WSM with Stoker - no water in pan ??


 
R

Ron B - NE Ontario Canada

TVWBB Member
I've seen some posts discussing the changes in temperature control when having (or not) water in the water pan during a cook. But, how does this affect the moistness of your food ?
 
Agree with Wolgast.

I used to be a "I only cook with water in the pan" hero, but eventually I didn't see the use. It just uses up charcoal spending all that heat getting the water up to temp.

I never use water in eaither smoker anymore.
 
Never used water in the pan, and moisture has never been a problem like Wolgast said. Been using a foiled 12" clay flower pot base for a while now, but I'm seriously thinking about using nothing but a foiled water pan. Going to test this weekend, weather permitting.
 
Water functions as a heat sink. It can help prevent temperature overshoots but it doesn't add any moisture to the meat. Moist meat is produced by proper cooking, not by moisture in a cooking environment. If you don't believe me stick a chicken breast in a pot of boiling water and let it rip for 45 minutes. Bet it comes out dry as sawdust.

Anyway water works great to prevent temp spikes but if you learn proper fire control it's not really necessary and as Mike M says above it burns additional charcoal converting water to steam.
 
So a full water pan acting as a heat-sink, won't it help in very cold conditions ?

My last cook was three weeks ago in 0 deg F weather. I had the sm0king jacket on with a full pan.

Just wondering if I'd have burn't more fuel to keep the smoker at temperature without the water. BTW I put hot water in the pan to move things along ...
 
It would be the opposite effect. Think of it as the water bowl absorbing your heat before the meat. Once the water gets up to temp then the meat can start taking the heat energy. So you are using heat energy (coals) having to first heat the water. It is not exactly like that but is the concept
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff R:
It would be the opposite effect. Think of it as the water bowl absorbing your heat before the meat. Once the water gets up to temp then the meat can start taking the heat energy. So you are using heat energy (coals) having to first heat the water. It is not exactly like that but is the concept </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kinda like " Thermodynamics for Dummies".
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jeff R:
It would be the opposite effect. Think of it as the water bowl absorbing your heat before the meat. Once the water gets up to temp then the meat can start taking the heat energy. So you are using heat energy (coals) having to first heat the water. It is not exactly like that but is the concept </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. You spend a lot of energy keeping all that water so hot. Especially if you continue to refill the water pan during the cook.

I find it gets to temp quicker using no water, and I burn less fuel. Plus cleanup is easier.
 
I kind of disagree. No we do not use water (or other liquid) in our ovens for short cooks, but we do for long ones (roasts) or also in slow cookers. Now does it affect the moisture content in the middle of the meat? No, but it does on the outside. Now is it the same as putting the meat in the liquid? Obviously not, but I do believe that it has a small effect on the moisture content on the outside of the meat. Just do this...put a pot of water on top of your stove and bring it to a boil. Then hold your face over the pot for a little bit. When you pull away your face will have moisture on it. Again, the moisture will not really penetrate much in the meat, but will have a small effect on the outside. Just my .02
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then hold your face over the pot for a little bit. When you pull away your face will have moisture on it. Again, the moisture will not really penetrate much in the meat, but will have a small effect on the outside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Derek but I've heard steam burns are no fun. Think I'll pass on this
icon_wink.gif
.

Sure, liquid will soften bark like when foiling ribs. I'll agree with you on that. The OP's initial question was about using water to keep the meat moist. Water in the pan will do little to keep meat moist. Not cooking past done will keep it moist.
 
Clearly it does take some of the energy from the charcoal to get the water bath up to temperature. Which in turn means that the cooker temperature will increase more slowly as a result.

However, the water bath acts as a heat sump and will thus contribute to the thermal stability of the system. With the slower thermal movement thanks to the water, this means temperature stability is improved.

You'll be off setpoint for longer, but the deviation from setpoint will be smaller. With a lower thermal inertia, the deviation period will be shorter, but the temperature deviation will be greater.

So, as long as the Stoker's controller will ideally be tuned assuming the thermal inertia of the cooker. Which will be different depending on whether there is water in the bowl or not.

That's the thermodynamics of it, with a bit of process control, but does it really make a difference to the meat ?

Clean up is easier with no water, this is clear !
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
Sorry Derek but I've heard steam burns are no fun. Think I'll pass on this
icon_wink.gif
.

Sure, liquid will soften bark like when foiling ribs. I'll agree with you on that. The OP's initial question was about using water to keep the meat moist. Water in the pan will do little to keep meat moist. Not cooking past done will keep it moist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jerry, if you take another look at my post I said that the middle of the meat is really not affected good or bad by the water in the pan, but it does help keep the out side of the meat moist. The OP just asked about meat moisture, especially with a pork butt there really are two parts of the roast...internal and surface...the internal is not affected, but the surface is, so the answer is yes and no, but if you over cook the meat, the outside will dry out even with water in the pan.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ron B - NE Ontario, Canada:
Clearly it does take some of the energy from the charcoal to get the water bath up to temperature. Which in turn means that the cooker temperature will increase more slowly as a result.

However, the water bath acts as a heat sump and will thus contribute to the thermal stability of the system. With the slower thermal movement thanks to the water, this means temperature stability is improved.

You'll be off setpoint for longer, but the deviation from setpoint will be smaller. With a lower thermal inertia, the deviation period will be shorter, but the temperature deviation will be greater.

So, as long as the Stoker's controller will ideally be tuned assuming the thermal inertia of the cooker. Which will be different depending on whether there is water in the bowl or not.

That's the thermodynamics of it, with a bit of process control, but does it really make a difference to the meat ?

Clean up is easier with no water, this is clear ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that's the scientific explaination for my redneck version
icon_smile.gif
 
I wonder what temp the WSM will hold if you set the stoker to 190f and then temp in the water pan
icon_wink.gif
 
i compete with 4 webers, and have two cyber q's running them and dont use water in the pans, have no issues with moisture... i have tried it both ways and like everyone else says, i fight with temps when i used water....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top