My first new Kingsford burn test


 

Chris Allingham

Administrator
Staff member
My plan to was to do an uncontrolled burn of equal volumes of old and new K, measuring:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>weight before burning
<LI>weight after burning
<LI>temperature over time from lighting to stone cold[/list]No lids, no vent settings, no meat, no water. Just a flat-out burn to determine visual and temperature differences.

I put together two identical burn rigs. Each consisted of a pan holding a wire mesh charcoal ring attached to a charcoal grate. I weighed each rig in advance so that after the burn I could place the whole thing, ashes and all, on the scale, subtract the weight of the rig, and calculate the net weight of the ashes.

I used a metal coat hanger to fashion an armature that clipped to the edge of each pan to hold a bead probe over each fire at 15" above the empty grate.

I hand-selected 100 briquettes of old and new K, making sure to get full briquettes--no broken pieces or chipped corners allowed.

The batch of new K weighed slightly more than the old K from my stash from last fall. Not sure if this was due to the age of the old K or just a manufacturing variance between old and new. (By volume, new K is supposed to weigh less than old K).

Old K: 6 lbs, 1/4 oz (96.25 oz)
New K: 6 lbs, 2-1/4 oz (98.25 oz)

In order to get things burning quickly and evenly, I measured 2 oz. of Kingsford lighter fluid into a spray bottle and sprayed it evenly over the old K until empty, then repeated with 2 oz. on the new K.

I plugged the two probes into the data logging thermometer and lit the coals.

Within a few minutes, the thermometer started beeping "low batteries." Damn it. I thought they were going to be OK, but apparently not. I disconnected the unit, put in fresh batteries, and reconnected.

Started getting weird temperature readings. Only 70*F over the old K, while 200+ degrees over the new K. The flames were burning high off the coals and had fried the old K probe. There goes my ability to do a well-documented temperature comparison for this burn. I took the probe off the new K so as not to fry the second probe.

So, I just watched the fire progress visually. It was very obvious that the new K lit a lot faster than the old K, the fire spread across the top of all the coals much quicker, there was more flame and higher flame on the new K, and the intensity of the fire was greater. It looked hotter, especially in the center of the fire--it had a more intense orange color than the old K.

Things continued this way for the first couple of hours, with new K looking hotter than old K. I used a Fluke probe that I know is good to 1800*F and took some spot measurements by hand. At one point, I got a pretty consistent measurement of a 30*F difference in favor of new K.

I also tried an infrared thermometer that goes up to about 800*F, but when aimed at the center of both fires it registered "OL" for overlimit--too hot to measure.

After about 3-1/2 hours, the new K looked cooler than old K, and the probe confirmed this. But at 4-1/2 hours, even though both fires were in decline, the new K was again burning hotter. Perhaps there was some ash building up and falling away that accounted for the difference.

I tried the infrared thermometer again and now got "OL" on the new K, but 770*F on the old K. So new K was running hotter by some unknown number of degrees F.

Here are some photos I took at 4-1/2 hours, at about 3:30am this morning.

Photo #1 shows old K on the left, new K on the right. The camera was set for no flash and a twilight setting, which forces the shutter to stay open longer. There is some ambient light from a porch light above and to the right. These photos are Photoshopped together to appear side-by-side. In real life, they were about 2 feet apart. You can see that the new K definitely appears to be burning hotter.
http://host79.ipowerweb.com/~virtualw/new_kingsford/old-new1.jpg

Photo #2 is the same as #1, but using no flash, an automatic shutter setting, and no porch light.
http://host79.ipowerweb.com/~virtualw/new_kingsford/old-new2.jpg

Photo #3 uses the same camera settings as #2, but from a distance of about 20'. You can see the difference in intensity between old on the left and new on the right, even after 4-1/2 hours. This photo is Photoshopped together and cropped, which makes it appear closer than the 20' where I was standing.
http://host79.ipowerweb.com/~virtualw/new_kingsford/old-new3.jpg

I went to sleep and checked on things at 6:30am. The new K was stone cold. The old K looked cold upon first inspection, but still had some heat and just a bit of orange color in the middle.

By 10:00am everything was cold. Here's how much ash resulted:

Old K: 1 lb, 2-1/2 oz (18.50 oz)
New K: 1 lb, 1-1/2 oz (17.50 oz)

Old K: 19.22% ash (18.50/96.25)
New K: 17.81% ash (17.50/98.25)

I'm bummed that I wasn't able to log the temperatures. Not sure if I'm going to get some new probes and try this uncontrolled burn again, or just go straight to testing in an empty WSM. Probably the later.

Regards,
Chris
 
Chris -

Great analysis. Thanks! So, it seems that in this test, the burn of the old may have been slightly longer, but doesn't sound dramatically so. When you tested in the morning and found the old K to have a bit more left - were there many coals left? I wonder how much earlier the new K had gone out.

Ash build up doesn't seem to be much of a factor between the two.

Looking forward to the test in the WSM too!
 
There were just little hot bits buried under ash. When I placed my hand over the new K, I felt absolutely nothing. Over the old K, just the slightest warmth, nothing you could cook over.

The WSM testing will be much more informative since I will be able to measure temp as I had planned from beginning to bitter end.
icon_smile.gif


Regards,
Chris
 
Hi Chris,
I recently met some Kingsford reps and they made reference to the new stuff being ready to cook sooner and if you don't recognize that your fire could seem like it doesn't last as long. I thought that was an interesting point.

They are high on the stuff, but I'm not sure their goals are the same as ours. "Lights Fast" was the mantra.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ray Lampe - Dr. BBQ:
Hi Chris,
I recently met some Kingsford reps and they made reference to the new stuff being ready to cook sooner and if you don't recognize that your fire could seem like it doesn't last as long. I thought that was an interesting point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. The package says "Ready faster" and "Burns even longer". I don't think there's any debate about "ready faster". I think "burns even longer" might mean "more usable grilling time" if you start cooking sooner because the charcoal is "ready faster".

I was thinking through this example earlier today. If the old Kingsford took 25 minutes to come up to temperature and had an effective grill time of 60 minutes, the total burn time is 85 minutes. If the new Kingsford takes only 15 minutes to come up to temp and has an effective grill time of 65 minutes, the total burn time is 80 minutes (5 minutes less) but you get 5 additional minutes of cooking time (and at a higher temp).

I agree that their goals may not be the same as ours. I will say that the R&D guys I met with at Kingsford were very interested in figuring out how to make the new product continue to meet our goals.

Good to hear from you, Ray.

Regards,
Chris
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shawn W:
did both samples burn completely?

did you notice any difference in the ash itself? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they both burned completely. All ash in both pans.

The ash seemed really similar in texture and color. The only thing I noticed was that some of the ashes in the new product retained their shape...some looked like whole briquettes, whereas the old product pretty much collapsed. Not sure what caused that.

Regards,
Chris
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allingham:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ray Lampe - Dr. BBQ:
Hi Chris,
I recently met some Kingsford reps and they made reference to the new stuff being ready to cook sooner and if you don't recognize that your fire could seem like it doesn't last as long. I thought that was an interesting point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. The package says "Ready faster" and "Burns even longer". I don't think there's any debate about "ready faster". I think "burns even longer" might mean "more usable grilling time" if you start cooking sooner because the charcoal is "ready faster".

I was thinking through this example earlier today. If the old Kingsford took 25 minutes to come up to temperature and had an effective grill time of 60 minutes, the total burn time is 85 minutes. If the new Kingsford takes only 15 minutes to come up to temp and has an effective grill time of 65 minutes, the total burn time is 80 minutes (5 minutes less) but you get 5 additional minutes of cooking time (and at a higher temp).

I agree that their goals may not be the same as ours. I will say that the R&D guys I met with at Kingsford were very interested in figuring out how to make the new product continue to meet our goals.

Good to hear from you, Ray.

Regards,
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, exactly. So if you waited the 25 on the new stuff it would seem that it died sooner. This would all be amplified in a hot grilling situation with a miserly pile of coals.
I fix a lot of peoples problems with the egg by getting them to put more coal in at the beginning. The veteran smokers understand but the new grillers have that problem all the time.
 
Chris,

I would think that a controlled burn using the MM with equal amounts in both rings and maybe 15 briquetts in the chimney, a 15 minute wait after lighting the chimney might give some interesting results.

The fact that we really don't care much about the "lighting faster" part of the equation but more of the "how long does it last" part makes me think that recording a long cook with old vs. new would give valuable information.

We would see if there were any differences in vent settings required or any other major changes . What the heck, throw on a couple of butts so it's not a bunch of wasted time !!

Al
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The ash seemed really similar in texture and color. The only thing I noticed was that some of the ashes in the new product retained their shape...some looked like whole briquettes, whereas the old product pretty much collapsed. Not sure what caused that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris,

I noticed a significant reduction in ash on my cook. The ring was chock full of coals when I started but I know that I had 25-30% less ash than with the old K. Perhaps this was a fluke, perhaps not. But I am going to do another cook thursday for my co-workers and I will post those results too - focusing on ash production.
 

 

Back
Top