<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, as long as you burn smokewood in the fire, smoke particulants will be deposited on the meat, and, if the meat is unfoiled, the effects of deposition will be cumulative </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right.
Two definitions of the barbecue colloquialism 'oversmoked' come to mind: the first, the use of a wood that produces a strong-tasting smoke, inappropriate for the item being cooked; and the use of an excess quantity of wood, either all at once or over the cooking period, producing a product too smoky to be enjoyed, often too smoky (sometimes too bitter) to be edible.
Meat adsorbs. Notwithstanding the rhetoric one sees hither and yon about smoke 'absorption' and smoke 'penetration', I see little evidence to support this. Though it seems likely that some elements of the smoke deposited on the meat might be carried into it, somewhat, by moving juices and by the very nature of the meat's surface (creviced as it is), I would hardly define this as penetration or absorption. One might expect that over a significant period of time, such as the time some smoked country hams are allowed to age after smoking, that some actual penetration of smoke volatiles might occur as stabilization takes place between cells, but I don't see evidence of this possibility in the relatively short cooktimes and service of what most of us do here.
I don't see how smoke particulates would all of a sudden, at some given point, stop accumulating in some 'linear fashion' though, of course, individual tasters might not be able to distinguish subtle changes in smokiness. However, I would argue, from experience and numerous anecdotal references here and elsewhere, that there might well come a point where, given that smoke was present in sufficient amounts well into or throughout the cook, the meat becomes 'oversmoked' and, often, unpalatable.
