OK, people, stay with me here. As per previous post, I had a highly
succesful bbq run in my WSM this weekend. Thanks again.

But here's the thing: I was all set to use sand in the tray, instead
of water, but when I set up the uninsulated WSM at 8:00 am, the
ambient temp was only 32 deg, and weather.com said it wasn't going to
get over 45-50 deg, all day. So I thought that maybe a big heat sink
wasn't the way to go. Instead, I just stuck a cast iron utility box
cover (the kind that covers the water valves and similar stuff in the
streets; actually, it was a round monitoring wellbox cover, 12.5"
diameter, 5/8" thick) on the bottom grate.

It worked perfectly. By adjusting the air-flow controls (per this
groups advice), I was able to maintain the temp at 225-250 deg
(measured with a permanent thermometer installed in the crown of the
WSM) from 8:00 am to 6:30 pm with ONE LOAD of Kingsford "Hardwood
Charwood" and hickory chunks. Long enough to bbq the pork shoulder to
195 deg, THEN the 10 lb spatchcocked turkey to perfection.

BUT HERE's THE THING: I forgot to cover the cast iron heat deflector,
and it got soaked and puddled in drippings, which baked on after I
took the turkey off. So, I just got out my propane torch and burned
off the worst of it, then stuck it in my Weber gas grill and burned
off the rest, it came out nearly spick-and-span after about 2 hrs. So
then, I stuck it inside my WSM to keep it clean and dry. That was an
hour ago, and right now, my WSM is running at about 150-125 deg (53
deg ambient) with NO FIRE, just the cast iron heat sink.

So, the question beckons: what is thew mechanism/purpose working
with the heat sink? Is the purpose to have a BIG thermal mass, get it
hot, and let it re-radiate to cook the food? Or to just deflect heat
so there's no radiative heat transfer? Or just to absorb excess heat
to regulate the temp? Or all three?

The reason I ask is this: it could make a big difference when I bbq in
summer (ambient temp at 105-110 deg, 10 % humidity), vs winter
(ambient temp at 35-45 deg).

Agian, thanks a heap,
-Zz

"Zz Yzx" > wrote in message
> That was an
> hour ago, and right now, my WSM is running at about 150-125 deg (53
> deg ambient) with NO FIRE, just the cast iron heat sink.
>
> So, the question beckons: what is thew mechanism/purpose working
> with the heat sink? Is the purpose to have a BIG thermal mass, get it
> hot, and let it re-radiate to cook the food? Or to just deflect heat
> so there's no radiative heat transfer? Or just to absorb excess heat
> to regulate the temp? Or all three?

All of the above.

As you witnessed, it holds a lot of heat for a long time. It prevents
radiation (may or may not be a good think depending on the desired result)
and keeps spikes to a minimum. With radiation, the bottom of the meat being
cooked often gets overcooked or burnt. If you have enough distance it is
not so bad.

The cast iron works as well as sand or water so use what is easiest for you.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Zz Yzx" > wrote in message
>> That was an
>> hour ago, and right now, my WSM is running at about 150-125 deg (53
>> deg ambient) with NO FIRE, just the cast iron heat sink.
>>
>> So, the question beckons: what is thew mechanism/purpose working
>> with the heat sink? Is the purpose to have a BIG thermal mass, get
>> it hot, and let it re-radiate to cook the food? Or to just deflect
>> heat so there's no radiative heat transfer? Or just to absorb
>> excess heat to regulate the temp? Or all three?
>
> All of the above.
>
> As you witnessed, it holds a lot of heat for a long time. It prevents
> radiation (may or may not be a good think depending on the desired
> result) and keeps spikes to a minimum. With radiation, the bottom of
> the meat being cooked often gets overcooked or burnt. If you have
> enough distance it is not so bad.
>
> The cast iron works as well as sand or water so use what is easiest
> for you.

Heh.. a thermodynamic question.

Cast iron would work better than sand or water because of the thermal mass.
It has a higher specific heat and thermal density than sand or water.
It also has a fairly low thermal conductivity. (i.e. aluminum would make a
poor choice since it has a very high thermal conductivity and relatively
low density) So that begs the question of using a heavy cast iron pot with
some sand in it. The sand would not radiate as much as the pot, so the cooking
would be more indirect.

Think of the cast iron as a damper, it slows the rate of change in the system.

Me, I just LazyQ. add some wood, plug in the cookshack, and set the temp.
Wonder if putting cast iron in the cookshack would help.. it does have a fairly
wide swing of temperature. ...hmm...

--
DougW

>Could this also have an effect similar to the flavor bars in gas grills if
>you let some of the drippings fall on it?

Well, this particular heat deflector got a LOT of drippings on it. The
food was EXCELLENT though.

-Zz

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "DougW" > wrote
>
>> Me, I just LazyQ. add some wood, plug in the cookshack, and set the temp.
>
>> Wonder if putting cast iron in the cookshack would help.. it does have a
> fairly
>> wide swing of temperature. ...hmm...
>
> You put wood in a Cookshack? Do you mean pellets?
>
> My Q team partner has one, and there's very little temperature variation
> once it gets up to the preset temp. On the other hand, if there's a way to
> burn real wood in a Cookshack, I would be a happy camper.
>
> MartyB in KC
>
>

If I recall, your partner has a pellet-pooper? Other Cookshacks use
wood chunks (using whatever you have) for smoke flavoring. I used 4oz
apple wood for the batch of jerky I smoked yesterday (obligatory bbq
content).

Nunya Bidnits wrote:


> Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have that uses
> wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular pooper in competitions,
> as well as a few of the bigger units, and their first cousins, Traegers.
>


Yeah the FE100 is one heck of a machine. Very popular with pros
and competitive cooks. Expensive though. CS's biggest seller is
the smokette. I use a Model 50 which is a larger version of the
smokette. They don't run on pellets like the FE. All the low end
cs's use chunks.

--
Reg

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Brian" <"I never thought I'd miss > wrote in message
> news:fcQ9j.7605$7I.6102@trndny09...
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> %<
>>> You put wood in a Cookshack? Do you mean pellets?
>>>
>>> My Q team partner has one, and there's very little temperature
>>> variation once it gets up to the preset temp. On the other hand, if
>>> there's a way to burn real wood in a Cookshack, I would be a happy
>>> camper.
>>>
>> If I recall, your partner has a pellet-pooper? Other Cookshacks
>> use wood chunks (using whatever you have) for smoke flavoring. I
>> used 4oz apple wood for the batch of jerky I smoked yesterday
>> (obligatory bbq content).
>
> Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have that
> uses wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular pooper in
> competitions, as well as a few of the bigger units, and their first
> cousins, Traegers.

Here's the product line up for residential use.
http://www.cookshack.com/index_produ...?category_id=1

All of the Cookshack products (CS) use wood chunks. The Fast Eddys (FE) use
pellets. The commercial pits have both CS and FE models.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Reg wrote:
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have
>> that uses wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular
>> pooper in competitions, as well as a few of the bigger units, and
>> their first cousins, Traegers.
>
>
> Yeah the FE100 is one heck of a machine. Very popular with pros
> and competitive cooks. Expensive though. CS's biggest seller is
> the smokette. I use a Model 50 which is a larger version of the
> smokette. They don't run on pellets like the FE. All the low end
> cs's use chunks.

There are high end commercial CS pits which also use wood chunks. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have
>>>that uses wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular
>>>pooper in competitions, as well as a few of the bigger units, and
>>>their first cousins, Traegers.
>>
>>
>>Yeah the FE100 is one heck of a machine. Very popular with pros
>>and competitive cooks. Expensive though. CS's biggest seller is
>>the smokette. I use a Model 50 which is a larger version of the
>>smokette. They don't run on pellets like the FE. All the low end
>>cs's use chunks.
>
>
> There are high end commercial CS pits which also use wood chunks. :-)
>

Hopefully I didn't imply otherwise

--
Reg

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Brian" <"I never thought I'd miss > wrote in message
> news:fcQ9j.7605$7I.6102@trndny09...
>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> %<
>>> You put wood in a Cookshack? Do you mean pellets?
>>>
>>> My Q team partner has one, and there's very little temperature variation
>>> once it gets up to the preset temp. On the other hand, if there's a way
> to
>>> burn real wood in a Cookshack, I would be a happy camper.
>>>
>> If I recall, your partner has a pellet-pooper? Other Cookshacks use
>> wood chunks (using whatever you have) for smoke flavoring. I used 4oz
>> apple wood for the batch of jerky I smoked yesterday (obligatory bbq
>> content).
>
> Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have that uses
> wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular pooper in competitions,
> as well as a few of the bigger units, and their first cousins, Traegers.
>
> MartyB in KC
>
>

A Cookshack 008. I've read that a lot of competitions exclude any kind
of electric heat source tho.

Brian

Brian" <"I never thought I'd miss Nixon wrote:
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> "Brian" <"I never thought I'd miss > wrote in
>> message news:fcQ9j.7605$7I.6102@trndny09...
>>> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> %<
>>>> You put wood in a Cookshack? Do you mean pellets?
>>>>
>>>> My Q team partner has one, and there's very little temperature
>>>> variation once it gets up to the preset temp. On the other hand,
>>>> if there's a way to burn real wood in a Cookshack, I would be a
>>>> happy camper.
>>> If I recall, your partner has a pellet-pooper? Other Cookshacks
>>> use wood chunks (using whatever you have) for smoke flavoring. I
>>> used 4oz apple wood for the batch of jerky I smoked yesterday
>>> (obligatory bbq content).
>>
>> Yeah, pellet pooper, good term. What model Cookshack do you have
>> that uses wood chunks? The FE100 seems to be the most popular
>> pooper in competitions, as well as a few of the bigger units, and
>> their first cousins, Traegers. MartyB in KC
>>
>>
>
> A Cookshack 008. I've read that a lot of competitions exclude any kind
> of electric heat source tho.

Yup, all the sanctioned ones do.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "DougW" > wrote
>
>> Me, I just LazyQ. add some wood, plug in the cookshack, and set the
>> temp. Wonder if putting cast iron in the cookshack would help..
>> it does have a fairly wide swing of temperature. ...hmm...
>
> You put wood in a Cookshack? Do you mean pellets?
>
> My Q team partner has one, and there's very little temperature
> variation once it gets up to the preset temp. On the other hand, if
> there's a way to burn real wood in a Cookshack, I would be a happy
> camper.

wood chunks. It takes about two fist sized pieces of wood per
session. They go in a little metal house that sits over the
single loop heating element.

http://revbeergoggles.com/temp/cookshack.jpg

There is no way to burn wood in a cookshack without some
serious mods. It's basically an outdoor oven.

--
DougW