Piedmont Waterless Pan


 
The Piedmont setup really works good, especially for cleanup. I did two racks of spareribs yesterday. Temps went fine except at 3 hours when I bumped the bottom(bottom vents closed), temp started up pretty quick. At 300 I had to close the top vent about 1/4 to stop the climb. About an hour later was able to open top vent and everything was OK.
Cleaning the pan was so easy...I waited till this morning to clean up. The grease on the foil had solidified,(about 3 tablespoons I suppose), so I just removed the foil, rolled it up and put it into the bag with the ash, tied the bag, then into the garbage can. Easy, easy, easy! Ribs were GOOD!
 
That quick jump in temps is what can happen without water. That's the safety net we lose. That said, I believe my future cooks will use the Piedmont Pan.

When might it make sense to use water? Perhaps in windy conditions.
 
The way I see it, the whole thing about the Piedmont is that you have two pans that ordinarily would fit tight together stacked on top of one another with an insulating air space between them.

What I do is, having purchased a pottery flowerpot base that just barely fits on the water pan hangers (don't want to shake the WSM during a cook), I put the flowerpot base on top of an old water pan (empty) thereby gaining the best of both worlds. I have the air space for insulation, the flowerpot base for a heat sink, the water pan fits the hangers seccurely, and I can easily foil (and "de-foil") the flowerpot base the morning after.

AND...no screws, drilling or spacers.

Just another approach, maybe...
 
DWFII

Your approach makes a lot of sense and I expect I'll get a flower pot base and try it. Have you utilized the bottom cooking grate using this set up and if so, did you have problems with radiant heat.

Paul
 
Paul,

I used the bottom grate once with it...I can't say I noticed any problem. Again, you have some insulation from the airspace underneath but I don't use the bottom rack much anyway as I'm just cooking for myself and my wife, mostly. so the final word on that is probably not in yet.

That said, I can't see how, if there was gonna be a radiant heat problem, that it would be different than cooking with sand in the water pan.

For that matter if water itself is a heat sink...wouldn't there be a differential (even if it was relatively small) with water?
 
I've experienced the problem of radiant heat on the lower cooking level with sand and was just wondering if was any different with your set up. I think the reason you don't have that problem with water is that the heat does not radiate from the water. It is true there is a temp differential between the 2 cooking grates, no matter what.

Thanks,

Paul
 
So far so good with the Piedmont Pan method, cooking my first brisket and giving this a whirl while I'm at it........probably biting off more than I can chew
icon_smile.gif


I've always used sand(2 cooks with water) and am treating this the same way, so far temp control is real easy. Vents are about where they end up on my sand cooks, just hope it finishes the same way. Using foil balls and a foil pan cover. Will post back about the temp control, but not taking any bets on that brisket.......probably make me hightail it back to PORK
icon_biggrin.gif
 
I'm not sure what gain everyone is looking for by not using water. Is it not having to deal with the dirty water after cooking?
 
Evidentely I have an air leak or something on my smoker. I shut all the bottom vents down at 250 and now an hour later I'm up to 275. This is odd since I have no trouble staying under 250 when using sand, anyway, I pulled the foil off and out of the pan and added water. Sure hope I don't end up with beef jerky
icon_frown.gif
.

Bill, when using sand I get longer burns without adding more fuel(15+ hours), no need to tend the water pan, and clean-up is just a matter of changing out the foil over my sand.
 
Thinking outloud here, I lit the coals using the Minion method at 10:30 am(4:45 pm now) and I still have unlit charcoal in the fire ring........I'm questiuoning the airleak idea now. Think I just screwed up somewhere, still running 270 with water in the double pan setup so I closed down the top vent. Oh well
icon_wink.gif
.
 
Bill, can't say as it makes it taste any better(or worse) but I do like the bark it produces on my butt's and the finish I get on my ribs. Also don't think the chicken skin is as rubbery, but still crisp it over direct heat. Once I figured out how to control my temps I just find it overall an easier way of Q'ing.........and I'm lazy by nature
icon_razz.gif


Finally got the smoker under 250, meat is up to 180 and looks juicy.........won't be long and I'll know for sure.
 
If longer burn times without adding fuel is not a concern, couldn't a Brinkman charcoal pan half filled with water with a foil cover over the top provide similar results? (1) easy clean up and (2) enhanced temperature control

John
 
Regarding the Piedmont Waterless Pan, I would make the following comments.

Like sand it should use les fuel.
Unlike sand it appears to be kind to cooks on the lower shelf.
It will provide a dry environment for better bark.
Clean up is simple.

The bad is that the temp rise with a Minion Method cook MUST be well managed on the way up.
It would also be more easilly affected by wind.
There is no safety net of boiling water.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Petrone:

There is no safety net of boiling water. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that really true? Couldn't you take something with a spout and pour some water in the bottom pan?
 
Jerry, in theory one could use a double pan set up with water in the lower pan. The point of the PWP is to keep it simple and dry.
 
The water is a lot simpler since it would not have the grease dripping in it. Most people don't complain about adding water, it the clean up that's the big problem. Anyway, I was just thinking you could add a small amount of water just to get things back under control.
 
I use a variation of the PWP (with the flowerpot base) because it allows me to reach higher temperatures.

Water is a great stablizer but it is also a limiter. Water boils at 220° becoming steam. Water droplets, having greater relative surface area cool down quickly...thus the steam tends to lower temps. What happens when the water runs out? No steam, temps soar.

But sometimes, like with BCC, or butt done high and fast...or even thanksgiving Turkey...you want temps in the 300+ range.

Controlling those temps is not really any harder...especially with a heat sink/stablizing medium like the flowerpot base...than with water.

And cleanup is definately a breeze by comparison.
 
Well if nothing else the brisket was a hit last night, probably could have been a shade tenderer but was very flavorful and juicy. It was a small brisket, weighing 7 pounds and it took just a bit over 9 hours to cook. Ended up taking it off the cooker at an internal temp of 181, family was yelling for dinner
icon_smile.gif
.

Think I'll go back to sand, done it enough to know how to control it. By the time the temps hit 230 on this cook, I had 2 of the vents closed and the other just cracked(that's where I keep it for sand), at 250 all bottom vents were closed, from there it went to 270 and I closed the top vent, took over an hour for the temps to get below 250. 5 hours of my 9 hour cook was with the bottom vents completely closed. Like I said, the brisket came out fine but I was just along for the ride.

When the temps first hit 270, and I realized I had no control, I pulled the brisket out and pulled the foil from the top bowl then added water. The water just sizzled when I poured it in but still ended up having to close the top vent down. I checked the water about 3 times and never did see it boiling, not much help. Live and learn, still was some good eats.

Steve P., thanks for the No. 5 sauce!!! I'll probably never buy sauce again since you shared that, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top