Greasy smoke - yuk
Nathan Lau
I did 8 racks of spares in my WSM this past weekend (pics on ABF) with
no waterpan. The thing smoked like a mofo the entire cook and never got
over 225 at the dome. After 6 hours, the ribs were getting overdone.
Some were downright crispy. The main problem though was that the smoky
flavor wasn't of sweet wood but vaporized grease. I don't think I'm
going pan-less again.
--
Aloha,
Nathan Lau
San Jose, CA
#include <std.disclaimer>
Duwop
> Hi folks,
>
> I did 8 racks of spares in my WSM this past weekend (pics on ABF) with
> no waterpan. The thing smoked like a mofo the entire cook and never
> got over 225 at the dome. After 6 hours, the ribs were getting
> overdone. Some were downright crispy. The main problem though was
> that the smoky flavor wasn't of sweet wood but vaporized grease. I
> don't think I'm going pan-less again.
Sounds like someone needs an offset. <bg>
Dana Myers
> Nathan Lau wrote:
>>I did 8 racks of spares in my WSM this past weekend (pics on ABF) with
>>no waterpan.
[...]
>> The main problem though was
>>that the smoky flavor wasn't of sweet wood but vaporized grease. I
>>don't think I'm going pan-less again.
> Sounds like someone needs an offset. <bg>
Heh. Not intending to ignite any kind of smoker-type
debate, but, yeah, I had sometimes had this problem when
smoking in a Weber, attempting to do indirect, especially
before I got the little grates that hold the briq^H^H^H^H
pieces of fuel to the sides. Enough drippings would
get onto the fuel and I'd start getting the "smoked in
burning fat" taste.
On similar topic, sort of...
So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
side. I immediately found that the fire that used to
maintain 250F was no longer sufficient, and that the
firebox damper was more effective than it had been.
So I pretty quickly adjusted to something like a
minion fire; I dump basically 2 chimneys of lump
into the firebox and push most it out of the center.
Then I pour a burning chimney into the depression
in the center. With the firegrates turned sideways,
this makes the firebox look pretty full.
Then I run with the damper wide-open until the cook
chamber comes into temperature range (225F for a target
of 250F), damp down halfway, then put the meat in.
As the cold lump starts catching fire, the temperature
rises and I have to watch the damper, closing it down
to about one-quarte or maybe 1/3. The fire stabilizes
around 250-260 and I'm happy and the meat is even happier.
A single load of fuel goes this way for about 3 hours
with nothing but infrequent damper adjustments now.
I need to add fuel after about 3 hours to keep it in
the 250F range.
My theory is that the baffle smooths the flow of
air/heat and makes the fire more manageable... or
something. In any case, the baffle is a necessity
IMHO.
Cheers,
Dana
Edwin Pawlowski
"Nathan Lau" <lau...@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:EgpWc.6860$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi folks,
>
> I did 8 racks of spares in my WSM this past weekend (pics on ABF) with
> no waterpan. The thing smoked like a mofo the entire cook and never got
> over 225 at the dome. After 6 hours, the ribs were getting overdone.
> Some were downright crispy. The main problem though was that the smoky
> flavor wasn't of sweet wood but vaporized grease. I don't think I'm
> going pan-less again.
As you found out, six hour is too long under the circumstances. Without the
pan, the cooking time will be reduced, even if the temperature says the same
in the dome. Infrared heating is the difference. The pan blocks the
infrared rays.
Overcooking also rendered more fat than usual, thus the burnt fat smell and
coating.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Graeme...in London
"Nathan Lau" <lau...@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:EgpWc.6860$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Nathan,
I've also started removing the pan, however I've been doing it in the final
60 minutes or so of cooking. I've been doing it for 2 reasons.
1) I find that I can keep the temperature higher (or at least maintain a
relatively high temperature) without adding new coals.
2) I find that for this length of time, it does impart a nice flavour from
the fat hitting the coals. I've never noticed the greasy flavour that you
describe.
I've never done a full cook without the pan, and by your comments from the
experiment, won't.
Graeme
M&M
On 23-Aug-2004, Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
> > Nathan Lau wrote:
>
<snipped a bunch about grease smoked ribs and such>
> and then Dana said;
>
> Heh. Not intending to ignite any kind of smoker-type
> debate, but, yeah, I had sometimes had this problem when
> smoking in a Weber, attempting to do indirect, especially
> before I got the little grates that hold the briq^H^H^H^H
> pieces of fuel to the sides. Enough drippings would
> get onto the fuel and I'd start getting the "smoked in
> burning fat" taste.
>
> On similar topic, sort of...
>
> So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
> have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
> difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
> My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
> into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
> side. I immediately found that the fire that used to
> maintain 250F was no longer sufficient, and that the
> firebox damper was more effective than it had been.
I'm trying to visuallize how that pie tin is stuffed in there Dana.
Can you post a pic of it on ABF? I'd like to tame my NBS
that way. Also, where are you measuring your cook temp?
My cook grate is 30° to 40° hotter then the therm near the
chimney.
>
> So I pretty quickly adjusted to something like a
> minion fire; I dump basically 2 chimneys of lump
> into the firebox and push most it out of the center.
> Then I pour a burning chimney into the depression
> in the center. With the firegrates turned sideways,
> this makes the firebox look pretty full.
>
> Then I run with the damper wide-open until the cook
> chamber comes into temperature range (225F for a target
> of 250F), damp down halfway, then put the meat in.
>
> As the cold lump starts catching fire, the temperature
> rises and I have to watch the damper, closing it down
> to about one-quarte or maybe 1/3. The fire stabilizes
> around 250-260 and I'm happy and the meat is even happier.
>
> A single load of fuel goes this way for about 3 hours
> with nothing but infrequent damper adjustments now.
> I need to add fuel after about 3 hours to keep it in
> the 250F range.
Sounds like you're getting much improved fuel economy.
I start out with about two chimneys of cold lump, but
have not scooped out the center. I just add a chimney of
hot lump on top of it. I don't leave the draft wide open
because I don't want all of that cold lump to get ignited
while the cooker is getting to temp. But my method doesn't
seem to work as good as yours. I have to add fuel after only
about an hour. I want to make that mod and then reevaluate.
>
> My theory is that the baffle smooths the flow of
> air/heat and makes the fire more manageable... or
> something. In any case, the baffle is a necessity
> IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Dana
--
M&M ("When You're Over The Hill You Pick Up Speed")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jesse Skeens
>
>I've also started removing the pan, however I've been doing it in the final
>60 minutes or so of cooking. I've been doing it for 2 reasons.
>
>1) I find that I can keep the temperature higher (or at least maintain a
>relatively high temperature) without adding new coals.
>
>2) I find that for this length of time, it does impart a nice flavour from
>the fat hitting the coals. I've never noticed the greasy flavour that you
>describe.
>
>I've never done a full cook without the pan, and by your comments from the
>experiment, won't.
>
>Graeme
>
Just put some sand in the pan and youll be fine. I did it in my last
cook and it came out great.
Jesse
cl
Jesse Skeens wrote:
> Just put some sand in the pan and youll be fine. I did it in my last
> cook and it came out great.
>
> Jesse
Here are the reasons that I like water in the pan:
1) The water acts as a heat regulator. Excess temps are prevented by the
high latent heat of evaporation of water
2) Grease fires can occur if your fire gets too hot and you have sand in
the pan. Water prevents this
3) A little moisture in the air can increase the cooking speed
4) Moisture in the air decreases the toughness of the bark. This is of
course a preferential judgement call. I like a little bark but not so
much that you have a chewy sandwich. I like a little crunch every few
bites. I believe this is the reason that most people mistakenly give a
water pan credit for moister meat, too much bark makes pulled pork seem
tough even though the rest of the meat is no different because if it.
Same can be accomplished with mopping.
-CAL
Dana Myers
> I'm trying to visuallize how that pie tin is stuffed in there Dana.
> Can you post a pic of it on ABF? I'd like to tame my NBS
> that way. Also, where are you measuring your cook temp?
> My cook grate is 30° to 40° hotter then the therm near the
> chimney.
I'm measuring the cook temp at the base of the smokestack,
which I've extended down to the grate with a piece of
aluminum duct. I slip one temperature probe under the
duct at the grate level.
This week has been busy - I'll snap photos of the cooker
tomorrow and let you know.
> Sounds like you're getting much improved fuel economy.
> I start out with about two chimneys of cold lump, but
> have not scooped out the center. I just add a chimney of
> hot lump on top of it. I don't leave the draft wide open
> because I don't want all of that cold lump to get ignited
> while the cooker is getting to temp. But my method doesn't
> seem to work as good as yours. I have to add fuel after only
> about an hour. I want to make that mod and then reevaluate.
I used to add fuel once an hour. I think the key is slowing
the flow out of the firebox.
Cheers,
Dana
TFM®
I do it all the time, my friend. Sounds like too big a fire and too little
draft to me.
Actually my troubles start at the end of a cook....when there's lots of
grease hitting the coals. That's when it needs to be minded closely.
I've burned more than one brisket down by not paying attention toward the
end.
TFMŽ
TFM®
Horseshit.
Learn to control your coal bed, forget mopping, toss water pans and other
crutches, and enjoy real barbecue for a change.
BBQ = meat over coals. Nothing else. (it's all about the fire size)
TFM®
cl
"TFM®" wrote:
>
> Horseshit.
>
> Learn to control your coal bed, forget mopping, toss water pans and other
> crutches, and enjoy real barbecue for a change.
>
> BBQ = meat over coals. Nothing else. (it's all about the fire size)
Oh my lord, so now mopping makes it 'fake' bbq? I guess your brining
techniques and rubs are crutches too?
Could your dumbass please explain how a water pan and mopping makes it
not real BBQ?
-CAL
cl
"TFM®" wrote:
>
>
> I do it all the time, my friend. Sounds like too big a fire and too little
> draft to me.
>
> Actually my troubles start at the end of a cook....when there's lots of
> grease hitting the coals. That's when it needs to be minded closely.
>
> I've burned more than one brisket down by not paying attention toward the
> end.
>
> TFM®
Of course that is when it causes everyone problems. It is idiotic of you
to attack the use of a water pan that will prevent it. It is no
different from using an offsets that prevents the direct grease over
fire problem.
TFM®
Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any skill
from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a waterpan. I assume
you do it on a regular basis.
The only purpose mopping serves is to drop the temp of the meat and the
cooker. Thereby increasing the cook time and the internet BBQ mythology.
CAL - Bite me, I'm fork tender,
TFM®
TFM®
> "TFMŽ" wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> I do it all the time, my friend. Sounds like too big a fire and too
>> little draft to me.
>>
>> Actually my troubles start at the end of a cook....when there's lots
>> of grease hitting the coals. That's when it needs to be minded
>> closely.
>>
>> I've burned more than one brisket down by not paying attention
>> toward the end.
>>
>
> Of course that is when it causes everyone problems. It is idiotic of
> you
> to attack the use of a water pan that will prevent it.
I didn't attack my water pan, I threw it away. If you had any sense, you'd
do the same. Maybe I'm being a bit presumptious in the sense dept this time
though.
Your friend,
TFMŽ
cl
"TFMŽ" wrote:
> cl wrote:
> Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any skill
> from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a waterpan. I assume
> you do it on a regular basis.
Your the idiot here. You shouldn't be so ignorant to actually believe
that you are in the majority in your beleifs of the use of a waterpan.
If your such a fucking loser that you have 16hours to spare tending a
fire, then go ahead and believe that is the secret to good bbq. *NEWS
FLASH for the fat man* it isn't the equipment or micromanagement of the
fire that make good BBQ. I guess you also attack the ceramic and
lazyq guys too for using their common sense to use equipment and
technology in an effort to utilize time wisely? If it made a
difference in the end result then you would have a point but it does
not. For instance, do you really think the q from a ceramic is inferior
because of its insulating /retention properties?
>
> The only purpose mopping serves is to drop the temp of the meat and the
> cooker. Thereby increasing the cook time and the internet BBQ mythology.
As for mopping, it does so much more. I guess you believe that braising
and roasting also produce the same product too? The texture is
completely different when you mop as opposed to dry cooking not to
mention it decreases bitterness of the bark( creosote is always present
unless you pump liquid O2 into the fire). What a numbnut you are. I
can't believe you actually think that mopping/basting doesn't have an
effect.
-CAL
Duwop
>
> I didn't attack my water pan, I threw it away. If you had any sense,
> you'd do the same. Maybe I'm being a bit presumptious in the sense
> dept this time though.
>
Sorry TFM but evidence shows otherwise, some of us remember the picture of
the pan you posted with all that BB shot in it. It sure looked like it was
attacked, viciously too you brute.
You should apologize to CAckLicker.
Nathan Lau
> Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any skill
> from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a waterpan. I assume
> you do it on a regular basis.
TFM, are you calling me a f'n a'hole, then?
In my experience, going panless is fine for chicken. But when I'm doing
8 to 10 racks of spares at a time, that's a lot of grease that's
dripping on the coals and subsequently being deposited as smoke back on
the meat. Do you have a suggestion as to how this can be avoided in a
bullet-type smoker?
Duwop
> TFMŽ wrote:
>
>> Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any
>> skill from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a
>> waterpan. I assume you do it on a regular basis.
>
> TFM, are you calling me a f'n a'hole, then?
Aren't we all Nathan? It's kinda like being called a motherfu**er when
you're a daddy, you got to cop to being one, literally.
You only need to meet two requirements to be an "effin a'hole":
1. You **ck
2. You have an asshole.
In the same way everybody is a perfect asshole, except those with
hemorrhoids.
cl
"Duwop" <Look...@mysig.com> wrote in message
news:412f6130$0$19724$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
>
> Aren't we all Nathan? It's kinda like being called a motherfu**er when
> you're a daddy, you got to cop to being one, literally.
>
> You only need to meet two requirements to be an "effin a'hole":
> 1. You **ck
> 2. You have an asshole.
>
> In the same way everybody is a perfect asshole, except those with
> hemorrhoids.
These are the wise words of Dale thought up between wiping and sniffing his
fingers.
TFM®
> TFM® wrote:
>
>> Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any
>> skill from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a
>> waterpan. I assume you do it on a regular basis.
>
> TFM, are you calling me a f'n a'hole, then?
>
> In my experience, going panless is fine for chicken. But when I'm
> doing 8 to 10 racks of spares at a time, that's a lot of grease that's
> dripping on the coals and subsequently being deposited as smoke back
> on
> the meat. Do you have a suggestion as to how this can be avoided in a
> bullet-type smoker?
Nope. A bullet type really ain't designed to handle that quantity of meat.
If you have to use a water/sand pan to get the desired effect, you're
compromising.
And no, I'm not calling you a fucking asshole. You're ok in my book.
TFM®
Steve Calvin
>
> Nope. A bullet type really ain't designed to handle that quantity of meat.
> If you have to use a water/sand pan to get the desired effect, you're
> compromising.
>
> And no, I'm not calling you a fucking asshole. You're ok in my book.
>
>
> TFM®
>
>
ok, I'll show my "newbieness" on this one. If the desired effect is
achieved even if using a water/sand pan then why is that a problem?
I'm not being a wisea**, I just don't understand what the difference
is if the outcome is the same.
--
Steve
Love may be blind but marriage is a real eye-opener.
TFM®
> "TFM®" wrote:
>> cl wrote:
>
>> Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any
>> skill from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a
>> waterpan. I assume you do it on a regular basis.
>
>
> Your the idiot here. You shouldn't be so ignorant to actually believe
> that you are in the majority in your beleifs of the use of a waterpan.
Of course I'm not in the majority. I cook *real* barbecue.
> If your such a fucking loser that you have 16hours to spare tending a
> fire, then go ahead and believe that is the secret to good bbq. *NEWS
> FLASH for the fat man* it isn't the equipment or micromanagement of
> the fire that make good BBQ.
No, nimrod, it's purely the art and the care taken performing that art.
I guess you also attack the ceramic
> and
> lazyq guys too for using their common sense to use equipment and
> technology in an effort to utilize time wisely?
Bitch, if you don't have the time, you can't make barbecue.
If it made a
> difference in the end result then you would have a point but it does
> not. For instance, do you really think the q from a ceramic is
> inferior because of its insulating /retention properties?
Did I say that? I did not.
>
>
>>
>> The only purpose mopping serves is to drop the temp of the meat and
>> the cooker. Thereby increasing the cook time and the internet BBQ
>> mythology.
>
> As for mopping, it does so much more. I guess you believe that
> braising
> and roasting also produce the same product too?
Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about barbecue.
The texture is
> completely different when you mop as opposed to dry cooking not to
> mention it decreases bitterness of the bark( creosote is always
> present
Maybe I could teach you how to build a proper fire so as not to have the
"everpresent" cresote.
unless you pump liquid O2 into the fire). What a numbnut you
> are. I
> can't believe you actually think that mopping/basting doesn't have an
> effect.
Yep, I'm sorry. I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about.
TFM®
cl
----- Original Message -----
From: "TFM®" <horn...@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> > Your the idiot here. You shouldn't be so ignorant to actually believe
> > that you are in the majority in your beleifs of the use of a waterpan.
>
>
> Of course I'm not in the majority. I cook *real* barbecue.
How many competitions haveyou won?
>
>
> > If your such a fucking loser that you have 16hours to spare tending a
> > fire, then go ahead and believe that is the secret to good bbq. *NEWS
> > FLASH for the fat man* it isn't the equipment or micromanagement of
> > the fire that make good BBQ.
> No, nimrod, it's purely the art and the care taken performing that art.
You've deluded yourself into thinking that is the magic. I guess the worlds
best chefs are hacks because they cook in ovens and use gas rather than on
wood.
There is alot more to bbq than fire control.
>
> I guess you also attack the ceramic
> > and
> > lazyq guys too for using their common sense to use equipment and
> > technology in an effort to utilize time wisely?
>
> Bitch, if you don't have the time, you can't make barbecue.
What a dipshit. It takes time to make good barbecue but that doesn't mean
you have to micromanage the fire.
>
>
> If it made a
> > difference in the end result then you would have a point but it does
> > not. For instance, do you really think the q from a ceramic is
> > inferior because of its insulating /retention properties?
>
>
> Did I say that? I did not.
Ok so what is the problem then if the technique of fire control/ heat
management is done other ways.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The only purpose mopping serves is to drop the temp of the meat and
> >> the cooker. Thereby increasing the cook time and the internet BBQ
> >> mythology.
> >
> > As for mopping, it does so much more. I guess you believe that
> > braising
> > and roasting also produce the same product too?
>
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about barbecue.
Damn and I guess all of he award winning teams that mop aren't doing q? Just
because you call it q doesn't mean it has a different physical nature to it.
>
>
> The texture is
> > completely different when you mop as opposed to dry cooking not to
> > mention it decreases bitterness of the bark( creosote is always
> > present
>
>
> Maybe I could teach you how to build a proper fire so as not to have the
> "everpresent" cresote.
So I take it you pit has no carbon buildup in it? You are so full of shit if
you say otherwie. Guess why that carbon is sticking to the pit walls?
> unless you pump liquid O2 into the fire). What a numbnut you
> > are. I
> > can't believe you actually think that mopping/basting doesn't have an
> > effect.
>
>
>
> Yep, I'm sorry. I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about.
And you like to skirt the issues too.
-CAL
TFM®
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TFM®" <horn...@tampabay.rr.com>
>>>
>>> Your the idiot here. You shouldn't be so ignorant to actually
>>> believe that you are in the majority in your beleifs of the use of
>>> a waterpan.
>>
>>
>> Of course I'm not in the majority. I cook *real* barbecue.
>
> How many competitions haveyou won?
Fuck you, cock licker!
Competition has *nothing* to do with BBQ.
That'll be my last word on that, and you can go play in the bozo bin now.
TFM®
TFM®
> TFM® wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope. A bullet type really ain't designed to handle that quantity
>> of meat. If you have to use a water/sand pan to get the desired
>> effect, you're compromising.
>>
>> And no, I'm not calling you a fucking asshole. You're ok in my book.
>>
>>
>> TFM®
>>
>>
>
> ok, I'll show my "newbieness" on this one. If the desired effect is
> achieved even if using a water/sand pan then why is that a problem?
> I'm not being a wisea**, I just don't understand what the difference
> is if the outcome is the same.
Ok, label me a purist on this one.
With the sand/water pan in place you're smoke roasting.
My definition of BBQ is meat over coals
That's where some of us come across as elitists at times. It *is* more
work. It *does* take more time and a *lot* more attention.
It's a completely different flavor. The fat bombs hitting the coals should
*enhance* rather than detract from the flavor.
Believe me, I've nastied up more than my share of meat, but in most cases it
was simply too big a bed of coals.
TFM®
Steve Calvin
> Ok, label me a purist on this one.
>
> With the sand/water pan in place you're smoke roasting.
>
> My definition of BBQ is meat over coals
>
> That's where some of us come across as elitists at times. It *is* more
> work. It *does* take more time and a *lot* more attention.
>
> It's a completely different flavor. The fat bombs hitting the coals should
> *enhance* rather than detract from the flavor.
>
> Believe me, I've nastied up more than my share of meat, but in most cases it
> was simply too big a bed of coals.
>
>
> TFM®
>
>
Gotcha, thanks. My WSM should be here by the end of next week. I
think that I'll do a couple (or few) "test burns" with it and try to
get a feel of how much lump to use, setting the drafts, etc to get and
maintain the right temp before I throw some meat on it.
I'll probably use the pan until I get "good" at fire control but will
then definately try it without.
Edwin Pawlowski
cl wrote:
> How many competitions haveyou won?
>
Do you think winning a competition has any correlation to making good
barbecue?
Some of the best barbecue is made in backyards of America and never sees a
contest. I also know people that have trophies and make some rather
mediocre food.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Monroe, of course...
Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> cl wrote:
> > How many competitions haveyou won?
> >
>
> Do you think winning a competition has any correlation to making good
> barbecue?
Among CALostomy's multitudinous awards:
AFB Nummer Wun Wurst Spellar
AFB Number One Worstest of Grammar
AFB Most Contentious & Argumentative Asshole
AFB Top Twenty Stupidest Posts Ever
AFB 'Mr. Hot Gas' Medal
AFB Most Plonked
AFB Grand Champ Waste of Space and Oxygen
Who can dispute credentials like these?
monroe('best BBQ at my house' winner)
Duwop
> TFMŽ wrote:
>> That's where some of us come across as elitists at times. It *is*
>> more work. It *does* take more time and a *lot* more attention.
>>
>> It's a completely different flavor. The fat bombs hitting the coals
>> should *enhance* rather than detract from the flavor.
>>
>> Believe me, I've nastied up more than my share of meat, but in most
>> cases it was simply too big a bed of coals.
>>
>
> then definately try it without.
I suspect that a WSM is too air tight for those fat bombs. TFM's "real"
purrist style BBQ is usually done open air too. Last year there was a great
series of shots from (who was that?) who put together an open air grate and
55 gallon drum coal maker (Imagine a upright drum that's had a pickaxe taken
to it) filled with large oak burning down to coals. Neat stuff. WSM's are
just too damn airtight I would think. Great for control, bad for bad smoke,
creosote and burnt fat.
But I've been wrong before.
(I thought CALonic had left?)
Graeme...in London
"Monroe, of course..." <Mag...@knowyerchicken.org> wrote in message
news:280820041106122709%Mag...@knowyerchicken.org...
>
> Among CALostomy's multitudinous awards:
>
> AFB Nummer Wun Wurst Spellar
Monroe,
I thought that skilful honour belonged to yours truly :-)
In defence of cl, and to analyse and catalogue his posts, his dialogue just
wants to be the centre of attention.
This is my 2nd favourite newsgroup (you can't see the colour and flavour on
this one)
Graeme
Steve Calvin
> "Duwop" <Look...@mysig.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I suspect that a WSM is too air tight for those fat bombs. TFM's
>>"real" purrist style BBQ is usually done open air too. Last year
>>there was a great series of shots from (who was that?) who put
>>together an open air grate and 55 gallon drum coal maker
>>(Imagine a upright drum that's had a pickaxe taken to it) filled
>>with large oak burning down to coals. Neat stuff. WSM's are just
>>too damn airtight I would think. Great for control, bad for bad
>>smoke, creosote and burnt fat.
>>
>>But I've been wrong before.
>>
>>(I thought CALonic had left?)
>>
>
>
> But you're right this time. Kamados and BGE's are also too airtight
> for direct work. You'll definitely get a nasty burnt grease taste if
> you don't use a drip pan in them. In some tin rustbox that leaks like
> a sieve it's a different story.
Bummer. I guess I bought the wrong g.d. thing. Well, I'll consider it
a "learning" experience. <sigh>
bbq
Nah, you didn't buy the wrong smoker if you got a WSM. It is a
terrific unit and can produce some great Q with it. Some use the pan as
a heat deflector, some use sand in the pan and some use water too. Then
there are a few that don't use it at all. It is all up to you, the cooker.
Regardless of whether you use the pan or not, you can make real Q.
Get the cooker fired up and post some pics. On ABF of course.
Happy Q'en,
BBQ
Duwop
> "Monroe, of course..." <Mag...@knowyerchicken.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Among CALostomy's multitudinous awards:
>>
>> AFB Nummer Wun Wurst Spellar
>
> I thought that skilful honour belonged to yours truly :-)
>
Naaah, you don't spell badly, just kinda funny.
Steve Calvin
<snip>
>> Bummer. I guess I bought the wrong g.d. thing. Well, I'll consider it
>> a "learning" experience. <sigh>
>>
>
>
> Nah, you didn't buy the wrong smoker if you got a WSM. It is a
> terrific unit and can produce some great Q with it. Some use the pan as
> a heat deflector, some use sand in the pan and some use water too. Then
> there are a few that don't use it at all. It is all up to you, the cooker.
>
> Regardless of whether you use the pan or not, you can make real Q.
>
> Get the cooker fired up and post some pics. On ABF of course.
>
> Happy Q'en,
> BBQ
>
k, thanks. I won't loose all hope just yet seeing as how it hasn't
even been delivered yet. ;-)
As for pics. ABF isn't really an option. My ISP SUCKS for usenet. It's
absolutely unuseable so I use news.individual.NET which doesn't have
the binary groups. :-(
BOB
> Among CALostomy's multitudinous awards:
>
> AFB Nummer Wun Wurst Spellar
> AFB Number One Worstest of Grammar
> AFB Most Contentious & Argumentative Asshole
> AFB Top Twenty Stupidest Posts Ever
I dunno 'bout that...there's always Kent, but at least he isn't trying for the
other cl awards.
> AFB 'Mr. Hot Gas' Medal
> AFB Most Plonked
> AFB Grand Champ Waste of Space and Oxygen
>
> Who can dispute credentials like these?
> monroe('best BBQ at my house' winner)
BOB
not brining on my porch
cl
"Graeme...in London" <graeme...@NOSPAMonetel.com> wrote in message
news:10j1gn9...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
>
> I thought that skilful honour belonged to yours truly :-)
>
> In defence of cl, and to analyse and catalogue his posts, his dialogue
just
> wants to be the centre of attention.
I wrote a post as to why I use a water pan and lard man attacked it. Not
quite a 'look at me post'
>
> This is my 2nd favourite newsgroup (you can't see the colour and flavour
on
> this one)
alt.asslicker the other ?
M&M
On 28-Aug-2004, Steve Calvin <cal...@optonline.net> wrote:
> bbq wrote:
> <snip>
>
> As for pics. ABF isn't really an option. My ISP SUCKS for usenet. It's
> absolutely unuseable so I use news.individual.NET which doesn't have
> the binary groups. :-(
>
> --
> Steve
Steve, get yourself an account with Teranews for the binaries. You get
an 80Meg/day account for a "ONE TIME" charge of $3.95. I used them
for a long time when I couldn't get ABF on my ISP. They don't always
provide the best service, but you can't beat the price.
--
M&M ("When You're Over The Hill You Pick Up Speed")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Harry Demidavicius
wrote:
>
> cl wrote:
>> How many competitions haveyou won?
>>
>
>Do you think winning a competition has any correlation to making good
>barbecue?
>
Competition BBQ and 'back yard BBQ' is like comparing Competition
Ballroom dancing to leisurely cruise around the dance floor to a slow
number and with your favourite partner.
>Some of the best barbecue is made in backyards of America and never sees a
>contest. I also know people that have trophies and make some rather
>mediocre food.
You are correct, Ed - you have to follow a pretty precise ritual to
win a BBQ competition and it has nothing with what you believe is
right when preparing good Q for fiends and family.
Harry
>Ed
>e...@snet.net
>http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>
Harry Demidavicius
wrote:
That's very thoughtfull of you, Duwop..
PS Graeme - you misspelled 'skillfull' <G>
Harry
cl
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:CX%Xc.3619$gZ....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> cl wrote:
> > How many competitions haveyou won?
> >
>
> Do you think winning a competition has any correlation to making good
> barbecue?
Lets look a fat boys original comment you clipped..
>>>Of course I'm not in the majority. I cook *real* barbecue.
There is a strong correlation between good bbq and a competition winner. A
random sampling of the bbq produced by a group of winners and that of a
group of weekend qers will most likely show a higher percentage of good q
from the winners than from the weekenders
It is easy to attack someone and say they don't know 'real bbq' but it is
even easier for someone to be a selfproclaimed expert on a subject when on
the net. So that is one way someone can prove a wee bit of expertise.
Now he is stating that by me using a water pan I dont produce 'real bbq'.
> Some of the best barbecue is made in backyards of America and never sees a
> contest. I also know people that have trophies and make some rather
> mediocre food.
> Ed
Agreed and also stated by me on this group
Steve Calvin
> On 28-Aug-2004, Steve Calvin <cal...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>bbq wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>As for pics. ABF isn't really an option. My ISP SUCKS for usenet. It's
>>absolutely unuseable so I use news.individual.NET which doesn't have
>>the binary groups. :-(
>>
>>--
>>Steve
>
>
> Steve, get yourself an account with Teranews for the binaries. You get
> an 80Meg/day account for a "ONE TIME" charge of $3.95. I used them
> for a long time when I couldn't get ABF on my ISP. They don't always
> provide the best service, but you can't beat the price.
I had a teranews account and it sucked too. Maybe it's gotten better.
I'll look into it. Thanks.
David Higgins
Harry Demidavicius wrote:
> You are correct, Ed - you have to follow a pretty precise ritual to
> win a BBQ competition and it has nothing with what you believe is
> right when preparing good Q for fiends and family.
Good God, man, how often to you have to feed fiends? ;-)
Monroe, of course...
<graeme...@NOSPAMonetel.com> wrote:
> "Monroe, of course..." <Mag...@knowyerchicken.org> wrote in message
> news:280820041106122709%Mag...@knowyerchicken.org...
> >
> > Among CALostomy's multitudinous awards:
> >
> > AFB Nummer Wun Wurst Spellar
>
> Monroe,
>
> I thought that skilful honour belonged to yours truly :-)
OU! (oh, you!) Divided by a common language.
> In defence of cl, and to analyse and catalogue his posts, his dialogue just
> wants to be the centre of attention.
Si, esse!
>
> This is my 2nd favourite newsgroup (you can't see the colour and flavour on
> this one)
>
OK-what's your take on 'enquire' versus 'inquire'?
monroe(no rubbers on my pencil and CALostomy is a dummy)
Monroe, of course...
<Look...@mysig.com> wrote:
> But I've been wrong before.
>
> (I thought CALonic had left?)
It sucks bad that you're wrong about that....
monroe(hoping anyhow)
Harry Demidavicius
<rnorton@_remove_this_medlab5.unm.edu> wrote:
>Harry Demidavicius <Har...@NOT1SPAMshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's very thoughtfull of you, Duwop..
>>
>> PS Graeme - you misspelled 'skillfull' <G>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>So did you, Harry. It's 'skillful' <g>.
>
Not me - I'm not American, eh.
Harry
>There's a law that says that any time you post a correction of
>someone's spelling, you will almost inevitably misspell something
>else.
>
>(It doesn't apply to present or past professional proofreaders, like
>me <g>).
Nathan Lau
> Nathan Lau wrote:
>
>>TFMŽ wrote:
>>
>>>Look idiot, a waterpan between the meat and the fire eliminates any
>>>skill from the mixture. Any fucking asshole can cook with a
>>>waterpan. I assume you do it on a regular basis.
>>
>>TFM, are you calling me a f'n a'hole, then?
>>
>>In my experience, going panless is fine for chicken. But when I'm
>>doing 8 to 10 racks of spares at a time, that's a lot of grease that's
>>dripping on the coals and subsequently being deposited as smoke back
>>on
>>the meat. Do you have a suggestion as to how this can be avoided in a
>>bullet-type smoker?
>
> Nope. A bullet type really ain't designed to handle that quantity of meat.
> If you have to use a water/sand pan to get the desired effect, you're
> compromising.
Oh okay I get it now. But somehow when I want to do ribs, I don't feel
like doing only 2 or 4 racks at a time. I guess I'll have to
"compromise" with my WSM in order to get the best flavor.
> And no, I'm not calling you a fucking asshole. You're ok in my book.
Thanks, I just didn't want to be lumped with someone most people have
already plonked.
--
Aloha,
Nathan Lau
San Jose, CA
#include <std.disclaimer>
Lewzephyr
Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
>
>On similar topic, sort of...
>
>So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
>have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
>difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
>My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
>into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
>side. I immediately found that the fire that used to
>maintain 250F was no longer sufficient, and that the
>firebox damper was more effective than it had been.
I have the same smoker type, but am having difficulty picturing what /
where exactly you are describing to put the pin tin...
There wouldnt be the chance of you having a digital camera or some
such to help my inept mind picutre it?
you say in the firebox opening so there are openings on either side...
is the tin laying vertical sorta like below? (ok ok my ascii are is
very lame)
/
/
/
|
|
|
\
\
\
"I fear that all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant, and filled it with
a desire for vengeance. "
-- Adm.Yamamoto, after the attack on Pearl Harbor
Dana Myers
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:00:45 GMT, I needed a babel fish to understand
> Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
>
>>On similar topic, sort of...
>>
>>So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
>>have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
>>difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
>>My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
>>into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
>>side. I immediately found that the fire that used to
>>maintain 250F was no longer sufficient, and that the
>>firebox damper was more effective than it had been.
>
>
> I have the same smoker type, but am having difficulty picturing what /
> where exactly you are describing to put the pin tin...
> There wouldnt be the chance of you having a digital camera or some
> such to help my inept mind picutre it?
> you say in the firebox opening so there are openings on either side...
> is the tin laying vertical sorta like below? (ok ok my ascii are is
> very lame)
> /
> /
> /
> |
> |
> |
> \
> \
> \
I posted a few pictures on alt.binaries.food if my server didn't
eat them; you'll see my crude modification... ;-)
Lewzephyr
Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
>
>I posted a few pictures on alt.binaries.food if my server didn't
>eat them; you'll see my crude modification... ;-)
Thank you for the posting of the pics.... this totaly helps me
see what you have going on... and I think I will be going the same
route.
Good Eats to you....
M&M
On 6-Sep-2004, Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lewzephyr wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:00:45 GMT, I needed a babel fish to understand
> > Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
> >
> >>On similar topic, sort of...
> >>
> >>So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
> >>have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
> >>difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
> >>My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
> >>into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
> >>side. I immediately found that the fire that used to
> >>maintain 250F was no longer sufficient, and that the
> >>firebox damper was more effective than it had been.
> >
> >
> > I have the same smoker type, but am having difficulty picturing what /
> > where exactly you are describing to put the pin tin...
<snip>
Thanks for the pic Dana. I get the picture now (pun).
Dana Myers
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:20:25 GMT, I needed a babel fish to understand
> Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
>
>>I posted a few pictures on alt.binaries.food if my server didn't
>>eat them; you'll see my crude modification... ;-)
>
> Dana,
> Thank you for the posting of the pics.... this totaly helps me
> see what you have going on... and I think I will be going the same
> route.
You're welcome!
It's certainly been great for me, and it's crude as can be.
I plan to use a piece of steel sheet eventually, attached to the
existing bolts.
Dana
Dana Myers
> On 6-Sep-2004, Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lewzephyr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:00:45 GMT, I needed a babel fish to understand
>>>Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com> :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On similar topic, sort of...
>>>>
>>>>So I added a simple baffle to my NBS a while back and
>>>>have done several cooks since, and I must say, what a
>>>>difference. It has changed my fire-tending quite a bit.
>>>>My current simple baffle is an aluminum pie tin shoved
>>>>into the firebox opening so there are openings on either
>>>>side.
> Thanks for the pic Dana. I get the picture now (pun).
You're welcome. Hope it works as well for you. This weekend
I did a couple racks of baby backs, never added lump to the
firebox and it was still at 255F after 4 hours (I took the
ribs off around 3h 45min, then watched the cook chamber
come back to 255 and stay there).
I had about 2.5 chimney loads of cold lump, one chimney
of burning lump, and just tinkered with the damper; after 30
minutes, it ran a little hot (over 275) so I damped down,
brought it to 270F and opened the damper to maintain 270.
It was pretty stable after that, about one adjustment an
hour.
Cheers,
Dana
Duwop
>
> I had about 2.5 chimney loads of cold lump, one chimney
> of burning lump, and just tinkered with the damper; after 30
> minutes, it ran a little hot (over 275) so I damped down,
> brought it to 270F and opened the damper to maintain 270.
> It was pretty stable after that, about one adjustment an
> hour.
>
Daaaayamn. How'd you arrange them again? Long ways with the burning stuff
towards the air inlet?
But I can beat that! I >averaged< 1 new piece of lump/fuel per hour on a 10
hours cook.
Nah, I aint tellin the size of the pieces. ;)
Dana Myers
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>>I had about 2.5 chimney loads of cold lump, one chimney
>>of burning lump, and just tinkered with the damper; after 30
>>minutes, it ran a little hot (over 275) so I damped down,
>>brought it to 270F and opened the damper to maintain 270.
>>It was pretty stable after that, about one adjustment an
>>hour.
>>
>
>
> Daaaayamn. How'd you arrange them again? Long ways with the burning stuff
> towards the air inlet?
Nope. I poured a chimney load to the left, a chimney load
to the right, and another half-load or so, then arranged
a hole in the center of the lump, poured the burning
chimney in the center. It's been working for me regularly,
pretty predictable. It will want to run hot after 30 minutes
or so, you have to tend it a little closely at first, but once
it is stabilized around 270, it doesn't require a lot of close
watching.
Now, I haven't done a cook longer than 4 hours this way yet,
though. I suspect when I do, and the fire is burned down to
where I can't keep it above 250, I'll move the burning lump
to the center and pour cold lump on either side, to see if
I can recreate the same fire configuration and get another
relatively easy 4-5 hours.
> But I can beat that! I >averaged< 1 new piece of lump/fuel per hour on a 10
> hours cook.
> Nah, I aint tellin the size of the pieces. ;)
You been picking large pieces out of bags, eh :-) ?
;-)
Dana
Duwop
>Duwop wrote:
<Snip good info>
Gonna have to try this.
> Now, I haven't done a cook longer than 4 hours this way yet,
> though.
What do you cook that take less than 4 hours? But no matter, if this gets
you that long it's a great technique, I'm sure I'll figure out how to muddle
through for longer. Thank you.
>
>> But I can beat that! I >averaged< 1 new piece of lump/fuel per hour
>> on a 10 hours cook.
>> Nah, I aint tellin the size of the pieces. ;)
>
> You been picking large pieces out of bags, eh :-) ?
Hell yeah, Lazzari bags always have some large pieces that dont break up
easily and I've got a large container nearby to collect them for BBQ use.
Small pieces are used for grilling. Got so my container was overflowing so I
just +had+ to BBQ this weekend don't you know. One of the reasons I like my
offset, it eats wood and large pieces of lump.
Dana Myers
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>>Duwop wrote:
>
>
> <Snip good info>
>
> Gonna have to try this.
>
>
>>Now, I haven't done a cook longer than 4 hours this way yet,
>>though.
>
>
> What do you cook that take less than 4 hours?
Baby back ribs. They go about exactly 4 hours for me
at 250-275F.
> But no matter, if this gets
> you that long it's a great technique, I'm sure I'll figure out how to muddle
> through for longer. Thank you.
You're welcome; hopefully it'll work for you as well ;-)
[...]
>>You been picking large pieces out of bags, eh :-) ?
>
>
> Hell yeah, Lazzari bags always have some large pieces that dont break up
> easily and I've got a large container nearby to collect them for BBQ use.
> Small pieces are used for grilling. Got so my container was overflowing so I
> just +had+ to BBQ this weekend don't you know. One of the reasons I like my
> offset, it eats wood and large pieces of lump.
Heh. I resemble that remark.
Cheers,
Dana
nos...@nowhere.com
thanks
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:20:25 GMT, Dana Myers <dana....@gmail.com>
wrote: