Fuel consumption


 
Tim D.

Tim D.

TVWBB Fan
I have a question about the ATC systems and it may be a stupid one, but I'll ask it anyway. Is there proof, or does anyone feel that there is less fuel consumption when using an ATC system compared to not using one? I would assume it would use less fuel over the duration of a cook since it controls the temps much better than adjusting the vents. I could be way off base with this assumption, but I was wondering if anyone has ever proven or disproven this theory. Thanks!!

Tim
 
Tim, I don't have proof but in my experience I'm quite certain the use of an ATC conserves fuel. I have an 18.5" WSM with a Stoker ATC. Prior to the ATC, I could get 12-14 hours with a very full charcoal basket (target temp 225-250) without adding charcoal. With the ATC, I have gone over 24 hours without adding charcoal. Just my two cents.
 
I am going to give the Scientific Method a shot at answering this question.

Question - Does a smoker use less fuel when using an ATC?

Hypothesis - Less fuel will be used because the ATC controls the temps better than manually adjusting the vents.

Testing - Set up two smokers, one with ATC, one without ATC. Set a bowl of water on the top grate of each smoker with a gallon of water at the same temperature. Light both smokers equally. Control the temperature of one with the ATC, maintain the other manually by adjusting the vents to the same temperature as the ATC. When the temperature of the water hits 180 degrees, stop, put out the coals and then weigh the remaining coals.

Analysis - During the time it took the water to get to 180 degrees, the temperature of the smoker with the ATC kept a constant temperature. The other smoker had a variance of plus or minus 25 degrees. During the lower temperature variance, less fuel was used, during the higher temperature variance, more fuel was used. In the case of being unable to control the temperature and the temperature was low during the whole time. It would take longer for the temperature of the water to reach 180 degrees, but since less fuel would be consumed during this time frame the total fuel consumption would be the same. For higher temperatures, more fuel would be consumed per hour, but since the temperature is higher, it would take less time for the water to reach 180 degrees.


My conclusion is that all things being equal, with or without an ATC your fuel consumption would remain the same.

Now, if I used a water pan to help moderate my temperature without an ATC, that's a whole different ball game!
 
I'm sure Sheldon's, er, I mean Russell's hypothesis might have some traction in controlled laboratory environment in an abstract University somewhere, but in my experience, I feel it has helped to stretch the cooks. Mind you, I have not noticed the doubling that Chad is reporting, but I'd say perhaps a 20% or so increase in efficiency.

FWIW, I think the bottom-line is, you will probably see an improvement on some level, but it definitely doesn't make the consumption worse.
 
I think it has more to do with the consistency of the temps providing the confidence to leave the darned thing alone. Everytime you fuss with it, lift the lid, or open the door, you stoke the coals and burn excess fuel. I also agree that water will increase fuel usage as well. I think between using a wrapped saucer and leaving it alone to do it's thing, are the two most helpful issues in stretching the economy. JMHO of course, but I'm sticking with it.
 
One thing about an ATC is that it may prolong the time the fire is lit since it has active air flow (i.e. blower). If the fire starts to die, it will keep increasing the airflow to keep it from doing that. Without it the fire my die.
 
I wish I would have taken pictures of fuel used without the DigiQ compared to the pics of the fuel using the DigiQ. I can see a noticeable difference. This is using a "stock" 18.5 2013 WSM. Only mod was a notch in the chamber to run my probes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top