Sand? What sand.
I dont hve any sand but I do throw 4 - 5 bricks in there when I want a
higher temperature (say for chicken)
In my WSM, I tend to cook at 250 for water, 300 with bricks, 350 with
nothing (lower vents all closed)
"Dave Turner" > wrote in message
t...
> Shawn Martin wrote:
>> Dave Turner wrote:
>>> Morning folks,
>>> Been following the group discussions trying to get a free education, and
>>> since none of you are able to read my mind I guess I have to ask.
>>>
>>> On the use of sand as opposed to water in the smoker, what effect does
>>> that have on temperature control? Would the unit tend to run hotter with
>>> sand, or do I not understand the principal involved? I thought that
>>> since water will usually hover at 212 degrees it acted as a stabilizing
>>> force whereas sand can go much higher in temperature. I'm going to do a
>>> rack today, and I am really interested in this because of the ungodly
>>> mess that is left in the water pan to be cleaned up.
>>>
>>> Please forgive me for starting a new thread on a discussion that started
>>> recently, but I haven't figured out how to stop Thunderbird from
>>> deleting read messages. Maybe I could get some help there too? Man, am I
>>> getting off topic, or what!
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for the guidance about sand.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> It tends to limit the temp swings from opening the door to tend fire,
>> etc. Think of it as a big thermal flywheel.
>>
>> Yes, you can run hotter with sand, or save fuel, and just bring it up to
>> where you need it.
>>
>> On your other topic:
>>
>> View->threads->unread (at least on mu 'nix box) YMMV
>
> Thanks Shawn,
> I'm going to try sand today and see how it works for me. Tin foil over the
> sand will be much better for cleanup. I'll post back after dinner & let
> you know how it worked out. Every time I 'que it's a crap shoot, but I'm
> learning.
>
> You are right about the T-bird thing. I discovered it after writing the
> original post. I kept trying to solve it through folder properties with no
> luck. All is good now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
|