I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
one.

I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.

I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
cliff, from pgh

clifford payne wrote:
> I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided
> to buy one.
>
> I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
>
> I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level,
> so the pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful
> barbecue smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should
> know?
> cliff, from pgh


Welcome!!


Having used my WSM for several months now........I feel qualified to
answer--

Several people in here have tossed the water pan, and cook direct...with
good results.
I kept my pan, and fill it with sand, then foil to alleviate clean-up. I
plan on trying some ribs sans/ pan this spring.....be interesting to see any
differance.
Check out this site, if you haven't already.

http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/



Where's pgh ??

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> reported to us:

>I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
>one.
>
>I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
>
>I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
>pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
>smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
>cliff, from pgh
>
I'd keep the pan for a while anyway. It will give you a heat buffer
while you learn how to control the temp and refuel it when required.
Nothing worse than that worried feeling when you see the temp spiking
up... and we all know that worrying makes the meat tougher. Keeping
sand in it rather than water seems to be the way of the learned.

After some time with that, you can figure out if and when to pull it.
I still haven't after a few years.

I agree with the honourable poster previous to this, sizzling fat is
more of a grilling thing than a bbq thing. I guess you could finish a
rack of ribs on a hot grill to candy the finishing sauce on but you
won't be getting any fat buring that late in process.

Have a great time with it. Let us know about your first experience.
My first was with chicken breasts as the cook was short and I had LOTS
of time to get the temp steady before I started the cook.

HTH,



Wally

"No one has ever had an idea in a dress suit."
Sir Frederick G. Banting

Cliff,

Just yesterday, I smoked three racks of spare ribs on my WSM. I
always use the sand and foil method. It was pretty warm around here
yesterday, and I was able to keep the temp in the 225-250 range on
both racks for pretty much the whole 6 hours. The ribs were as good
as I've ever made.

So I vote for the sand and foil.

Hey, is there any good Q to be had in Pgh these days? I was on
sabbatical there 8 years ago, and there wasn't much to be found. I
went to Wilson's on the North Side, to House of Sauce, and to some
former Denny's-like place a bit east (you can see that it wasn't too
memorable). But nowhere in Pgh did I find really good Q.

--THC

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cormen Voice: (603) 646-2417
Associate Professor Fax: (603) 646-1672
Dept. of Computer Science Email:
Dartmouth College URL: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~thc/
6211 Sudikoff Laboratory
Hanover, NH 03755-3510
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For once Swertz is right. You should cook ribs indirectly. Leave the
water pan out. You will get more flavor with dry heat.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
> >one.
> >
> >I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
> >
> >I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
> >pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> >smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> >cliff, from pgh
>
> To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
> meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
> liken more to grilling.
>
> -sw

In regards to the sand in the water pan;

Could a guy, or a gal, use rocks in the pan instead? I am under the
impression that the sand functions as both a heat sink and a heat
stabilizer. Has anyone tried rocks in the pan instead of sand? I would think
that rocks may hold heat better than sand?

Thanks,
Steve


"Wally Bedford" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> > reported to us:
>
> >I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to
buy
> >one.
> >
> >I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
> >
> >I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so
the
> >pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> >smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> >cliff, from pgh
> >
> I'd keep the pan for a while anyway. It will give you a heat buffer
> while you learn how to control the temp and refuel it when required.
> Nothing worse than that worried feeling when you see the temp spiking
> up... and we all know that worrying makes the meat tougher. Keeping
> sand in it rather than water seems to be the way of the learned.
>
> After some time with that, you can figure out if and when to pull it.
> I still haven't after a few years.
>
> I agree with the honourable poster previous to this, sizzling fat is
> more of a grilling thing than a bbq thing. I guess you could finish a
> rack of ribs on a hot grill to candy the finishing sauce on but you
> won't be getting any fat buring that late in process.
>
> Have a great time with it. Let us know about your first experience.
> My first was with chicken breasts as the cook was short and I had LOTS
> of time to get the temp steady before I started the cook.
>
> HTH,
>
>
>
> Wally
>
> "No one has ever had an idea in a dress suit."
> Sir Frederick G. Banting

> Could a guy, or a gal, use rocks in the pan instead?

What is sand, but ground up rocks. :-) I think the idea is to provide a
thermal mass, and seems like rocks would do the job. Given a typical pan,
the smaller the rocks the more thermal mass you're going to get.

I would be careful about rocks that might 'crack apart violently' when
heated.

John O

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:35:00 -0600, "~ ElektraMan ~" >
wrote:

>In regards to the sand in the water pan;
>
>Could a guy, or a gal, use rocks in the pan instead? I am under the
>impression that the sand functions as both a heat sink and a heat
>stabilizer. Has anyone tried rocks in the pan instead of sand? I would think
>that rocks may hold heat better than sand?
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
>

I think the whole idea of the water pat is to act as a temperature
stabilizer. Water will only reach it's boiling point before turning
into steam. It doesn't matter how much heat is underneath the water
pan, the water will only be 212 degrees (uncorrected for barometric
pressure).

A pan full of sand or rocks will reach the same temperature of the
fire underneath.

If you learn to use the dampers properly, you can adjust the heat to
where you want it without the water pan. The pan does make it easier
for the novice to keep from cooking at too high a temperature.

I have my water pan covered in foil and I leave it empty. I let the
dampers control the heat. I also find that I prefer not to have steam
in the chamber when smoking. Just my two cents worth.

Mike

"~ ElektraMan ~" > wrote in message >...
> In regards to the sand in the water pan;
>
> Could a guy, or a gal, use rocks in the pan instead? I am under the
> impression that the sand functions as both a heat sink and a heat
> stabilizer. Has anyone tried rocks in the pan instead of sand? I would think
> that rocks may hold heat better than sand?
>

I haven't tried rocks, but they should work. After
all, sand is composed of tiny rocks.

-- Yip

"Kent H." > wrote in message >...
> For once Swertz is right. You should cook ribs indirectly. Leave the
> water pan out. You will get more flavor with dry heat.
>

Hey Kunt, if this is true, then why do many
WSM owners substitute sand for water in their
water pans? It's not because they like dry
ribs.

-- Yip

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
>>one.
>>
>>I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
>>
>>I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
>>pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
>>smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
>>cliff, from pgh
>
>
> To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
> meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
> liken more to grilling.

When I use the water pan in my WSM, one of its functions is to catch all
that fat, and prevent it from burning on the coals. I want to try using
sand instead of wtter, but then what do I do to keep the fat off the
coals (and presumably also out of the sand)? I imagine putting foil
over the sand to keep the fat out of the sand, but then won't it just
flow off the foil and onto the coals? How do I prevent that? Or do I
need to?

"Randolph M. Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Wertz wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to
buy
> >>one.
> >>
> >>I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
> >>
> >>I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so
the
> >>pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> >>smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> >>cliff, from pgh
> >
> >
> > To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
> > meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
> > liken more to grilling.
>
> When I use the water pan in my WSM, one of its functions is to catch all
> that fat, and prevent it from burning on the coals. I want to try using
> sand instead of wtter, but then what do I do to keep the fat off the
> coals (and presumably also out of the sand)? I imagine putting foil
> over the sand to keep the fat out of the sand, but then won't it just
> flow off the foil and onto the coals? How do I prevent that? Or do I
> need to?
>
>
Shouldn't be a problem unless you're cooking a few big pork butts. On
not-so-fatty stuff, just make an indentation in the foil. For really fatty
meats, put a drip pan on top of the sand, or let the sand catch the fat and
use new sand when you're done.


Jack Curry

Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
>>> one.
>>>
>>> I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
>>>
>>> I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
>>> pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
>>> smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
>>> cliff, from pgh
>>
>>
>> To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
>> meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
>> liken more to grilling.
>
> When I use the water pan in my WSM, one of its functions is to catch all
> that fat, and prevent it from burning on the coals. I want to try using
> sand instead of wtter, but then what do I do to keep the fat off the
> coals (and presumably also out of the sand)? I imagine putting foil
> over the sand to keep the fat out of the sand, but then won't it just
> flow off the foil and onto the coals? How do I prevent that? Or do I
> need to?

Why bother? I don't have a WSM, but my Kamados are round, have the grill right
over the coals and I rarely use a drip pan, only use a heat deflector when
baking pizza or bread, and *NEVER* use a water pan. The dripping grease/fat
burns off, but in the controlled air-flow environment to keep the temperature
where I want it, there are no flare-ups. Just watch out for FLASHBACK when you
open the lid, though.

BOB

John O wrote:
>> Could a guy, or a gal, use rocks in the pan instead?
>
> What is sand, but ground up rocks. :-) I think the idea is to provide a
> thermal mass, and seems like rocks would do the job. Given a typical pan,
> the smaller the rocks the more thermal mass you're going to get.
>

> I would be careful about rocks that might 'crack apart violently' when
> heated.
>
> John O

I just want to repeat your last line, John:
"I would be careful about rocks that might 'crack apart violently' when heated."

Don't ask me how I know this, but it has to do with a campfire and rocks around
the edge, and a much larger fire than the rock ring was intended for.

BOB

Yippie ****, substituting sand for water in the water pan accomplishes
what I am talking about.
vaginally yours,

Yip Yap wrote:
>
> "Kent H." > wrote in message >...
> > For once Swertz is right. You should cook ribs indirectly. Leave the
> > water pan out. You will get more flavor with dry heat.
> >
>
> Hey Kunt, if this is true, then why do many
> WSM owners substitute sand for water in their
> water pans? It's not because they like dry
> ribs.
>
> -- Yip

I am disabled with cerebral synaptic dysfunctional syndrome. Your
cruelty and inhumanity should be on the personal page of the WSJ so all
can see what a phallus your are. Even though at times you are
interesting and even have insight. Also, you are dumb enough or hungry
enough to live in Austin.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:49:23 GMT, "Kent H." >
> wrote:
>
> >For once Swertz is right. You should cook ribs indirectly. Leave the
> >water pan out. You will get more flavor with dry heat.
>
> <boggle> WTF are you babbling about now? I never said anything of
> the sort.
>
> Were you born defective, or is stupidity something you've had to
> fine-tune over the years?
>
> Not that I agree nor disagree with what you claim I said. I think
> that more moisture in the cooking chamber (in the way of the water
> in the pan creating steam) prevents the meat from drying about as
> much since the air will already be partially saturated and not be
> able to suck it out of the meat, but it also makes it more prone
> to creosote buildup.
>
> -sw
>
> >Steve Wertz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
> >> >one.
> >> >
> >> >I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
> >> >
> >> >I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
> >> >pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> >> >smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> >> >cliff, from pgh
> >>
> >> To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
> >> meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
> >> liken more to grilling.
> >>
> >> -sw

Clitoris Minor wrote:
The Latin term is Homo Stupidus.
Lord Kent responds:
What does that have to do with this thread?
I am pretty sure that neither Homo or Stupidus is a correct Latin term.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> "Kunt Hagen" wrote:
>
> >I am disabled with cerebral synaptic dysfunctional syndrome.
>
> The Latin term is Homo Stupidus.
>
> -sw

> I just want to repeat your last line, John:
> "I would be careful about rocks that might 'crack apart violently' when
heated."
>
> Don't ask me how I know this, but it has to do with a campfire and rocks
around
> the edge, and a much larger fire than the rock ring was intended for.

LOL, same here. Being involved in Scouts for 15 years taught me a few useful
things about fire; this is one of them. Another: both mosquito repellent and
aluminum burn well.

-John O

> When I use the water pan in my WSM, one of its functions is to catch
> all that fat, and prevent it from burning on the coals.

It don't hurt a thing for the fat to drip down on the fire and burn up.

> I want to
> try using sand instead of wtter, but then what do I do to keep the
> fat off the coals (and presumably also out of the sand)? I imagine
> putting foil over the sand to keep the fat out of the sand, but then
> won't it just flow off the foil and onto the coals?

'Xactly. The fat's gotta go somewhere so why not on into the fire.

> How do I prevent that? Or do I need to?

Don't need to. Better yet, toss the pan altogether and concentrate on makin
Q.
--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

"Kent H." > wrote in message >...
> Yippie ****, substituting sand for water in the water pan accomplishes
> what I am talking about.
> vaginally yours,

You said take out the water pan, you
eeediot.

Does substituting sand for water make
the ribs drier? Most WSM users (you
obviously aren't one) would say no.

-- Yip

Swertz, substituting sand for water in the WSM which lies over the
charcoal, creates indirect cooking.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:49:23 GMT, "Kent H." >
> wrote:
>
> >For once Swertz is right. You should cook ribs indirectly. Leave the
> >water pan out. You will get more flavor with dry heat.
>
> <boggle> WTF are you babbling about now? I never said anything of
> the sort.
>
> Were you born defective, or is stupidity something you've had to
> fine-tune over the years?
>
> Not that I agree nor disagree with what you claim I said. I think
> that more moisture in the cooking chamber (in the way of the water
> in the pan creating steam) prevents the meat from drying about as
> much since the air will already be partially saturated and not be
> able to suck it out of the meat, but it also makes it more prone
> to creosote buildup.
>
> -sw
>
> >Steve Wertz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0500, "clifford payne"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to buy
> >> >one.
> >> >
> >> >I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
> >> >
> >> >I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so the
> >> >pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> >> >smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> >> >cliff, from pgh
> >>
> >> To me, that "wonderful BBQ smell" comes from the vapors of the
> >> meat and the smoke, not from the sizzling fat. That's something I
> >> liken more to grilling.
> >>
> >> -sw

Well, Swertz, what did you say? Please tell retardo.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:36:23 GMT, "Kent H." >
> wrote:
>
> >Swertz, substituting sand for water in the WSM which lies over the
> >charcoal, creates indirect cooking.
>
> Dear Mr Homo Stupidis Ignoramus Hagen,
>
> How many times are you going to answer the same post - and still
> not have a clue WTF I said, or what exactly, you agree with me on?
>
> -sw

On 4-Mar-2004, Steve Wertz > wrote:
<snip>

> How many times are you going to answer the same post - and still
> not have a clue WTF I said, or what exactly, you agree with me on?

Steve. Please consider the sauce. You're talking to a wooden post.
And the rest of us have to step over the crap.

--
M&M ("The problem is that no matter what you do, there's
Sombody that won' t like it much") Tom Clancy

On 4-Mar-2004, Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:32:38 GMT, "frohe" >
> wrote:
>
> >> When I use the water pan in my WSM, one of its functions is to catch
> >> all that fat, and prevent it from burning on the coals.
> >
> >It don't hurt a thing for the fat to drip down on the fire and burn up.
>
> I think so. I'd rather cook with wood smoke than grease smoke.
> That's fine for grilling, but I think it makes a noticeable
> difference when you cook for extended periods of time - low and
> slow.
>
> It also makes the coals burn faster.
>
> -sw

Now there's a reasonable discussion and I wouldn't argue with
either one of you. Different strokes for different folks.
--
M&M ("The problem is that no matter what you do, there's
Sombody that won' t like it much") Tom Clancy

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:32:38 GMT, "frohe" >
> wrote:
>> It don't hurt a thing for the fat to drip down on the fire and burn
>> up.
>
> I think so. I'd rather cook with wood smoke than grease smoke.
> That's fine for grilling, but I think it makes a noticeable
> difference when you cook for extended periods of time - low and
> slow.

Well, I've cooked in my WSM with and without the water pan. You may recall
you were the one who suggested I not use the water pan. It was a damn good
suggestion too. Much better Q without the pan. So far, I've not noticed a
grease smoke taste in my Q.
--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

frohe wrote:

> Well, I've cooked in my WSM with and without the water pan. You may
> recall you were the one who suggested I not use the water pan. It was
> a damn good suggestion too. Much better Q without the pan. So far,
> I've not noticed a grease smoke taste in my Q.


Do you really notice that much differance without the Pan? Does it add more
bark...change the smoke ring...richer flavor....I'm just asking....I guess I
won't really know until I try it.

Oncler wrote:
> Do you really notice that much differance without the Pan? Does it
> add more bark...change the smoke ring...richer flavor....I'm just
> asking....I guess I won't really know until I try it.

With the water pan out of the way, the heat from the fire is better
distributed than if it had to go around the pan and then up to the meat.
Meats seem to cook more evenly and a bit faster sittin atop the fire like
that.

Does it add more bark? Yes and no dependin on the meat and how much a fat
cap is on it. As for smoke ring and richer flavor, it again depends on what
I'm cookin, the type and amount of wood I'm cookin with, the spices I used
and what Mom Nature is up to when I'm cookin.

And yes, you'll not know how it works (or doesn't) for you until you try it
yaself. Just remember that the WSM gives you better control of temp but
beyond that it's you and your Q knowledge that make or break ya.

HTH
--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

frohe wrote:
>
> And yes, you'll not know how it works (or doesn't) for you until you
> try it yaself. Just remember that the WSM gives you better control
> of temp but beyond that it's you and your Q knowledge that make or
> break ya.
>
> HTH

Don't forget to tell them about the fat down thing.

D
--

Wow! I just re-read this thread, and wanted to thank everyone who took time
to offer me their advice. I learned a lot out of this, and will keep the
list posted about my successes and failures with my WSM!

Pressures of business kept me from actually buying the damn thing until this
week, but I have been smoking with my old New Braunfels barrel smoker.

This is a great place to hang out! Y'all some wild boys!
cliff, from pgh

"clifford payne" > wrote in message
...
> I have followed the various threads here about the Weber and decided to
buy
> one.
>
> I have an operational question I hope y'all can answer.
>
> I want to take out the water pan and smoke my ribs on the high level, so
the
> pork fat will drip on the charcoal and give up that wonderful barbecue
> smell. Will that work? Is there anything special I should know?
> cliff, from pgh
>
>