Empty water pan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
If I could control my temp with an empty water pan (no water or sand), would there be a drawback to cooking that way? I cooked some BB's last weekend with a dry pan and they came out great. Although, I will have to admit that I had to close two of the bottom vents 100% and left the third open only 30%. Was I just luck that the temps didn't get out of control?
 
I'm not sure I understand why using the cooker as designed is a bad thing. I would say your recent experience is less luck, though, and more a combination of factors-- a cool day, moderate sunlight, an oxygen-starved fire, and a relatively short cook.
 
I would think that the only time you'd really want to cook with an empty pan (okay, the only time I would want to cook with an empty water pan is when you're intentionally trying to mimic oven temperatures in the 325 to 375 range. This would be for meats that don't need low-n-slow to be tender (any poultry, in particular), baking breads or casseroles in the WSM, that sort of thing. For the lower temps, why fight the cooker? Take advantage of that water pan, whether you use water or sand in it as your heat-sink. It's part of the WSM magic.

Keri C and her two cents,
Still Smokin on Tulsa Time
 
Water, no water or sand, there is no one answer. The trick is to learn, based on the cook and desired results, which one to use. A long cook
(brisket or butt) with a dry water pan would be a miserable way to cook. A high temp cook with water is more difficult. A pit temp of 150 to 175?
with sand or dry pan would be a lossing cause.
Pick and choose based on the cook.
Jim
 
I'm not the sharpest tool in the tool shed, but I don't want to do things the hard way. Am I missing the boat by always using an empty pan? It would seem to me(again, I'm not that smart) That you would be using up energy keeping the water hot or the sand hot. That energy could be used in having a longer burn if you were not having to keep a filled water pan heated. Am I right or wrong? I don't know. I have used the Minion Method for every thing (cept the turkey) and have been amazed at how long The WSM can burn and hold a fairly steady temp. I read where Mr. Minion(who I hold in high esteem) refer to an empty water pan as a "misereble way to cook" Am I missing the boat here? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
 
An empty waterpan is a miserable way to do a LOW TEMP cook. Water and sand also cut down on the radiant heat from the empty pan which is a factor on long cooks. These are my opinions nothing is in stone here.
Jim
 
Straighten me out please. Yesterday, did two 7 lb. BB's and a 11 lb. brisket. Was the first time I had ever cooked using both grates. Brisket on the bottom. Had read here that brisket would be done first. Was still surprised at the speed that brisket cooked. Pulled it close to 2 hrs before the butts. The flat was too dry. Overcooked. Point was good. Butts were moist, wonderful. If I had utilized the water pan, I would have slowed down the radiant heat, which is probably what dried out the flat? /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
 
The radiant heat was the problem, water or sand would have help greatly. If using a dry pan is what you want, then you need distance between the dry pan and the brisket, so the top grate would have given you some protection. There are direct cooking methods used in the SE for a very long time, it was used mainly on pork. The fire needs to be 18" to 21" (can cause hours of debate) below the meat.
Jim
PS: you can still cook brisket on the bottom grate while using a dry waterpan by using foil after a few hours, let the internal reach 165 to 170? then place in foil (can add beef stock or apple juice) seal foil and watch the internal temp close cause it will climb fast.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Provance:
[qb]It would seem to me that you would be using up energy keeping the water hot or the sand hot. That energy could be used in having a longer burn if you were not having to keep a filled water pan heated. Am I right or wrong?[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right.

My opinion is that Weber incorporated water into the design of the cooker to help users control temperature more easily and to moderate temperature at the bottom grate. Weber was willing to trade some fuel efficiency to achieve these goals.

I know it's a crude analogy, but I think of water in the WSM as like control rods in a nuclear reactor. In a reactor, the control rods keep the nuclear reaction in check by absorbing extra neutrons. In the WSM, the water keeps the temperature in check by absorbing some of the heat energy.

Also, water absorbs 5x the energy of sand per pound, and since it evaporates when heated and can be replenished, it is a better "consumer" of heat energy than sand.

Can you control temperature using only the vents and an empty pan? Yes, as long as you're really careful to start with a small fire and keep it choked down throughout the cook. Take a look at the Smoke-Dried Tomatoes article, where I ran the cooker at 150-160*F for 26-1/2 hours using the Minion Method with the top vent set 50% open and one bottom vent set 20% open.

Regards,
Chris
 
Chris, you are right with the anology that you used. "Change of State" consumes a tremendous omount of heat. For example, a British Thermal Unit, BTU, is the amount of heat needed to raise one pound of water one degree. Therefore, to raise one pound of water from 32 deg water to 212 deg water you need 180 BTU's. But, to change 212 deg water to 212 deg steam requires something around 900 BTU's or more. When the water in the water pan begins to boil it consumes a tremendous amount of heat quantity. It is only by the fact that some of the heat goes completely around the bowl that the temp gets above 212 at all. When you remove the water from the bowl, temp control becomes paramount or you would lose control of the fire. This is also why you should be able to increase the length of the cook dramatically when you do not use water in the pan. As far as sand goes I agree that it acts as a heat sink, but I beleive that the radiated heat that it gives off is much less directed at the food than it would be for a solid mass. The millions of irregular shaped peices of sand that each have facets pointing in various directions keeps the focus of that radiant heat from being directed at the food directly above.

I am new to the WSM and new to this forum. I have been smoking foods for about a year, but on an offset smoker. I did two beer can chickens this morning on the WSM, my first cook, and I am amazed at how easy it was to get this cooker up to 300, and how little fuel it used. The birds are great and I have over half of the coals left. The fire was even smothered out when I closed all the vents! I really think that I have found a new friend. I am looking forward to my first overnight brisket. (tonight)

Drive Safeley
 
Damn Royce. That's a mouthfull! You an engineer?
Welcome aboard and look forward to your posts in the future. Gonna use the Minion Method tonight?
You're going to Love the WSM! Keep in touch /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
 
Royce
Welcome, great information, a couple of thoughts.
BBO'n there are two things we are trying to accomplish, pit temps in the 200 to 250? range (while cooking low and slow) and keep the smoke clean. Isn't there a trade off to accomplish your goal and how long you can make charcoal burn?
I would rather have a decent air supply than make charcoal burn an extra hour or two.
After years using a WSM I have not found a dramatic difference when not using water. Very interested in seeing what you find while playing with your new friend.
Jim
 
No Bob I am not an engineer, just an old car fixin guy. The principles of Change of State I learned in Air Conditioning.

You know Jim I have not really thought about the possibility of restricting air so much that the quality of smoke goes south. My old smoker is a Bandera and I had to run so much wood through it just to get through a cook that I have never run into any problems. My question on the subject is this. When you restrict the air, don't you just reduce the number of coals that can burn? If there is not enough oxygen available for the number of coals that are already ignited, then some will go out. I could see that you could get some bad smoke while those coals were dieing out, but if you only light a few coals at the start, the coals only light as the oxygen is available for them. I don't see how you could gey any "bad smoke". I think this is why your method for starting a WSM works so well. You just don't need to build a big fire and then choke it out. start with a small one and let it go.I used the same method on my Bandera. I read about it on the Teddy Bear BBQ website. I made a charcoal basket similar to the one they sell. But now I have a WSM, and boy is it great. I put a Brisket on last night at about 11:00. Right now (6:30am)it is in the ice chest cooling slowly. It was in the low 30's last night and the WSM stayed steady at about 240. A little higher than I like, but its only the second time I have used the thing.

As for not seeing any difference when not using water I can belive that. You obviously, from reading this forum, have done this a few times. If you control the temp with the air, like you should, you won't get the fire up enough to really boil the water. In other words you just don't use the water as a safety net to keep your temp from sky rocketing.

I have got to learn how to keep these things short!!

Drive Safely
 
When restricting air flow you can get it low enough that it will cause a problem with the wood used for smoke. If the air intake is low enough to not allow clean combustion you will make creosote. Even in small amounts I can taste it.
The control of radiant heat also being a concern with water or sand do a very good job of handling that problem on long slow cooks. I think there becomes a point when you need to ask what your goals are, I will take the best cooking conditions over fuel consumption.
Interesting read hope we hear from you more in the future and enjoy the brisket!
Jim
 
Just sliced up the brisket and I must say it is one of my best. I do not taste any creosote, but I don't know if I would recognize it anyway. I did this cook with no water in the pan and my temps stayed real steady. It was at or below freezing last night and did not touch the thing after I got it stabilized. My temps did run a little higher than I like, but the results are great. I am really going to enjoy this little smoker.

I am with you about taking the best cooking conditions over saving on charcoal. I guess I am just wondering how the BBQ Guru does as far a starving the fire for air? I have read about it here and have one on the way. Maybe the positive flow of air when the fan is on keeps everything good. What are your thoughts? Do you have and or use a Guru?

Well, off to play golf. I hope it warms up!

Drive Safely
 
Royce
Where are you measuring the pit temp?
I have a BBQ Guru in the garage but I have not cooked with it yet, I really need to do that.
Jim
 
I measured the pit temp at cooking grate level, and just beside the brisket. I have tried directly under the food before, but I think I get lower readings from the temp of the food. I have two Digital thermometers, one ET-72 and another that I do not know the brand of. I noticed after the cook that the unknown device was reading really high. I even ignored it from about half way through the cook on. After I took the meat off, I put both probes in the same place, just through the hole in the lid, and they were 18 degrees apart. I really need to test them both with boiling water, do you have any tricks that I should know about?

I really like this forum thing. It is way cool!! As my kids would say.

Drive Safely
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Royce B:
[qb]I really need to test them both with boiling water, do you have any tricks that I should know about?[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In addition to boiling water, you can test for 32*F and it's not affected by altitude. See Testing Thermometers For Accuracy for details.

Regards,
Chris
 
Thanks, I will do that. Where is the best place to buy the Maverick ET-73. I would like to buy form Amazon to help support this site, but I only see the ET-72. I already have that one. I would like the alarm on both high and low feature.

Drive safely
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top