tell us the opposite of this to be true.

Water only boils at one degree. there is no "more aggressively". You are
correct that a smaller amount of water would induce a reduced amount of
BTU intake.

>> Therefore when the temperature starts to spike, more >water evaporates and more cooling happens. If you want
>> to understand the science part,

Once the water is boiling (now here's the good part) **It does not have
the ability to absorb energy over and above the amount of energy it is
losing in evaporation**. That is why a low pan does not work as well as
a full pan.
>
> While the science of the webpage is completely sound, I think the
> model is applied incorrectly in this instance. If the water in the
> bowl turns to vapor (steam) in a closed environment under constant
> temp and pressure, it cannot cool since it will remain a gas. If it
> cannot return to a liquid state, (say for instance inside a hot
> cooker) there will be no cooling effect as the two key variables
> (again, look at your model) heat and pressure are unchanged.

See my first paragraph above.
>
> Soo.... unless you have seen your cooker sweat inside, no cooling is
> taking place.
>
> Given the constant temp of a pit, a closed vessel maintaining a
> constant pressure in which the water was heated, I see no cooling
> benefit whatsoever. The water simply converts to vapor (steam) and
> goes out the vents.

Now you've got it! The steam going out the vent is loaded with thermal
energy. Try holding your hand over the vent. That steam will give you a
boo-boo.



--
Dave T.

Never put both feet in your mouth at the same time,
Because then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> "Dave T." wrote %<
>
>>Yes, the midnight cook is the one I read. I think that using water will
>>carry away a lot of the heat. The main reason I don't want to use water
>>is that it makes a real mess. Here is the problem with that; What to do
>>with the oily greasy water when done cooking? I have no place in the
>>yard I can dump or bury it, and if the BW catches me carrying it into
>>the toilet I might as well flush myself along with the grease. It's
>>settled. Sand is better.
>>
>

I use sand exclusively now. For the same reason. Water is too much of
a nuisance to clean up. Sand is ideal in the winter, but in the summer
months, sand continues to get hotter as it gets heated. Water can only
get so hot.

> %<
> I don't have a WSM but for home use, I have made my own sealed cylinder
> which can even be a double high when I want, by cannibalizing an cobbling
> together a US Stove stainless cylinder, a Brinkman cylinder, and the outer
> base from a Brinkman electric cylinder. There are some other modifications
> necessary for draft and along the bottom seams I just triple fold lengthwise
> some heavy aluminum foil and fold that over around the top rim of the base
> and it seals up well. I will probably have a friend weld it together once I
> finish spearminting.
>
> Anyway I only use water early in the cook, and often add herbs, beer, wine,
> or just the woody stems of herbs I have grown to the water. The US Stove
> part uses combo handles/hangers with two grill levels which can both be
> lifted out along with the water pan at the same time. The problem is that
> any organic matter added to the water will burn if I don't pull the water
> pan out and empty it when the water is just cooked out.
>

I have read that adding a flavored liquid really does nothing to the
meat for flavor. I don't know about adding herbs though. My initial
thoughts would be it would be a wonderful aroma as it is cooking, but
not so sure it changes the meat any.

> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it with damp sand
> to get some initial moisture? I find a water pan at the beginning of the
> cook helps the seasonings penetrate before the bark forms and seals the
> meat. I don't like using moisture further into the cook, it tends to
> interfere with the formation of a good bark, so it would be fine by me if
> the sand just went dry after an hour or so.
>

Sand is much easier to work with and can be used over again, if you
cover the sand with heavy duty aluminum foil for the grease to drip on.
I don't think you need to use damp sand to add moisture. Depends on
what your cooking though. A pork butt for example, needs nothing to
become nice and moist pulled pork.

You must be more observant then me. I have never q-ued anything and not
had a "nice bark". Doesn't matter if I use water, sand or what rub I
use. Though I do think the smoking wood used makes a difference. I am
partial to applewood and poultry. A terrific combo, IMO.

> I also have a older modified Black Diamond offset smoker, and use the same
> principle putting in a small water pan and letting it cook dry. Its much
> easier to get to than the cannibal smoker but it uses a lot more fuel and
> doesn't seal as well.
>
> Comments?
>

BBQ

wrote:
> On Nov 29, 12:54 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it >with
>> damp sand to get some initial moisture?
>
> You cannot infuse the meat with water in an open cooker. If you want
> to infuse your meat with water on a cooker, put the meat in foil and
> let it steam.

Even then it's impossible. The hydrostatic pressures of moisture leaving the
meat under heating are too high for moisture to be forced into the
intracellular spaces of the muscle.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it with
>>> damp sand to get some initial moisture? I find a water pan at the
>>> beginning of the cook helps the seasonings penetrate before the bark
>>> forms and seals the meat.
>>
>> How would that occur? Mositure in a pit is one of those things which
>> belies logic and science.
>>
>
> Not really, the water is there to help avoid temperature spikes. When
> it evaporates, it cools the pit. Therefore when the temperature
> starts to spike, more water evaporates and more cooling happens. If
> you want to understand the science part, see
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_vaporization

That's the theory, but there is not nearly enough water vapor created in a
bullet pit to the job.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it with
>>>> damp sand to get some initial moisture? I find a water pan at the
>>>> beginning of the cook helps the seasonings penetrate before the bark
>>>> forms and seals the meat.
>>> How would that occur? Mositure in a pit is one of those things which
>>> belies logic and science.
>>>
>> Not really, the water is there to help avoid temperature spikes. When
>> it evaporates, it cools the pit. Therefore when the temperature
>> starts to spike, more water evaporates and more cooling happens. If
>> you want to understand the science part, see
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_vaporization
>
> That's the theory, but there is not nearly enough water vapor created in a
> bullet pit to the job.
>

Perhaps you didn't read the entire article:

"the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong
hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.8 kJ/mol, is more
than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water
from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J Kˆ’1 molˆ’1)"

- dave

Dave wrote:

> Perhaps you didn't read the entire article:
>
> "the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong
> hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.8 kJ/mol, is
> more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity
> of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K?1 mol?1)"

As I said, that's the theory. If the application were valid, then one
shouldn't be able to heat the pit beyond the temperature of boiling water.
I've taken ECBs and WSMs, with full water pans, far beyond that temp just to
test that bit of theory.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you didn't read the entire article:
>>
>> "the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong
>> hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.8 kJ/mol, is
>> more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity
>> of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K?1 mol?1)"
>
> As I said, that's the theory. If the application were valid, then one
> shouldn't be able to heat the pit beyond the temperature of boiling water.
> I've taken ECBs and WSMs, with full water pans, far beyond that temp just to
> test that bit of theory.

I'm not sure why you say the pit temp would be limited to 212F. While
the enthalpy of vaporization for water is impressive, there is no reason
a charcoal fire couldn't get the pit above this temp. It's all about
the various energy transfers. The evaporative cooling helps but does
not limit the pit temp.

Those who have mentioned using wet sand discovered that once the water
evaporated, the pit temp rose rapidly. No evaporation, no cooling. The
sand only provides thermal mass which makes the cool down after the temp
spike take even longer.

- dave

Dave wrote:

(snip)

No evaporation, no cooling. The
> sand only provides thermal mass which makes the cool down after the temp
> spike take even longer.
>
> - dave

This makes perfect sense. In this scenario, I would think that if you
are good at temp control, you would probably be better off with an empty
pan.
--
Dave T.

Never put both feet in your mouth at the same time,
Because then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Dave wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you didn't read the entire article:
>>>
>>> "the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively
>>> strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.8
>>> kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the
>>> same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K?1 mol?1)"
>>
>> As I said, that's the theory. If the application were valid, then one
>> shouldn't be able to heat the pit beyond the temperature of boiling
>> water. I've taken ECBs and WSMs, with full water pans, far beyond
>> that temp just to test that bit of theory.
>
> I'm not sure why you say the pit temp would be limited to 212F.

I didn't. I was refuting the notion.


> While
> the enthalpy of vaporization for water is impressive, there is no
> reason a charcoal fire couldn't get the pit above this temp. It's
> all about the various energy transfers. The evaporative cooling
> helps but does not limit the pit temp.

Which is what I had said at the beginning.

> Those who have mentioned using wet sand discovered that once the water
> evaporated, the pit temp rose rapidly. No evaporation, no cooling. The
> sand only provides thermal mass which makes the cool down after
> the temp spike take even longer.

Any thermal mass acts in the same manner. My kamado is one big thermal mass.
As soon as thermal saturation occurs, the temps will spike if the draft is
not controlled.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:
> "Denny Wheeler" wrote
> > I'm puzzled. (I suspect what you wrote isn't what you meant to say,
> > but.) Lump *is* charcoal. Charcoal without additives such as
> > petroleum byproducts, coal dust, etc, etc.
> >
> True as far as the lack of additives in many cases, however there is a
> difference. Lump is partially burnt hardwood, the result of burning wood
> and then putting it out when its only partially consumed. Charcoal
> briquettes are made of the same stuff but its in a ground, pressed,
> compacted form. Some charcoals have additives, a few don't. In many cases
> lump tends to burn up faster and hotter, given equal conditions, than
> charcoal. By virtue of being pressed or "concentrated", good briquettes
> should burn longer, however lump may burn more evenly. (This does not
> include the self starting charcoal which I do not recommend.) Some
> charcoal has added wood flavor, for example, mesquite sawdust and
> shavings are added to charcoal to make mesquite flavor charcoal.

From our FAQ: http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/charcoal/

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They
are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not
forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~

On Nov 29, 7:08 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> > You cannot infuse the meat with water in an open cooker. If you want
> > to infuse your meat with water on a cooker, put the meat in foil and
> > let it steam.
>
> Even then it's impossible. The hydrostatic pressures of >moisture leaving the meat under heating are too high for >moisture to be forced into the intracellular spaces of the >muscle.

OK, I'll buy that. But then why do the foiled meats from the pit, the
turkeys from the sealed oven bags, and the meat cooked in a low
pressure cooker seem more moist and the texture destroyed? If the
meat isn't overcooked (as in destroyed by too much or too high heat),
wouldn't that be the breakdown of the intracellular fabric in those
instances?

It seems to me that the retained liquid must pentrated the meat
somehow since the (this is just a guess) that the meat would be more
dense when it is cold and the hotter steam would work its way into the
meat until the temps equalized.

This is good thread for a change. Inquiring minds, over here...

Robert

On Nov 30, 8:04 am, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:

> Steam in the
> smoker would be similar to the wrapping techniques many barbecuers use
> towards the end of the cook, to tenderize **and avoid smoke flavor overload**.

Ahhh, now that's the first time I've actually seen an explanation for
that practice.

Competition is such a different animal than backyard cooking, it looks
kind of strange and cultish from some angles. But looks fun too.

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it with
>>> damp sand to get some initial moisture? I find a water pan at the
>>> beginning of the cook helps the seasonings penetrate before the bark
>>> forms and seals the meat.
>>
>> How would that occur? Mositure in a pit is one of those things which
>> belies logic and science.
>
> I don't know the food science answer to your question,but I would be
> interested to know the basis of your comment.

But that's the entire basis for my answer. It's simple, intracellular fluids
in muscle tissues, when heated, drive moisture OUT of the cell spaces under
pressure. Exposing meat to exterior moisture won't overcome that pressure.

> Anyway its not much
> water and it cooks dry within 20-30 minutes. Its not like anything is
> getting soaked, or even steamed, because I often cook at low temps.I
> note that you use Kamado and Ole Hickory smokers, which are more
> tightly sealed and controlled than most, in which the surfaces of the
> meat do not dry out so fast. We use similar cookers in competition
> and do not use water pans in them.

Tightness has nothing to do, DIRECTLY, with moisture control during cooking,
only temperature control. And the Ole Hickory is hardly air tight; it has a
direct vent chimney and a smoke evacuation chimney to suck smoke out of the
pit when the doors are open so the kitchen doesn't get flooded with smoke.

Answer this: if moisture can be added to meat during cooking, then why can
meat can be cooked dry even when immersed in water. The driest hunk 'O beef
I've ever eaten is from my mom's stew. She boils the beef until tender prior
to adding it to the stew. Take a bite of that meat and it will suck the
saliva right out of your mouth.

> In my home cookers, I don't use much water and it cooks out within
> 20-30 minutes. Other than that I prefer a dry method. Its not like
> anything is getting soaked, or even steamed and it works for me. It
> seems to help with seasoning penetration and bark development.

I don't see how it helps with penetration of seasonings, but I do know
surface moisture can make a hard crust out of bark, similar to the way
moisture creates a crust in bread. I also know that surface moisture can
attract particulates in the smoke which can make that crunchy bark bitter.

> Regarding the other posts about cooling and water vaporizing ...snip

> The meat is always between the water source and the exhaust. Steam in
> the smoker would be similar to the wrapping techniques many
> barbecuers use towards the end of the cook, to tenderize and avoid
> smoke flavor overload. I sometimes use that technique but I finish it
> out of the wrap at a slightly higher temp to get it dried out again.
> (A watchful eye is necessary when wrapping to prevent overcooking and
> mushy meat).

*<The following is MY bias and MY preference. Note that I am criticizing a
THING and not a PERSON>* I completely dislike techniques involving foil
wrapping and steam injection. It's one of those things that caught on as a
crutch in competitions and then moved into the competition mainstream. It is
one of the reasons (other reasons having to do with amateur and incompetent
judges, the foo-faw over 'presentation', and the inclusion of sauced meats
instead of straight meat judging) that I quit doing competition long ago. I
don't need no steenkin' foil.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Tutall wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:04 am, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:
>
>> Steam in the
>> smoker would be similar to the wrapping techniques many barbecuers
>> use towards the end of the cook, to tenderize **and avoid smoke
>> flavor overload**.
>
> Ahhh, now that's the first time I've actually seen an explanation for
> that practice.

It's an explanation, but it is a lazy way to do it, and in my opinion,
affects the final texture of the product. It's become the norm in
competition where the flavor of the meat has been relegated to the back bin
in favor of a quick and easy way to tenderize. Have you ever wondered why
heavy rubs and even sauces have come to the forefront in competitions? When
you actually look at places like Tony Romas and Applebees, their method of
doing ribs is very similar.

> Competition is such a different animal than backyard cooking, it looks
> kind of strange and cultish from some angles. But looks fun too.

It is a lot of fun. But, in a broad generalization, it has become less about
bbq and more about the socializing. The number of competitions which limit
the amount of and types of spices in a rub, prohibits saucing (or its
euphemism, 'glazing'), has judges who actually KNOW barbecue (not some
amateur wannabe who couldn't distinguish the difference between a pit and
his ass, but who took a two hour 'judging' class) and cares less about
'presentation' but cares about meat and nothing BUT the meat, are getting
scarce.

The reason I opted out of the foo-faw a long time ago.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> But that's the entire basis for my answer. It's simple, intracellular fluids
> in muscle tissues, when heated, drive moisture OUT of the cell spaces under
> pressure. Exposing meat to exterior moisture won't overcome that pressure.

That's the crux of it exactly. Write down the above and keep it next
to your cooker. It bears repeating.

Intracellular fluids in muscle tissues, when heated, drive moisture
OUT of the cell spaces under pressure. Exposing meat to exterior moisture
won't overcome that pressure.

In addition, the muscle fibers tighten as they heat up... like slowly
wringing out a wet rag. Moisture constantly goes OUT, and it never, ever
goes back in. It can and does redistribute inside the meat, but the net
amount won't change. The relative humidity of the environment does
nothing to mitigate this effect.

This is also one of the main reasons overcooked meat can never be "fixed'.
Once it hits a certain internal temp the effects are permanent.

--
Reg

wrote:
> On Nov 29, 7:08 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
>>> You cannot infuse the meat with water in an open cooker. If you
>>> want to infuse your meat with water on a cooker, put the meat in
>>> foil and let it steam.
>>
>> Even then it's impossible. The hydrostatic pressures of >moisture
>> leaving the meat under heating are too high for >moisture to be
>> forced into the intracellular spaces of the >muscle.
>
> OK, I'll buy that. But then why do the foiled meats from the pit, the
> turkeys from the sealed oven bags, and the meat cooked in a low
> pressure cooker seem more moist and the texture destroyed?

Two different things are occuring, the muscle fibers break down from
overcooking, and all the moisture has been expelled into the sealed bag.
That moisture recondenses onto the meat. If the meat has a lot marbeling
and/or collagen, this will add a different source of moisture. That's why
dark meat in a chicken or turkey is often much more moist than the white.

Take a paper towel. When the meat has cooled, pat the meat dry with the
towel. Take a bite. It won't taste as dry as cardboard, but it's getting
close.

> If the
> meat isn't overcooked (as in destroyed by too much or too high heat),
> wouldn't that be the breakdown of the intracellular fabric in those
> instances?

No, if that happened you would have a gooey mush from cellular disruption.
It's what can happen to over-brined fowl; there is so much fluid passed into
the cells that they burst. :-) The breakdown of muscle fiber is different
from intracellular fluid loss.

> It seems to me that the retained liquid must pentrated the meat
> somehow since the (this is just a guess) that the meat would be more
> dense when it is cold and the hotter steam would work its way into the
> meat until the temps equalized.

But what structure would capture that fluid? Without cell spaces there is no
way to hold the water moisture against the muscle fiber, it just runs out
and evaporates. Collagen and fat, on the other hand, are viscous enough to
cling to the muscle fiber and coat it, adding to the moistness of the meat.
It's one of the reasons that pork shoulders (including the butts) are hard
to screw up when barbecuing.

> This is good thread for a change. Inquiring minds, over here...


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Nov 30, 9:25 am, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Tutall wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 8:04 am, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:
>
> >> Steam in the
> >> smoker would be similar to the wrapping techniques many barbecuers
> >> use towards the end of the cook, to tenderize **and avoid smoke
> >> flavor overload**.
>
> > Ahhh, now that's the first time I've actually seen an explanation for
> > that practice.
>
> It's an explanation, but it is a lazy way to do it, and in my opinion,
> affects the final texture of the product. It's become the norm in
> competition where the flavor of the meat has been relegated to the back bin
> in favor of a quick and easy way to tenderize. Have you ever wondered why
> heavy rubs and even sauces have come to the forefront in competitions? When
> you actually look at places like Tony Romas and Applebees, their method of
> doing ribs is very similar.
>
> > Competition is such a different animal than backyard cooking, it looks
> > kind of strange and cultish from some angles. But looks fun too.
>
> It is a lot of fun. But, in a broad generalization, it has become less about
> bbq and more about the socializing. The number of competitions which limit
> the amount of and types of spices in a rub, prohibits saucing (or its
> euphemism, 'glazing'), has judges who actually KNOW barbecue (not some
> amateur wannabe who couldn't distinguish the difference between a pit and
> his ass, but who took a two hour 'judging' class) and cares less about
> 'presentation' but cares about meat and nothing BUT the meat, are getting
> scarce.
>
> The reason I opted out of the foo-faw a long time ago.
>
> --
> Davewww.davebbq.com

Yeah, the only thing I hold against these things is that too many see
the foo-faw and think it's "real bbq", I mean to someone who don't
know different, it must be the highest form of the BBQ art, right?
Now that's not the fault of the people doing these competitions and
I'm not blaming them, but the result is the same.

On Nov 30, 10:05 am, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:

> > was all that was left, the temps zoomed up to almost 400 in short
> > order. That sand held that temp for about 20 minutes before the
> > thermo even moved, with the bottom vents closed.
>
> > It took an hour or better to get back down to smoking temps.
>
> So what I get from that is that if wet sand is used, it must be closely
> watch for the moment when the water is evaporated down, and the smoker
> should be damped down right then, or else there will be a big long
> temperature spike, which would definitely work against me.

That has certainly been my experience. Bu then my experience is that
the fear of temperature spikes is really overrated. On a 10 - 18
hour cook, a twenty - 30 degree spike is no big deal. If it were lots
of smaller meats like sausage and spatchcocked chicken sitting really
close the fire, that would be a problem. But with a 10 - 15 lb
brisket or butt sitting two feet away from the fire (in context of the
WSM thread here) all you get is a little more radiant heat on the meat
for a while. In this case, the meat just absorbs the heat, and
doesn't burn the surface.

That being said, I would encourage you to try dry sand, no water in
your cooker. It almost takes the fun out of barbecueing, as when it
hits temp with a properly built fire the thermo will just sit there
still as a stone. No excuse to fiddle with it, to "check the meat",
"check the fire", or anything else. On a nice calm day it will hold
temps so well you will think the thermo is broken. The WSM does well
keeping consistent temps with water, but it goes to another level with
sand. Since I don't sauce, mop or foil brisket or butts, I will
literally go about 3 - 4 hours of the first leg without lifting up the
lid. I only check it then to make sure I don't have hot spots. The
lid is lifted straight up for about 15 twenty seconds for me to see,
then put back on.

I did my first cook without anything between the fire and the meat on
the WSM a couple of weeks ago. I worked great. A nice calm night,
temps outside were not supposed to fluctuate a lot, so I left out the
pan altogether and cooked directly over the fire on the top cooking
grate. I put split chicken halves on at about 350, then it went to
almost 400 for about 20 minutes (probably from the lid being off), and
it stayed +/- 10 degrees of 360 for another hour and 15 minutes of the
cook. The birds were excellent.

So my water days in the WSM ar over. I have never seen any benefit in
cooking the meat over water and unless you were cooking over water
that was mixed with something so strong it was noxious, never believed
that the vaporzing water could leave anything more than just a whiff
of flavor on the outside of the meat. And never having liked the
Brinkmanns, I have never paid attention to the whole water smoker
genre. I like PITS, damnit.

But as I get older an lazier, the idea of an overnight jump
(unattended) on a nice sized brisket looked really good, so I bought
the WSM. And now having used it without water, I don't know why
anyone would use it with water.

Just my opinion here and I actually think most of us are on the same
page with different field experiences behind us.

Robert

Dave Bugg wrote:

*SNIP*

> The reason I opted out of the foo-faw a long time ago.

As I re-read what I wrote it seems as if my intended writing could easily be
misconstrued as a personal criticism of Nunya Bidnits and others, and I
apologize if that is the case. Wring one's thoughts and viewpoints in the
proper expressive context is soooo much more difficult than verbal
communication where you can hear and see the person talking.

I was trying to explain why *I* prefer the way *I* do bbq. And of course it
will come across that that's the way it HAS to be. The funny thing is, if we
do have preferences of technique, and are true to that preference, there's
no other way for our words to come across to others without resorting to
politically correct contortions. I try to express opinions about cooking or
barbecue based on my experiences with specific techniques and failures of
technique. I am trying to avoid just throwing out uninformed opinion.

To Nunya and others here, I hope you'll accept that I value your presence,
wisdom, and experience.

<G> But I am always right :-O

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Tutall wrote:

> Yeah, the only thing I hold against these things is that too many see
> the foo-faw and think it's "real bbq", I mean to someone who don't
> know different, it must be the highest form of the BBQ art, right?
> Now that's not the fault of the people doing these competitions and
> I'm not blaming them, but the result is the same.

Thanks for saying that which I was trying to get across, Tut.

A lot of great bbq cooks and masters compete at these events and yet long
for the way it was; they do so because they enjoy the bbq competition and
comraderie of the circuit. Nunya even distinguishes between some things he
does for competition versus things he does at home.

I just got less enjoyment out of it when changes began to take over, so I
stopped. Nowadays, I'm just too lazy :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Nov 30, 11:42 am, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

SNIP of good info..

Thanks for the great explanation, Dave. All of that actually made
perfect sense to me. Put in those terms, I got it.

Since I don't foil, bag, steam or anything else when I cook in the
kitchen or barbecue, I never really paid much attention to the
mechanics of it.

You wouldn't be related to Alton Brown by any chance,
would you? :^)

> > This is good thread for a change. Inquiring minds, over here...

Robert

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> The meat is always between the water source and the exhaust. Steam in the
> smoker would be similar to the wrapping techniques many barbecuers use
> towards the end of the cook, to tenderize and avoid smoke flavor overload.

If anything, the small amount of steam created by a water pan
will somewhat improve the transfer of heat to the meat. It's
not going to make the make the meat moist, though. Wrapping meat
in foil captures a much greater amount of steam in close proximity
to the meat that would cook off anyway.

Keep in mind that one of the products of burning charcoal is
water vapor, so even a normal ("dry") cook gets some water vapor.
It just doesn't make the meat any moister.

Dana

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> I like the idea of using sand. Has anyone tried starting it with damp sand
> to get some initial moisture?

Why? #1, I cover the sand well with foil to avoid grease dripping
into the sand and mucking it up. #2, the "initial moisture" makes
no difference to the cooking of the meat.

> I find a water pan at the beginning of the
> cook helps the seasonings penetrate before the bark forms and seals the
> meat.

Interesting hypothesis. I suppose a wet rub would have the
same effect, perhaps moreso? Have you tried a wet rub, or using
CYM as a base before applying dry rub?

Dana

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Denny Wheeler" wrote
>> I'm puzzled. (I suspect what you wrote isn't what you meant to say,
>> but.) Lump *is* charcoal. Charcoal without additives such as
>> petroleum byproducts, coal dust, etc, etc.
>>
> True as far as the lack of additives in many cases, however there is a
> difference. Lump is partially burnt hardwood, the result of burning wood and
> then putting it out when its only partially consumed.

Not exactly. Lump is hardwood that has been baked in the absence
of oxygen, which drives off moisture and volatile chemicals, leaving
primarily the carbon (which hasn't really been burned).

> Charcoal briquettes
> are made of the same stuff but its in a ground, pressed, compacted form.

Actually, most popular briquettes are made from some amount of char
wood but contain primarily non-wood sources of carbon, such as soft
coal. See http://old.cbbqa.org/wood/Kingsford.html for a list
ingredients in Kingsford - it includes limestone (about 30% of
the briquettes by weight).

Original Charcoal Company's "Rancher" briquettes are made of
crushed hardwood lump with a yucca starch binder, and burn down
to a natural ash, unlike the heavier Kingsford ash. Rancher briquettes
also smell better when first lit - like perfumey South American
hardward smoke (since that's what they're made of).

> Some charcoals have additives, a few don't.

Lump charcoal, I'd agree, have no additives (other than the
obligatory rock I find in every bag of Lazarri's lump :-)).
Briquettes need at least a binding agent to make the briquettes
stick together.

Dana

wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:42 am, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
> SNIP of good info..
>
> Thanks for the great explanation, Dave. All of that actually made
> perfect sense to me. Put in those terms, I got it.
>
> Since I don't foil, bag, steam or anything else when I cook in the
> kitchen or barbecue, I never really paid much attention to the
> mechanics of it.
>
> You wouldn't be related to Alton Brown by any chance,
> would you? :^)

LOL!! I'm flattered, but Alton's smart. :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"frohe" > wrote in
:

.. We've done it such &
> such a way for so long that we get set in our ways and forget there's
> more than one way to skin a cat.

Yeah , but the cat ain't gonna like none of 'em.


I'm glad to have stumbled across this group, as i have never had any
complaints over my BBQ, but there are things that i must try and thing i
would have not thought of if i hadn't found AFB.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote in message
>
> I think the highest form of the art is when someone can accomplish what is
> done by a competition winner or a really good Q restaurant in their own
> back
> yard. And that is also where a lot of professional barbecuers and sauce
> and
> seasoning manufacturers got their start.
>
> MartyB in KC

Don't totally agree.

I think we all want the tender brisket, the rib with just the right amount
of pull off the bone, but taste is an individual thing. Sweet versus hot,
rub versus naked, sauce versus dry.

Competition is about cooking what the judges will think is best to their
criteria, not what YOU think is best. That may differ.

On Nov 30, 9:35 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:

<SNIP>

Thank you for the insight and your perspective of what seem like a
Byzantine
world to those who haven't participated.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote in message
>
>>I think the highest form of the art is when someone can accomplish what is
>>done by a competition winner or a really good Q restaurant in their own
>>back
>>yard. And that is also where a lot of professional barbecuers and sauce
>>and
>>seasoning manufacturers got their start.
>>
>>MartyB in KC
>
>
> Don't totally agree.
>
> I think we all want the tender brisket, the rib with just the right amount
> of pull off the bone, but taste is an individual thing. Sweet versus hot,
> rub versus naked, sauce versus dry.
>
> Competition is about cooking what the judges will think is best to their
> criteria, not what YOU think is best. That may differ.
>
>


Not really Ed. There is a couple in town that was determined to get
first place in an invitational competition. Being most of these types
of competitions are in the south, they felt the Judges wanted a more
vinegary type sauce, rather then a tomato based one. They maybe tweaked
there tomato based sauce a bit, but they didn't give up. It took them a
few years, but they did take 1st place at the Jack Daniel's Barbecue
Contest.

BBQ

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> But that was my point, the water vapor or steam is not supposed to make it
> hotter, or penetrate the meat. And I am using very low temps so there isn't
> any real hot steam being generated. All it does, since the water vapor is
> warmer that the meat when first put in the smoker, is cause some
> condensation and keep the seasonings moist a little longer. I don't disagree
> with any of the explanations about how steam works or moisture works in meat
> cells, but I do know that warm water vapor or steam passing over a cooler
> object will invariably result in some condensation, and that's all I am
> looking for. Maybe that explains it better.

I think it explains it better - you want to keep the rub moist for a
longer period of time, right?

Interesting; almost like a very gentle mop?

Dana

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Dana Myers" > wrote
>> Interesting hypothesis. I suppose a wet rub would have the
>> same effect, perhaps moreso? Have you tried a wet rub, or using
>> CYM as a base before applying dry rub?
>>
> Funny you should ask, since one of the products I am developing is a very
> thick wet rub, actually more of a thick lump that needs to be warmed to
> soften up and be workable. I call it sticky rub, and it is sticky until
> warmed up. Sometimes I put it on and let it soak in for a few hours, then
> sprinkle it with dry rub just before the cook. Anyway, I guess that is part
> of my water theory, since that sticky rub stays moist longer on the meat, so
> perhaps my method makes more sense in that context.

If you have to warm the rub up to make it workable, I'd tend to suspect
the rub contains a lot of fat, right?

Dana

Denny Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:04:02 -0800, Dave >
> wrote:
>
>> Those who have mentioned using wet sand discovered that once the water
>> evaporated, the pit temp rose rapidly. No evaporation, no cooling. The
>> sand only provides thermal mass which makes the cool down after the temp
>> spike take even longer.
>
> Can't see using wet sand--in a bullet, you cover the sand with foil
> (unless you like disposing of really nasty sand every cook).
>
> You're doing a fine job of describing the theory. Please be aware
> that many of us have seen the reality. When theory and reality
> disagree, the theory needs to be revised.
>
> "Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
> winds up persecuting someone else."
> -Philip Pullman
> --
> -denny-
> (not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)

I went 1 step further, and poured 3 inches of concrete in the lined pan,
and let it set up for a month. Now clean up is a snap, even if the foil
leaks.