On Mar 14, 11:07*am, tutall > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:37*pm, RockPyle > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 9:59*pm, tutall > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 4:06*pm, RockPyle > wrote:
>
> > > > I am a believer in sand in the pan now! *I expected more drippings in
> > > > the pie pan, but was happy to wrap the foil up and discard cleanly.
>
> > > After you've had a couple of succeses, I'd try a brisket, fat side
> > > down, without any pan a-tall. Same set up, full closed, etc.
> > > Have heard some that love the results.
>
> > I would assume that would run in the 350*+ range. *"Smoke-roasting"?
>
> > Rock
>
> Why do you think the temps would be different? The direct radiation to
> the meat would obviously be higher, but otherwise temps would be the
> same. That pan isn't "soaking up" @ 100F of heat you know, it's mainly
> keeping direct heat off the meat. A heat sink keeps temps more stabile
> in both directions, ammeliorating both upticks and downturns, it
> doesn't lower overall temps. The difference in mass between a thin
> steeled cooker and my 1/4 inch stuff acts as a heat sink too. Doesn't
> change cooking or running temps.
>
> That's why you had to close your vents to cool down the fire using
> sand this time. *Water has a top temp of 212F, sand does not.

I would think that nothing directly above the fire would allow it to
run hotter. Especially when I add wood chunks, there is a flame that
I would think would run higher and hotter in the absence of the pan
directly above it. I'll have to give it a try some time.

Rock