I have three problems with my newly purchased 18.5" WSM.

1. The water pan is too deep vertically, almost eight inches deep. When it's
in place over the charcoal it dips down and you can't see and therefore
service the charcoal on the back side. It would have been so easy for them
to creat a water pan with a flat bottom, as on the 22.5 WSM. I'm surprised
that according to Weber service I'm the first to complain about this. If
you've thoughts, let me know.

2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet smokers
that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or whatever you wish
for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is burned and
basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the temp.

3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the body out
to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That would be helped
greatly with handles attached to the sides of the body.

If I had it to do again I'd strongly consider purchasing either an offset
smoker, or a gas smoker. My wife won't allow the offset in our patio.

Kent
--
,constantly struggling with my level of ignorance

On 2010-02-27, Kent > wrote:


> for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is burned and
> basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the temp.

Use hot water in the first place. Quicker to heat water on stove than
with pricey charcoal. Sand is an alternative. Heat in oven.

nb

Kent wrote:

> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet smokers
> that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or whatever you wish
> for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is burned and
> basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the temp.
>

Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
clean.

> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the body out
> to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That would be helped
> greatly with handles attached to the sides of the body.
>

Agreed

--
Mort

notbob wrote:
> On 2010-02-27, Kent > wrote:
>
>
>> for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is burned and
>> basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the temp.
>
> Use hot water in the first place. Quicker to heat water on stove than
> with pricey charcoal. Sand is an alternative. Heat in oven.
>
> nb

Charcoal is pretty cheap. I use sand and don't worry about it. I usually
use the minion method and really don't have much of an issue with it

As for handles, I agree which is why I mounted handles on mine - very
simple 5 minute job drill to holes and you're done.

I wanted thermometers too so I put one at each grate level - again -
five minutes - two holes - done.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL413.../103771621.jpg

--
Steve

"Steve Calvin" > wrote in message
...
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2010-02-27, Kent > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is burned
>>> and basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the temp.
>>
>> Use hot water in the first place. Quicker to heat water on stove than
>> with pricey charcoal. Sand is an alternative. Heat in oven.
>>
>> nb
>
> Charcoal is pretty cheap. I use sand and don't worry about it. I usually
> use the minion method and really don't have much of an issue with it
>
> As for handles, I agree which is why I mounted handles on mine - very
> simple 5 minute job drill to holes and you're done.

Garage door handles fit on the existing holes and screws for the racks. No
drilling required. Just measure and get the right garage door handles. I
bought longer screws, and mine are stainless steel.
>
> I wanted thermometers too so I put one at each grate level - again - five
> minutes - two holes - done.
>
> http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL413.../103771621.jpg
>
> --
> Steve

"Mort" > wrote in message
...
> Kent wrote:
>
>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet smokers
>> that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or whatever you
>> wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of charcoall is
>> burned and basically wasted heating water to the simmer to maintain the
>> temp.
>>
>
> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
> clean.
>
>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the body
>> out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That would be
>> helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the body.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
> --
> Mort
>
>
Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass, which
must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than you want
it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will maintain a
constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will certainly slow
the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter with time.

Kent

"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mort" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Kent wrote:
>>
>>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet
>>> smokers that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or
>>> whatever you wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of
>>> charcoall is burned and basically wasted heating water to the simmer to
>>> maintain the temp.
>>>
>>
>> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
>> clean.
>>
>>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the body
>>> out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That would be
>>> helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the body.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> --
>> Mort
>>
>>
> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than
> you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will
> maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will
> certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter with
> time.
>
> Kent
>
>
Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature over
212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic, thousands
of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for many, many
years.

-sw

"Kelvin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mort" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet
>>>> smokers that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or
>>>> whatever you wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of
>>>> charcoall is burned and basically wasted heating water to the simmer to
>>>> maintain the temp.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
>>> clean.
>>>
>>>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the
>>>> body out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That
>>>> would be helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the body.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mort
>>>
>>>
>> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
>> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than
>> you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will
>> maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will
>> certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter
>> with time.
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
> Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature
> over 212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic,
> thousands of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for
> many, many years.
>
> -sw
>
Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove. The temperature
of the burner is always hotter than the water simmering. More heat than the
just the water heat goes to the food being smoked especially because
everything, including the charcoal burner is covered in an enclosed space.

Kent

"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kelvin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mort" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet
>>>>> smokers that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or
>>>>> whatever you wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot of
>>>>> charcoall is burned and basically wasted heating water to the simmer
>>>>> to maintain the temp.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
>>>> clean.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the
>>>>> body out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That
>>>>> would be helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the
>>>>> body.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mort
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
>>> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than
>>> you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will
>>> maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will
>>> certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter
>>> with time.
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>> Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature
>> over 212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic,
>> thousands of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for
>> many, many years.
>>
>> -sw
>>
> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove. The
> temperature of the burner is always hotter than the water simmering. More
> heat than the just the water heat goes to the food being smoked especially
> because everything, including the charcoal burner is covered in an
> enclosed space.
>
> Kent
>
KENT! TRY IT AND ****ING SEE!

You sure are the most anal person in the history of Usenet.

Forget "your" ****ing theories, and try something without analyzing it to
death. Wake up and take a walk in the real world. Maybe your brain was
affected by all of that chicken that you brined in your
backyard/carport/garage.

-sw

"Kelvin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kelvin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Kent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mort" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet
>>>>>> smokers that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or
>>>>>> whatever you wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot
>>>>>> of charcoall is burned and basically wasted heating water to the
>>>>>> simmer to maintain the temp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
>>>>> clean.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the
>>>>>> body out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That
>>>>>> would be helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the
>>>>>> body.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mort
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
>>>> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter
>>>> than you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp,
>>>> will maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It
>>>> will certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and
>>>> hotter with time.
>>>>
>>>> Kent
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature
>>> over 212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic,
>>> thousands of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for
>>> many, many years.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove. The
>> temperature of the burner is always hotter than the water simmering. More
>> heat than the just the water heat goes to the food being smoked
>> especially because everything, including the charcoal burner is covered
>> in an enclosed space.
>>
>> Kent
>>
> KENT! TRY IT AND ****ING SEE!
>
> You sure are the most anal person in the history of Usenet.
>
> Forget "your" ****ing theories, and try something without analyzing it to
> death. Wake up and take a walk in the real world. Maybe your brain was
> affected by all of that chicken that you brined in your
> backyard/carport/garage.
>
> -sw
>
And here you are again, you slimy little Texan. Thank God you're no longer
in California.

I didn't say it doesn't work. It theory it shouldn't work, if the coals are
producing constant heat, and the cooking period is long. The post was to ask
for the experience of those WSM people who routinely cook 8-10 hours with
sand. I suspect that is a small percentage. You don't have a WSM, so the
question doesn't apply to you.

Please quit trolling. You were still drunk at 2:47 AM Pacific time???

Kent

Kent wrote:

> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass, which
> must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than you want
> it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will maintain a
> constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will certainly slow
> the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter with time.

There is a particular way it will "control" the temp,
though control might not be exactly the right word.

Mainly, it will dampen temp swings. This makes fire control
a simpler matter and much more forgiving. This is good. We
like not having to constantly fiddle with the rig.

Just as a datapoint, the thing you'll be asked
should you call Cookshack, Bradley, etc and report a
"thermostat" problem is for a full enumeration of what's
been in the oven. If you're only cooking a few small items,
i.e. the total mass of stuff in the oven is low, they'll tell
you to put more stuff in. It doesn't matter what, anything
will do. More food, pan o water, rocks, it don't matter.

Greater mass "helps" the thermostat coordinate when to
pump in more heat and the result is a much more steady
and predictable average oven temp within a tighter temp
range. The same effect occurs when you substitute the
thermostat with human judgment.

--
Mort

On 2010-02-28, Kent > wrote:

> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove.

Maybe in your parallel universe. In mine, charcoal is insanely
expensive, propane is not.

nb

"Mort" > wrote in message
...
> Kent wrote:
>
>> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
>> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than
>> you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will
>> maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will
>> certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter
>> with time.
>
> There is a particular way it will "control" the temp,
> though control might not be exactly the right word.
>
> Mainly, it will dampen temp swings. This makes fire control
> a simpler matter and much more forgiving. This is good. We
> like not having to constantly fiddle with the rig.
>
> Just as a datapoint, the thing you'll be asked
> should you call Cookshack, Bradley, etc and report a
> "thermostat" problem is for a full enumeration of what's
> been in the oven. If you're only cooking a few small items,
> i.e. the total mass of stuff in the oven is low, they'll tell
> you to put more stuff in. It doesn't matter what, anything
> will do. More food, pan o water, rocks, it don't matter.
>
> Greater mass "helps" the thermostat coordinate when to
> pump in more heat and the result is a much more steady
> and predictable average oven temp within a tighter temp
> range. The same effect occurs when you substitute the
> thermostat with human judgment.
>
> --
> Mort
>
>
I think you've made very good points As you point out, a stable temp,.
provided by the increased mass is going to give you a more stable temp. Have
you done this in the WSM for a long, 8 hrs or so, cook? I'm going to find a
clay pot to replace the water pan, or at least sit in it. It should act
somewhat like a pizza stone.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Kent

notbob wrote:
> On 2010-02-28, Kent > wrote:
>
>> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove.
>
> Maybe in your parallel universe. In mine, charcoal is insanely
> expensive, propane is not.
>
> nb

Wow... I probably should speak as I haven't bought any charcoal since
last year but....

What a difference a universe makes apparently. What the heck do you pay
for charcoal?

--
Steve

On 2010-02-28, Steve Calvin > wrote:

> What a difference a universe makes apparently. What the heck do you pay
> for charcoal?

I don't. Too expensive.

In CA I used to use mesquite lump. Here, in the high CO Rockies, I
use gas with wood chips. Out where I live, I haven't even seen lump,
jes Kingsford in supermrkt. Too rich fer my blood. I did score some
2 lb lite-a-bags fer half price in the discontinued bin. I think
they've got some smoke wood in 'em.

nb

"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kelvin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Kelvin" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Kent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mort" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. This is a fundamental problem I have with most charcoal bullet
>>>>>>> smokers that rely on the water pan to sustain a temp. of 250F, or
>>>>>>> whatever you wish for low temperature smoking. I think an awful lot
>>>>>>> of charcoall is burned and basically wasted heating water to the
>>>>>>> simmer to maintain the temp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't use water. Use sand with hd foil over the top to keep it
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. There are no handles on the smoker body. If you have to lift the
>>>>>>> body out to add charcoal for a very long smoke it's difficult. That
>>>>>>> would be helped greatly with handles attached to the sides of the
>>>>>>> body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mort
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass,
>>>>> which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter
>>>>> than you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp,
>>>>> will maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It
>>>>> will certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and
>>>>> hotter with time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature
>>>> over 212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic,
>>>> thousands of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for
>>>> many, many years.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>>
>>> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove. The
>>> temperature of the burner is always hotter than the water simmering.
>>> More heat than the just the water heat goes to the food being smoked
>>> especially because everything, including the charcoal burner is covered
>>> in an enclosed space.
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>> KENT! TRY IT AND ****ING SEE!
>>
>> You sure are the most anal person in the history of Usenet.
>>
>> Forget "your" ****ing theories, and try something without analyzing it to
>> death. Wake up and take a walk in the real world. Maybe your brain was
>> affected by all of that chicken that you brined in your
>> backyard/carport/garage.
>>
>> -sw
>>
> And here you are again, you slimy little Texan. Thank God you're no longer
> in California.

Never been to either place, never missed either one, either.

>
> I didn't say it doesn't work. It theory it shouldn't work, if the coals
> are producing constant heat, and the cooking period is long.

NewsFlash to Kent.....You can CONTROL the temperature of a WSM, just like
you can your oven. You *DO* have to have a brain to do so, but it works
(both the temperature control, and the sand) for those who actually try it.

> The post was to ask for the experience of those WSM people who routinely
> cook 8-10 hours with sand. I suspect that is a small percentage. You don't
> have a WSM, so the question doesn't apply to you.

Who says that I don't have a WSM? I never ever said that. You been hitting
those prescription drugs again? Try the sand. It works. Or, if you don't
believe me, go over to the Virtual Weber Bullet forum and ask there.
http://www.virtualweberbullet.com Be sure to put in your usual scepticism
when you ask those experts over there. I will be waiting for you to come
crawling back with an apology. (NOT--You're just as anal as Jerry and Andy
about admitting when you are WRONG).

> Kent
> still as dumb as ever
>
>
-sw (it's a thing from rec.food.cooking and alt.food.fast-food)
>
>
>
>

notbob wrote:
> On 2010-02-28, Steve Calvin > wrote:
>
>> What a difference a universe makes apparently. What the heck do you pay
>> for charcoal?
>
> I don't. Too expensive.
>
> In CA I used to use mesquite lump. Here, in the high CO Rockies, I
> use gas with wood chips. Out where I live, I haven't even seen lump,
> jes Kingsford in supermrkt. Too rich fer my blood. I did score some
> 2 lb lite-a-bags fer half price in the discontinued bin. I think
> they've got some smoke wood in 'em.
>
> nb

Bummer, but I'm sure living in the high Rockies has its share of
benefits. At least I hope so... ;-)

--
Steve

On 2010-02-28, Steve Calvin > wrote:

> Bummer, but I'm sure living in the high Rockies has its share of
> benefits. At least I hope so... ;-)

Absolutely. For the first time in 60 yrs, I have no desire to return
to CA, my native state, and I've been around. The downside is, CO has
NO native hardwoods!! Nada, zip, zero! Gotta pay BIG fer hardwood
and hardwood charcoal. Nearest state is NM, which has some sorta
stunted oak or pinion pine (a hardwood?). I'm not sure.
nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-02-28, Kent > wrote:
>
> > Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove.
>
> Maybe in your parallel universe. In mine, charcoal is insanely
> expensive, propane is not.
>
> nb

That's why I use mostly deadfall wood from the trees in my yard. It's
free. ;-)

I have a lot of post oak.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
Steve Calvin > wrote:

> notbob wrote:
> > On 2010-02-28, Kent > wrote:
> >
> >> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove.
> >
> > Maybe in your parallel universe. In mine, charcoal is insanely
> > expensive, propane is not.
> >
> > nb
>
> Wow... I probably should speak as I haven't bought any charcoal since
> last year but....
>
> What a difference a universe makes apparently. What the heck do you pay
> for charcoal?

Around here, it's about $5.00 per bag and one bag is good for maybe two
BBQ sessions. Short ones. Or one overnight smoke.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-02-28, Steve Calvin > wrote:
>
> > Bummer, but I'm sure living in the high Rockies has its share of
> > benefits. At least I hope so... ;-)
>
> Absolutely. For the first time in 60 yrs, I have no desire to return
> to CA, my native state, and I've been around. The downside is, CO has
> NO native hardwoods!! Nada, zip, zero! Gotta pay BIG fer hardwood
> and hardwood charcoal. Nearest state is NM, which has some sorta
> stunted oak or pinion pine (a hardwood?). I'm not sure.
> nb

Take a road trip and build your wood pile with a truckload. <g>
How is Aspen wood for BBQ? I don't recall ever trying it, but it is
fragrant.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

On 2010-02-28, Omelet > wrote:

> How is Aspen wood for BBQ? I don't recall ever trying it, but it is
> fragrant.

Not much diff than pine.

nb

On 2/27/2010 7:09 PM, Kent wrote:
snip
> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds mass, which
> must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get hotter than you want
> it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant temp, will maintain a
> constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand would. It will certainly slow
> the temp. rise, though it should get hotter and hotter with time.
>
> Kent
I don't use hot water nor sand, I did this instead, but do suggest
wrapping it in foil to help keep it clean, it does come apart and can go
in a dishwasher,

http://sites.google.com/site/theprac...ouble-drip-pan

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)

On 2/28/2010 3:41 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2010-02-28, Steve > wrote:
>
>> Bummer, but I'm sure living in the high Rockies has its share of
>> benefits. At least I hope so... ;-)
>
> Absolutely. For the first time in 60 yrs, I have no desire to return
> to CA, my native state, and I've been around. The downside is, CO has
> NO native hardwoods!! Nada, zip, zero! Gotta pay BIG fer hardwood
> and hardwood charcoal. Nearest state is NM, which has some sorta
> stunted oak or pinion pine (a hardwood?). I'm not sure.
> nb
If you can get 'Un-Treated' pine 2x4's or 2xWhatever, once you have
burned it down to coals, completely to coals, it is just that, carbon
and will work to cook with, make your coals to the side and shovel coals
into the cooker. I Emphasize once again! It has to be burned down to coals.

--
regards, mike
piedmont, The Practical BBQ'r
http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)

Kent wrote:

> Does the sand really control temp for a long time? The sand adds
> mass, which must heat up slowly. At some point the sand has to get
> hotter than you want it to. Water, at a constant simmer at a constant
> temp, will maintain a constant smoking temp. I can't see how sand
> would. It will certainly slow the temp. rise, though it should get
> hotter and hotter with time.

Why does a kamado work so successfully? Or why does an offset pit made of
thicker steel work better than one of a thinner guage (everything else being
equal?).

Temp is controlled by vent and chimney opening. Temperature recovery and
swings are controlled by mass. The WSM with sand in the water pan has been
discussed, like, forever on AFB and on the Virtual Bullet. People like it.
I've done it and my bbq sessions typically last 12-14 hours with it.
Together with the 'minion method' of loading charcoal, I've never had to do
a fuel re-load.

I suggest that you review the google-group archives for the huge number of
past discussions that have been conducted here on those things about the WSM
that are new to you. Perhaps go to the Virtual Bullet site and do the same.
It may seem to you that this is all new stuff, and possibly
contradictory..... butbelieve me, it only SEEMS that way.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 2010-02-28, piedmont > wrote:

> into the cooker. I Emphasize once again! It has to be burned down to coals.

Yeahbut!....

One could go blind trying to feed pine coals into a fire. They reduce
and die in a heartbeat. I'd need to hire a steamship stoker!!

I'll jes use gas and chips, thank you.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-02-28, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > How is Aspen wood for BBQ? I don't recall ever trying it, but it is
> > fragrant.
>
> Not much diff than pine.
>
> nb

Ok, was just curious. I know that pine is as suitable for BBQ as cedar.
;-)
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote in message
...
> Kelvin said:
>
>>>
>> -sw (it's a thing from rec.food.cooking and alt.food.fast-food)
>
> Hogwash. It's another nameshift thing to avoid the killfiles so many
> people
> have thrown you in for angry, disrespectful outbursts, baseless
> unpredictable attacks on newcomers, and going on campaigns against known
> trolls with such a frequency and vengeance that it literally renders this
> newsgroup useless and kills all posting except the aforementioned hate
> wars.
> I've never seen anyone else able to morph so quickly from on-topic
> discussion to complete a-hole without warning or provication to this
> degree
> in any forum anywhere. It's just ridiculous, and reflects contempt for
> this
> group and the people who want to use it for legitimate discussion.
>
> So back in the turd bin you go, where you belong.
>
>
Very well stated. Swertz, his real moniker truly should be Turd. More than
that he's an explosive turd, with intractable diarrhea. Unfortunately this
NG is dying. I think a very big reason has to do with Swertz's vitriolic
nature. The lurkers sitting in the background are afraid to post newby
questions, as I did with my WSM. To tell a poster to go back and good old
posts really sucks. He has to be very lonely and possibly drug and alcohol
ridden. He's angry at life, at his childhood, which he never had and he's
taking it out on us.

Swertz, or sw, please leave. Go and get the help you need. Don't kill this
NG.

Kent

Kent wrote:

> had it to do again I'd strongly consider purchasing either an offset
> smoker, or a gas smoker. My wife won't allow the offset in our patio.

Seeing an offset on the patio, that would certainly confirm what the
neighbors always suspected: inbreeding.

-sw

Kelvin wrote:

> Try it and see. Using your logic, you could NEVER get the temperature over
> 212 if you are using water in the pan. Oh, and using your logic, thousands
> of WSM users are all wrong, and have been doing it wrong for many, many
> years.
>
> -sw

You're getting better but I would have added more personal insults.
-sw's don't come *that* easy.

-sw

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Kelvin said:
>
>>>
>> -sw (it's a thing from rec.food.cooking and alt.food.fast-food)
>
> Hogwash. It's another nameshift thing to avoid the killfiles so many people
> have thrown you in for angry, disrespectful outbursts, baseless
> unpredictable attacks on newcomers, and going on campaigns against known
> trolls with such a frequency and vengeance that it literally renders this
> newsgroup useless and kills all posting except the aforementioned hate wars.

See, Kelvin? With those letters come respect and fierce envy that you
just can't earn overnight.

And what you said is just common sense when speaking to the senseless.
You even got extra points for Marty. You can skip the "walking on rice
paper" test, I was just joking about that part. Pick up your diploma at
the front counter.

-sw

Kent wrote:

> Swertz, or sw, please leave. Go and get the help you need. Don't kill this
> NG.

This is good stuff, both of you. I picked a good day to use the
newsreader at work. Seamonkey still has terrible kill-filters, otherwise
I wouldn't have even seen these posts had I been connected to my home
computer as usual (where I run TurdNews-SW(tm))

To those not in the know, I invite everyone to sign their posts "-sw".
Especially if you're flaming someone - or even if you're not. (You can't
borrow the "sqwertz/swertz part, though. Besides, that would trigger a
few obscure kook's killfiles).

As you can see, it's quite effective. I get all the blame and you get ...
Well, I don't know what you get out of it; I'm sure it's different for
each individual ;-)

The real question is: Was that "Steve" or somebody else?

-sw

In article >,
"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:

> Omelet said:
> > In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2010-02-28, Kent > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not true. The charcoal is just like a burner on your stove.
> >>
> >> Maybe in your parallel universe. In mine, charcoal is insanely
> >> expensive, propane is not.
> >>
> >> nb
> >
> > That's why I use mostly deadfall wood from the trees in my yard. It's
> > free. ;-)
> >
> > I have a lot of post oak.
>
> Not familiar with post oak... going by the name, is it super dense and hard,
> like hedge? That would make for a nice long burning fire.
>
> MartyB

It does. They are old and make for nice shade crowns. Not a hedge, no.
Just very tall slender trees that can make nice thickets if not pruned.
They are almost evergreen in habit and drop their leaves in the Spring.
They also produce a lot of suckers which is both bad and good.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

notbob wrote:

> Absolutely. For the first time in 60 yrs, I have no desire to return
> to CA, my native state, and I've been around. The downside is, CO has
> NO native hardwoods!! Nada, zip, zero! Gotta pay BIG fer hardwood
> and hardwood charcoal.

Texas will gladly send you some Mesquite. They have more native,
smokeable hardwoods than they can shake a mesquite branch at. But if you
ask us, we only have mesquite. You just pay for shipping and handling.

-sw

Kent wrote:

> I think you've made very good points As you point out, a stable temp,.
> provided by the increased mass is going to give you a more stable temp. Have
> you done this in the WSM for a long, 8 hrs or so, cook? I'm going to find a
> clay pot to replace the water pan, or at least sit in it. It should act
> somewhat like a pizza stone.

Typical Kunt Style. Get good advice, then try something completely
off-the-wall different. Rinse and repeat every 3 years.

-sw

On Mar 1, 12:11*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Kent wrote:

> As you can see, it's quite effective. *I get all the blame and you get ....
> Well, I don't know what you get out of it; I'm sure it's different for
> each individual ;-)

LMAO

Well played, well played.

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>
> > Absolutely. For the first time in 60 yrs, I have no desire to return
> > to CA, my native state, and I've been around. The downside is, CO has
> > NO native hardwoods!! Nada, zip, zero! Gotta pay BIG fer hardwood
> > and hardwood charcoal.
>
> Texas will gladly send you some Mesquite. They have more native,
> smokeable hardwoods than they can shake a mesquite branch at. But if you
> ask us, we only have mesquite. You just pay for shipping and handling.
>
> -sw

<lol> Too true! Pecan too.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Kent wrote:
>
>> Swertz, or sw, please leave. Go and get the help you need. Don't kill
>> this
>> NG.
>
> This is good stuff, both of you. I picked a good day to use the
> newsreader at work. Seamonkey still has terrible kill-filters, otherwise
> I wouldn't have even seen these posts had I been connected to my home
> computer as usual (where I run TurdNews-SW(tm))
>
> To those not in the know, I invite everyone to sign their posts "-sw".
> Especially if you're flaming someone - or even if you're not. (You can't
> borrow the "sqwertz/swertz part, though. Besides, that would trigger a
> few obscure kook's killfiles).
>
> As you can see, it's quite effective. I get all the blame and you get ...
> Well, I don't know what you get out of it; I'm sure it's different for
> each individual ;-)
>
> The real question is: Was that "Steve" or somebody else?
>
> -sw

No, I am not "Steve" I am Kelvin the Magnificent. Or is that Kevlar?

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> Kelvin said:
>>
>>>>
>>> -sw (it's a thing from rec.food.cooking and alt.food.fast-food)
>>
>> Hogwash. It's another nameshift thing to avoid the killfiles so many
>> people
>> have thrown you in for angry, disrespectful outbursts, baseless
>> unpredictable attacks on newcomers, and going on campaigns against known
>> trolls with such a frequency and vengeance that it literally renders this
>> newsgroup useless and kills all posting except the aforementioned hate
>> wars.
>
> See, Kelvin? With those letters come respect and fierce envy that you
> just can't earn overnight.
>
> And what you said is just common sense when speaking to the senseless. You
> even got extra points for Marty. You can skip the "walking on rice paper"
> test, I was just joking about that part. Pick up your diploma at the
> front counter.
>
> -sw

Thank you. Thank you berry much. By the way, what's a "Marty"?? Is it
related to a "Nonny"?

-sw
and I would NEVER even think of using any other part of the "name"

Well, except possibly "Steve" on certain holidays

In article >,
"Kelvin" > wrote:

> No, I am not "Steve" I am Kelvin the Magnificent. Or is that Kevlar?

<snork> You wish... ;-)...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe: