Howard Barlow
TVWBB Super Fan
I always start with hot, 180?, water in the pan. Do any of you sanders heat your sand in the oven before putting it on? Seems like if you heated it to 225? it would help get the temp up and set real easy.
Sand again.
- Thread starter Howard Barlow
- Start date
- Status
Kevin Taylor
TVWBB All-Star
Howard...
I agree with Ed on this one. One reason I went to sand is for the ease of use. Heating it in the oven just further complicates things....I have to haul into the kitchen, turn the oven on thus heating up the kitchen, then using oven mits carry it back out to the smoker and get it back in place. All without dropping the hot sand along the way. Far too much work for very little benefit.
I never heated my water either...just no need for it. Now, if it is bitterly cold and very windy and you HAVE to BBQ, then maybe. I have cooked on the WSM at Packer football games in January in sub zero weather and even then did not heat the water. I simply added more lit coals when using the Minion Method.
My thinking on this.....it is so much easier to control the heat on the way up, rather than trying to cool down a hot WSM. I cook everything at 225?, so the temp control issue is even more important. I like my cooker to slowly move up in temp. Again, I would rather control the heat based on how many hot coals I add on top of the unlit ones.
Just my way of doing things, Howard! Not trying to say it is "best" or "right", just what I have gotten used to doing.
I agree with Ed on this one. One reason I went to sand is for the ease of use. Heating it in the oven just further complicates things....I have to haul into the kitchen, turn the oven on thus heating up the kitchen, then using oven mits carry it back out to the smoker and get it back in place. All without dropping the hot sand along the way. Far too much work for very little benefit.
I never heated my water either...just no need for it. Now, if it is bitterly cold and very windy and you HAVE to BBQ, then maybe. I have cooked on the WSM at Packer football games in January in sub zero weather and even then did not heat the water. I simply added more lit coals when using the Minion Method.
My thinking on this.....it is so much easier to control the heat on the way up, rather than trying to cool down a hot WSM. I cook everything at 225?, so the temp control issue is even more important. I like my cooker to slowly move up in temp. Again, I would rather control the heat based on how many hot coals I add on top of the unlit ones.
Just my way of doing things, Howard! Not trying to say it is "best" or "right", just what I have gotten used to doing.
Bruce Cook
TVWBB Fan
I'm sure heating the sand via your charcoal will be much faster than preheating your oven and all the hassles of carrying everything around. Plus the risk of stumbling over a child or a dog with heated sand. Not even worth it.
I believe it keeping things simple. When I grill over the sand pan I just mix the ashes in with the sand and forget about foiling and keeping the sand clean. I don't let oil drip in though.
I believe it keeping things simple. When I grill over the sand pan I just mix the ashes in with the sand and forget about foiling and keeping the sand clean. I don't let oil drip in though.
Howard Barlow
TVWBB Super Fan
Thanks for the responses guys. I was just wondering. I don't know that I found any difference in hot or cold water for the start.
Guess I'll have to try sand.
Guess I'll have to try sand.
Tony Weisse
TVWBB Super Fan
Actually I was wondering why not just skip sand and water altogether and use an empty pan? Maybe line with foil just to ease the cleanup.
Jim Knight
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tony Weisse:
[qb] Actually I was wondering why not just skip sand and water altogether and use an empty pan? Maybe line with foil just to ease the cleanup. [/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The sand/water acts as a baffle to absorb some of the heat so you aren't cooking directly over the coals. It appears to me that an empty pan would radiate more heat. I'm still using water...it's easier for me to empty the water pan than it would be to try to hold the grease in the foil to empty it. I also don't refill the pan near the end of a cook so it won't be full when I'm finished. Be aware that I'm somewhat of a newbie myselt and others more experienced may have different opinions.
Smokin' Jim in NC
[qb] Actually I was wondering why not just skip sand and water altogether and use an empty pan? Maybe line with foil just to ease the cleanup. [/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The sand/water acts as a baffle to absorb some of the heat so you aren't cooking directly over the coals. It appears to me that an empty pan would radiate more heat. I'm still using water...it's easier for me to empty the water pan than it would be to try to hold the grease in the foil to empty it. I also don't refill the pan near the end of a cook so it won't be full when I'm finished. Be aware that I'm somewhat of a newbie myselt and others more experienced may have different opinions.
Smokin' Jim in NC
Jim Minion
TVWBB Emerald Member
You need the mass of the sand or water to keep the pit temps down, if you want to cook hotter than normal an empty waterpan can help you achieve that.
Jim
Jim
Tony Weisse
TVWBB Super Fan
(Warning - long post filled with some wild speculation)
Okay, a brief experiment with 1 chimney of charcoal and no meat in the cooker shows that I was able to maintain dome temps ~250 with a completely empty pan. Used basically the Minion Method and made sure to clamp down on temps before they got out of hand.
What prompted this whole thought process was really a term I've seen many use - "thermal mass". According to the definition I could find, thermal mass is mass (weight) times the specific heat of the material. It basically measures how much heat an object can take up and give off.
One gallon of water = 8 lbs. at a specific heat of 1.00. Thermal mass = 8.
Sand has a specific heat of about 0.3 according to my research. I don't know how much sand you put in the pan, but I doubt that it is near the 26 lbs. you'd need to accomplish a thermal mass of 1 gallon of water.
In addition, water has this nifty property called "heat of vaporization". Basically, it takes a certain amount of BTU's to raise the temp of water to 212, and then a lot more to actually get the stuff to boil. So from a heat absorption viewpoint, water has sand beat by a ton.
But sand works and works well according to numerous posts. That makes me think that the only real role that the pan plays is as a heat shield or deflector so that the meat is cooked via heated air (convection) instead of direct heat from the coals (radiant energy).
Sand would help keep from burning the bottom of the pan out, but I just don't see how it can suck up enough energy to make any difference when you're comparing it to the BTU output of 15 lbs. of Kingsford.
Well, my plan is to try a few long running cooks with an empty pan to see how difficult temperature control becomes. My theory is that if I keep the fire under control from the beginning, the empty pan shouldn't be an issue.
I am not an expert in any of this and someone who understands thermodynamics might be able to clear up the theoretical side. And I sure as heck don't have the practical pit experience that most of you have. I just want to try to understand what's really going on inside that beautiful black bullet.
Okay, a brief experiment with 1 chimney of charcoal and no meat in the cooker shows that I was able to maintain dome temps ~250 with a completely empty pan. Used basically the Minion Method and made sure to clamp down on temps before they got out of hand.
What prompted this whole thought process was really a term I've seen many use - "thermal mass". According to the definition I could find, thermal mass is mass (weight) times the specific heat of the material. It basically measures how much heat an object can take up and give off.
One gallon of water = 8 lbs. at a specific heat of 1.00. Thermal mass = 8.
Sand has a specific heat of about 0.3 according to my research. I don't know how much sand you put in the pan, but I doubt that it is near the 26 lbs. you'd need to accomplish a thermal mass of 1 gallon of water.
In addition, water has this nifty property called "heat of vaporization". Basically, it takes a certain amount of BTU's to raise the temp of water to 212, and then a lot more to actually get the stuff to boil. So from a heat absorption viewpoint, water has sand beat by a ton.
But sand works and works well according to numerous posts. That makes me think that the only real role that the pan plays is as a heat shield or deflector so that the meat is cooked via heated air (convection) instead of direct heat from the coals (radiant energy).
Sand would help keep from burning the bottom of the pan out, but I just don't see how it can suck up enough energy to make any difference when you're comparing it to the BTU output of 15 lbs. of Kingsford.
Well, my plan is to try a few long running cooks with an empty pan to see how difficult temperature control becomes. My theory is that if I keep the fire under control from the beginning, the empty pan shouldn't be an issue.
I am not an expert in any of this and someone who understands thermodynamics might be able to clear up the theoretical side. And I sure as heck don't have the practical pit experience that most of you have. I just want to try to understand what's really going on inside that beautiful black bullet.
Tony,
I've seen several Web sites list the specific heat of sand as 0.19 or 0.20. This means that pound for pound, it takes 5x the energy to raise the temperature of water 1*C than it does to raise sand 1*C.
My guess is that ease of maintaining temperature in the WSM is about the same between sand and an empty pan. However, water actively helps control cooker temperature because the process of heating and evaporation sucks up so much excess heat from the cooker. Maintaining a gallon of water in the cooker is like putting another 8 pound brisket in there along with the rest of your food--it's gonna use up energy.
Maybe sand is like a pizza stone, promoting more even heat below the bottom grate than an empty pan does.
Regards,
Chris
I've seen several Web sites list the specific heat of sand as 0.19 or 0.20. This means that pound for pound, it takes 5x the energy to raise the temperature of water 1*C than it does to raise sand 1*C.
My guess is that ease of maintaining temperature in the WSM is about the same between sand and an empty pan. However, water actively helps control cooker temperature because the process of heating and evaporation sucks up so much excess heat from the cooker. Maintaining a gallon of water in the cooker is like putting another 8 pound brisket in there along with the rest of your food--it's gonna use up energy.
Maybe sand is like a pizza stone, promoting more even heat below the bottom grate than an empty pan does.
Regards,
Chris
Jim Minion
TVWBB Emerald Member
Tony
I believe that you are correct that the waterpan filled with water or sand is a deflector more than anything else. A dry waterpan would radiate much more heat than water or sand and that is also part of the process and would effect the end results.
I personely use sand for some cooks and water for others, I find late in a cook if you still want the pit temps low water does a much better job. If higher pit temps as the cook goes on is my aim then sand does that job for me with less chance of frying the bottom of the meat on the grate when cooking with a dry waterpan.
You can change the flavor of your BBQ by going with a dry pan, it would be more like the direct cooking methods of the southeast. As the fat is vaporized as it drips toward the coals that smoke gives your BBQ that distinct flavor.
It's all tools to make the art work, use them all. No need to lock into one way of doing things.
Jim
I believe that you are correct that the waterpan filled with water or sand is a deflector more than anything else. A dry waterpan would radiate much more heat than water or sand and that is also part of the process and would effect the end results.
I personely use sand for some cooks and water for others, I find late in a cook if you still want the pit temps low water does a much better job. If higher pit temps as the cook goes on is my aim then sand does that job for me with less chance of frying the bottom of the meat on the grate when cooking with a dry waterpan.
You can change the flavor of your BBQ by going with a dry pan, it would be more like the direct cooking methods of the southeast. As the fat is vaporized as it drips toward the coals that smoke gives your BBQ that distinct flavor.
It's all tools to make the art work, use them all. No need to lock into one way of doing things.
Jim
G
Guest
Guest
As I mentioned in some other threads, I do most of my cooks without a pan at all. When I do use a pan ( overnight cooks, and such ), I use the Brinkmann charcoal pan with 2 heavy steel plates inside, wrapped in HD foil, and foil over the pan, with a concave surface to trap the fat. This adds a lot of weight to the center ring, but adds a great amount of thermal mass. This tends to keep temps very steady.
I don't know if this method has any advantages over using sand, but the steel was free. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Jim
I don't know if this method has any advantages over using sand, but the steel was free. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Jim
Tony Weisse
TVWBB Super Fan
Thanks for the replies. I didn't mean to suggest that there's a right and wrong way of cooking BBQ. I agree that different methods would/could give different results, some of which might be more desireable to the person who's doing the eating. Ultimately we're all after the same thing - a good tasting product that satisfies the diners.
I just wanted to point out that there is some basic science behind what is going on inside the cooker. I like trying to figure out how stuff works; it's who I am.
I just wanted to point out that there is some basic science behind what is going on inside the cooker. I like trying to figure out how stuff works; it's who I am.
G
Guest
Guest
Having only used my WSM 1x I don't have a lot to offer but I used sand for the 1st try and maintained 240 for about 18hrs w/o adding fuel.
Has anyone tried sand and water at the same time? Might get some of the benefits of water until it steamed off and then you'd have sand left to do what sand does and no need to worry about refilling or burning out the pan.
Just a thought.
Rob
Has anyone tried sand and water at the same time? Might get some of the benefits of water until it steamed off and then you'd have sand left to do what sand does and no need to worry about refilling or burning out the pan.
Just a thought.
Rob
John Griffin
TVWBB Member
I've got a dumb question.....
As far as water in the pan goes - I know it helps to control/absorb the heat, but I was always under the impression that that the water vapor provided moisture?? or is that totally wrong??
Thanks,
John
As far as water in the pan goes - I know it helps to control/absorb the heat, but I was always under the impression that that the water vapor provided moisture?? or is that totally wrong??
Thanks,
John
Jim Minion
TVWBB Emerald Member
John
Water vapor in a pit does not equate to moist BBQ.
Moist BBQ is a function of good cooking techniques.
Jim
Water vapor in a pit does not equate to moist BBQ.
Moist BBQ is a function of good cooking techniques.
Jim
John Griffin
TVWBB Member
Got it!!
low and slow!
Thanks. Now I understand the sand thing.
low and slow!
Thanks. Now I understand the sand thing.
Dennis Fraley
TVWBB Super Fan
Well seeing as the evaporation process helps control the heat in the cooker as we all know. What if you were to fill your water pan say 2/3's full. Then put foil over the top of that (conaved a bit to catch drippings of course). Would that allow the water that is evaporating to cool and drop back down into the water pan? Not sure if the air between the water and foil would be cool enough to get it back to liquid state. But has anyone tried this?
It could be an alternative to having to refill the pan on longer cooks.
I have also read where people have put in a few crumpled up peices of foil in the pan. Then covered the pan with foil to help regulate the temps. I can see how that would works as well.
It could be an alternative to having to refill the pan on longer cooks.
I have also read where people have put in a few crumpled up peices of foil in the pan. Then covered the pan with foil to help regulate the temps. I can see how that would works as well.
G
Guest
Guest
I put broken ceramic floor tiles on the bottom of my pan, then covered the pieces with sand and I have only had good luck. The set-up seems to act a bit like a pizza stone, in terms of heat absorbtion and distribution. My temperatures are much very stable and I seem to use less charcoal than when I was using water in the pan. If you want the security of water, put a coffee can full of water in the smoker with your meat. Good luck!
Randy Parr
TVWBB Super Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I personely use sand for some cooks and water for others, I find late in a cook if you still want the pit temps low water does a much better job. If higher pit temps as the cook goes on is my aim then sand does that job for me with less chance of frying the bottom of the meat on the grate when cooking with a dry waterpan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jim,
Thanks for that clarification, I've been thinking of switching to sand (hate the cleanup with water)and really couldn't see a good reason not to...you gave me a new perspective on the issue. When I do ribs the temps with water are just right and sand might keep them too high, when I do butt over a longer smoke, I often have to stir the coals after 10 hours to bring up the heat and here sand might benefit the cook.
That's what I love about this site...learn somethin' new everyday...
Thanks again
Thanks for that clarification, I've been thinking of switching to sand (hate the cleanup with water)and really couldn't see a good reason not to...you gave me a new perspective on the issue. When I do ribs the temps with water are just right and sand might keep them too high, when I do butt over a longer smoke, I often have to stir the coals after 10 hours to bring up the heat and here sand might benefit the cook.
That's what I love about this site...learn somethin' new everyday...
Thanks again
- Status