Yes, that's the same Kelly I met with. A few weeks after my visit he mentioned that he had been on a business trip in which he visited a couple of barbecue competitions in Missouri.Originally posted by Dwain Gleason:
I think this was the same Kelley that Chris met during his visit...
The "high quality ingredient" is mostly wood char (ground-up lump charcoal), which is very lightweight.Originally posted by Darrell:
Doesn't that mean less total mass of ingredients? Slick marketing because they charge the same price and supply less product. Now I'm splitting hairs.
Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
Is that slick marketing or just a better product?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point...but I think you're implying that less mass means less combustion and less energy output, but I'm not sure that's true. I imagine it's possible to replace an old ingredient with a new one that results in a product weighing 10% less than before but is the same physical size and is therefore used in the same volume as before and has the same energy output as before.Originally posted by Darrell:
From a strictly non-science perspective, I'll observe that while you can combust mass, you cannot burn volume.
Yes, that's the gist of my point. The air in the groooves is not combustible mass.Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point...but I think you're implying that less mass means less combustion and less energy output, but I'm not sure that's true.
Got the investigative juices flowing now. That would resolve the concern about getting less mileage out of a low / slow cook with a fixed volume of charcoal.Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
What I'd really like to do is send some old and new K to a lab and have it tested to see how many BTUs per pound each product produces.
I asked Kingsford if they had this info, but they said they didn't.