Well I finally did it. I haven't used our old bbq for more than 3
years. It's sat lonely and decrepit in the back corner of our yard. I
dragged it out today cleaned it up, and dh got it running. Probably
needs a new burner and definitely needs new lava rock. That said, I
made some packet foods tonight and they turned out really nice. In the
past, before I started to try new recipes, all I ever did with it was to
cook the meat entre. Today, I sliced some new white potatoes, a small
vidalia onion, drizzled some s&p, garlic granules and evoo. Same with
some asparagus, only I blanched it briefly first. Only problem I had
was that the bottom was a little overdone.

We haven't turned on the a/c yet, and this will help postpone that
event...lol. I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon

In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:

> I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon

Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:
>
>> I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
>> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon
>
> Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?
>

80% chance they are loins, not tenderloins too.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:54:31 -0400, biig wrote:

>
> Well I finally did it. I haven't used our old bbq for more than 3
> years. It's sat lonely and decrepit in the back corner of our yard. I
> dragged it out today cleaned it up, and dh got it running. Probably
> needs a new burner and definitely needs new lava rock.
<snip>
>
> We haven't turned on the a/c yet, and this will help postpone that
> event...lol. I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon

Glad to hear you've gotten back into grilling, but I can certainly
understand why you didn't do it for so long. Our Weber finally rusted
out after 15 years, so our kids got hubby a gas grill last year for
father's day. Propane is not easily found here, so that's a problem
but my biggest problem is not knowing how empty the tank is. We don't
keep a spare tank, so I'm on pins and needles over it running out and
I can't get excited about gas grilling. I'm going to buy myself
another weber at the end of the summer season, when they go on sale.

If we ever move, I'll build an outdoor kitchen and the grill will have
a gas line so I'll never have to worry about a tank running out.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:28:36 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> I'm told that U-Haul outlets carry screw-on gauges for propane tanks.
> I've not gone and got one yet, but I definitely plan to.

Thanks for the information! If you ever get to a UHaul, let me know
if it's they really do have those guages.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:54:31 -0400, biig > wrote:

>
> Well I finally did it. I haven't used our old bbq for more than 3
>years. It's sat lonely and decrepit in the back corner of our yard. I
>dragged it out today cleaned it up, and dh got it running. Probably
>needs a new burner and definitely needs new lava rock.

New lava rock? Why, you can turn the grill on for an hour or so and
burn them clean - or put them in a single layer in a pan and, have you
one, run the self-clean cycle on the oven.


jim

Find Sexy Swingers, Escorts, Blogs, Horny Women , Message Boards for
SEX in Your Home Town

http://www.stlifestyle.com/go?SexyShauna

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:54:31 -0400, biig wrote:
>
> >
> > Well I finally did it. I haven't used our old bbq for more than 3
> > years. It's sat lonely and decrepit in the back corner of our yard. I
> > dragged it out today cleaned it up, and dh got it running. Probably
> > needs a new burner and definitely needs new lava rock.
> <snip>
> >
> > We haven't turned on the a/c yet, and this will help postpone that
> > event...lol. I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> > have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon
>
> Glad to hear you've gotten back into grilling, but I can certainly
> understand why you didn't do it for so long. Our Weber finally rusted
> out after 15 years, so our kids got hubby a gas grill last year for
> father's day. Propane is not easily found here, so that's a problem
> but my biggest problem is not knowing how empty the tank is. We don't
> keep a spare tank, so I'm on pins and needles over it running out and
> I can't get excited about gas grilling. I'm going to buy myself
> another weber at the end of the summer season, when they go on sale.
>
> If we ever move, I'll build an outdoor kitchen and the grill will have
> a gas line so I'll never have to worry about a tank running out.
>
>
> --
>
> Ham and eggs.
> A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

I don't have the patience to use a charcoal grill. We used one for
years, but once we got the propane grill, I never wanted to use charcoal
again. That's just me. I know a lot of people prefer it. Propane is
widely available here, so we don't worry about running out. I think if
you pour hot water down the side of the tank, it will show the level??
.....Sharon

ensenadajim wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:54:31 -0400, biig > wrote:
>
> >
> > Well I finally did it. I haven't used our old bbq for more than 3
> >years. It's sat lonely and decrepit in the back corner of our yard. I
> >dragged it out today cleaned it up, and dh got it running. Probably
> >needs a new burner and definitely needs new lava rock.
>
> New lava rock? Why, you can turn the grill on for an hour or so and
> burn them clean - or put them in a single layer in a pan and, have you
> one, run the self-clean cycle on the oven.
>
> jim

I don't have a self cleaning oven. I have heard that lava rock should
be replaced occasionally???? ......Sharon
>

wrote:
>
> In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:
>
> > I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> > have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon
>
> Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?

I guess I worded that wrong. I didn't mean that I'd slow roast the
tenderloin. :0) .......Sharon
>
> --
> A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> --Edward R. Murrow

biig > wrote in :

> I don't have a self cleaning oven. I have heard that lava rock
should
> be replaced occasionally???? ......Sharon


Sharon,

I change rocks usually once a year depending on how well they spread the
heat. Turn rocks over before a bbq event and heat to burn off grease
first, so you're not cooking rancid grease flavor into your food.

Andy

Andy wrote:
>
> biig > wrote in :
>
> > I don't have a self cleaning oven. I have heard that lava rock
> should
> > be replaced occasionally???? ......Sharon
>
> Sharon,
>
> I change rocks usually once a year depending on how well they spread the
> heat. Turn rocks over before a bbq event and heat to burn off grease
> first, so you're not cooking rancid grease flavor into your food.
>
> Andy

Thanks Andy. We'll see how much better it works when I replace
them... ....Sharon

In article >,
LID says...
> I'm told that U-Haul outlets carry screw-on gauges for propane tanks.
> I've not gone and got one yet, but I definitely plan to.
>
>
>

Those propane pressure gauges are a waste of money. The reason is that
in your tank the propane is a liquid. As you draw off propane the liquid
propane turns to gas. But the pressure in the tank will be essentially
constant until it is emptied. It will vary with temperature but it tells
you nothing about how much gas you have left.

Pressure gauges work with compressed gasses such as air.

I have heard people say that while the tank is in use you can feel the
side and get an idea where the level is by a change in temperature.

The best bet is to weigh the tank after filling and then as you use it.
If it's a 20 lb tank you'll know that when it reaches 17-18 lb below the
original weight that it is near empty.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article >, says...
> I don't have the patience to use a charcoal grill. We used one for
> years, but once we got the propane grill, I never wanted to use charcoal
> again. That's just me. I know a lot of people prefer it. Propane is
> widely available here, so we don't worry about running out. I think if
> you pour hot water down the side of the tank, it will show the level??
>
>

We ended up with both a propane grill and a charcoal grill. I use the
charcoal when I want super-heat for a brief period, such as searing a
steak.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Oh pshaw, on Tue 27 Jun 2006 05:24:48a, Peter A meant to say...

> In article >,
> LID says...
>> I'm told that U-Haul outlets carry screw-on gauges for propane tanks.
>> I've not gone and got one yet, but I definitely plan to.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Those propane pressure gauges are a waste of money. The reason is that
> in your tank the propane is a liquid. As you draw off propane the liquid
> propane turns to gas. But the pressure in the tank will be essentially
> constant until it is emptied. It will vary with temperature but it tells
> you nothing about how much gas you have left.

Apparently some gauges work better than others. We had one on a previous
grill. It was part of the connector coming from the grill, not a screw-
between device. It also proved to be pretty accurate. As the needle moved
neared the empty zone, a fillup proved that the tank was indeed nearly empty.
Unfortunately, I do not recall the brand.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

"biig" > wrote

> widely available here, so we don't worry about running out. I think if
> you pour hot water down the side of the tank, it will show the level??

Apparently if you pour hot water on the side, the part where
the propane still is will remain cold. You can see the condensation.
Like a glass of iced tea on a hot day.

nancy

In article 9>, Wayne
Boatwright <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> says...
> Apparently some gauges work better than others. We had one on a previous
> grill. It was part of the connector coming from the grill, not a screw-
> between device. It also proved to be pretty accurate. As the needle moved
> neared the empty zone, a fillup proved that the tank was indeed nearly empty.
> Unfortunately, I do not recall the brand.
>
>

It has nothing to do with brand - it is the laws of physics that are
involved here. If it measures tank pressure it won't - can't - work. I
have seen grills that incorporate a scale and perhaps that's what you
had. That will certainly work.

It's easier IMO to have two tanks so if you run out of gas you can
switch.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On 27 Jun 2006 02:21:05 -0700, JesicaJizz wrote:

> Find Sexy Swingers, Escorts, Blogs, Horny Women , Message Boards for
> SEX in Your Home Town
>
> http://www.stlifestyle.com/go?SexyShauna

That's the second thread you've spammed in. Welcome to my kill file,
moron.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

Oh pshaw, On Tue 27 Jun 2006 06:56:23a, Peter A was muttering about...

> In article 9>, Wayne
> Boatwright <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> says...
>> Apparently some gauges work better than others. We had one on a
>> previous grill. It was part of the connector coming from the grill,
>> not a screw- between device. It also proved to be pretty accurate. As
>> the needle moved neared the empty zone, a fillup proved that the tank
>> was indeed nearly empty. Unfortunately, I do not recall the brand.
>>
>>
>
> It has nothing to do with brand - it is the laws of physics that are
> involved here. If it measures tank pressure it won't - can't - work. I
> have seen grills that incorporate a scale and perhaps that's what you
> had. That will certainly work.

I don't know what it measured, but it wasn't weight. Somehow is was
definitely enough to determine how much propane was left. At least accurate
enough to know whether I should switch tanks or get a refill before I planned
to cook, or could wait until the next time.

I also had a Weber that used a scale to determine the amount of propane. I
didn't find that any more accurate than the gauge.

> It's easier IMO to have two tanks so if you run out of gas you can
> switch.

I have almost always had a spare tank available.

--

Wayne Boatwright
__________________________________________________ ________________________

I often wonder ...
What do people mean when they say the computer went down on me?

"Peter A" > wrote in message
>
> The best bet is to weigh the tank after filling and then as you use it.
> If it's a 20 lb tank you'll know that when it reaches 17-18 lb below the
> original weight that it is near empty.

A spare tank is about $20. Beat any scales.

Oh pshaw, on Tue 27 Jun 2006 07:55:41p, Edwin Pawlowski meant to say...

>
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
>>
>> The best bet is to weigh the tank after filling and then as you use it.
>> If it's a 20 lb tank you'll know that when it reaches 17-18 lb below the
>> original weight that it is near empty.
>
> A spare tank is about $20. Beat any scales.

Agreed. We actually have a couple of extra tanks because we also have a
propane patio heater that uses the same size tank, so there's almost always
extra propane around.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
>> The best bet is to weigh the tank after filling and then as you use it.
>> If it's a 20 lb tank you'll know that when it reaches 17-18 lb below the
>> original weight that it is near empty.
>
> A spare tank is about $20. Beat any scales.
>
>
Absolutely. We always have one on the grill and one spare ready to go. I
can't tell you how many times we've had to change them out unexpectedly.
Having it available saves a lot of trouble.

In rec.food.cooking, Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> >> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon
> >
> > Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?
> >

> 80% chance they are loins, not tenderloins too.

Probaby. But the question would still stand as to why you would
slow-roast a loin roast.

I like to grill them until the outside is nice and golden brown ad seared,
and then I move them off the heat to "bake" until the Polder goes "beep".

--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

Wayne Boatwright <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>I also had a Weber that used a scale to determine the amount of propane. I
>didn't find that any more accurate than the gauge.

The newer Weber Genesis models have a spring-scale hanger
for the tank, but it's useless. Mine registered "empty"
about ten fires ago.

The liquid-crystal thermometer things they paste to the
sides don't work either. At least not when the ambient
temperature is 95 or above...

>> It's easier IMO to have two tanks so if you run out of gas you can
>> switch.
>
>I have almost always had a spare tank available.

I've been thinking of that. I'll probably do it when
I change out The Eternal Flame, here. I want to weigh
this tank empty first, just to see how close to full
the trade-a-tank people are filling them. The rules
are you can't fill them more than 80% full, to allow the
float-valve to work. (The float shuts the outlet if the tank
is tipped, so the fluid won't be ejected; if the tank is
too full, the float always thinks it's tipped; the question
is how far below the 80% level the vendors are cheating).

Someone invented a fiberglass propane tank. It's not clear,
but it is translucent, and you can see the fluid level with
a little backlighting and sloshing. They'll sell like mad
if they're ever approved.

--Blair

Oh pshaw, on Wed 28 Jun 2006 05:54:30p, Blair P. Houghton meant to say...

> Wayne Boatwright <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>I also had a Weber that used a scale to determine the amount of propane.
>> I didn't find that any more accurate than the gauge.
>
> The newer Weber Genesis models have a spring-scale hanger
> for the tank, but it's useless. Mine registered "empty"
> about ten fires ago.
>
> The liquid-crystal thermometer things they paste to the
> sides don't work either. At least not when the ambient
> temperature is 95 or above...
>
>>> It's easier IMO to have two tanks so if you run out of gas you can
>>> switch.
>>
>>I have almost always had a spare tank available.
>
> I've been thinking of that. I'll probably do it when
> I change out The Eternal Flame, here. I want to weigh
> this tank empty first, just to see how close to full
> the trade-a-tank people are filling them. The rules
> are you can't fill them more than 80% full, to allow the
> float-valve to work. (The float shuts the outlet if the tank
> is tipped, so the fluid won't be ejected; if the tank is
> too full, the float always thinks it's tipped; the question
> is how far below the 80% level the vendors are cheating).

Where I buy propane I don't think they're making any additional money by
cheating. I pay for the metered amount dispensed into the tank. I may be
returning sooner for a refill if they fill less than 80% full, but I'm not
paying for anything more than what they dispensed.

> Someone invented a fiberglass propane tank. It's not clear,
> but it is translucent, and you can see the fluid level with
> a little backlighting and sloshing. They'll sell like mad
> if they're ever approved.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I would be skeptical about a fiberglass tank
under pressure.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>
> The newer Weber Genesis models have a spring-scale hanger
> for the tank, but it's useless. Mine registered "empty"
> about ten fires ago.

That may have been the right time to have it refilled.
Running it until you no longer get a flame will force
some of the heavy impurities in the gas (which will
accumulate in the tank, because that's the lowest
pressure these molecules will see between the
refining plant and your burner) to vaporize. Some
of these impurities, such as molecules based on
the napthalene and anthracene core structures, can
be very carcinogenic.

Just because you _can_ do it, doesn't mean you
_should_ do it. The people who designed the scale
may have considered mechanisms that are unknown
to you.

Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>> The newer Weber Genesis models have a spring-scale hanger
>> for the tank, but it's useless. Mine registered "empty"
>> about ten fires ago.
>
>That may have been the right time to have it refilled.
>Running it until you no longer get a flame will force
>some of the heavy impurities in the gas (which will
>accumulate in the tank, because that's the lowest
>pressure these molecules will see between the
>refining plant and your burner) to vaporize. Some
>of these impurities, such as molecules based on
>the napthalene and anthracene core structures, can
>be very carcinogenic.

Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're destroyed
long before they get near the food. Then the heat makes
the grease on the food smoke. Which is just about the
most carcinogenic thing ever discovered.

Damned if I do, go without steak if I don't.

>Just because you _can_ do it, doesn't mean you
>_should_ do it. The people who designed the scale
>may have considered mechanisms that are unknown
>to you.

Nah. There aren't many mechanisms above the string-theory
level that are unknown to me, and I'm guessing the Weber
people aren't out-foxing my dog. It's a cheap spring scale
and a friction-heavy bracketing device. It depends on a
standardized weight for the tank and gas, and from what
I've seen the trade-in people don't care what tank they use
so long as it has the right license stamp on the collar.

--Blair

Wayne Boatwright <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>Oh pshaw, on Wed 28 Jun 2006 05:54:30p, Blair P. Houghton meant to say...
>> I've been thinking of that. I'll probably do it when
>> I change out The Eternal Flame, here. I want to weigh

And, about 20 minutes after I sent that, I fired it up and
it died just before it reached searing temperature. I had
to frazzle my Aidell's Portobello-Turkey-and-Chicken sausages
in the toaster-oven broiler.

>> this tank empty first, just to see how close to full
>> the trade-a-tank people are filling them. The rules
>> are you can't fill them more than 80% full, to allow the
>> float-valve to work. (The float shuts the outlet if the tank
>> is tipped, so the fluid won't be ejected; if the tank is
>> too full, the float always thinks it's tipped; the question
>> is how far below the 80% level the vendors are cheating).
>
>Where I buy propane I don't think they're making any additional money by
>cheating. I pay for the metered amount dispensed into the tank. I may be
>returning sooner for a refill if they fill less than 80% full, but I'm not
>paying for anything more than what they dispensed.

May be the best policy, but refill stations are exceedingly
rare any more. Those trade-out racks are everywhere.
And the one at Wal-Mart is only $16 for a trade. Cheap.

The tank I just emptied started at 32 lbs and ended at 18.
It had 14 pounds of gas in it. Which for a 17.5-lb tank
at 80% capacity is about right.

The new one, however, weighs in at 35.5 lbs. We'll see
how much of that is sear and how much is pot-metal. In
about a year.

>> Someone invented a fiberglass propane tank. It's not clear,
>> but it is translucent, and you can see the fluid level with
>> a little backlighting and sloshing. They'll sell like mad
>> if they're ever approved.
>
>Maybe I'm overreacting, but I would be skeptical about a fiberglass tank
>under pressure.

Me too. Not so much if it's in good condition, but after
being jostled and dropped a couple of times, and going
through a few Arizona summer/winter cycles, I'd expect a
much higher chance of invisible fissures. The metal ones
will just get a bit dented.

But the see-through feature is neat.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>
> Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're
> destroyed long before they get near the food.

Highly branched aliphatic hydrocarbons burn
cleanly. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
such as napthalene, anthracene, and their
derivatives are much more resistant to
initiation of combustion.

There's some relevant information he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

There will still be uncombusted and
partially combusted molecules which
make it past the flame front.

But if you choose to continue living in
a fool's paradise, don't let yourself be
dissuaded by me. You can slather yourself
with 10-year-old duck confit for all I care.

Oh pshaw, on Thu 29 Jun 2006 10:50:36p, Blair P. Houghton meant to say...

> And, about 20 minutes after I sent that, I fired it up and
> it died just before it reached searing temperature. I had
> to frazzle my Aidell's Portobello-Turkey-and-Chicken sausages
> in the toaster-oven broiler.

I've run out of gas only twice in 20 years, once before starting to cook
and once during.

Well, at least now's your chance to weigh one empty. :-)

>>Where I buy propane I don't think they're making any additional money by
>>cheating. I pay for the metered amount dispensed into the tank. I may
>>be returning sooner for a refill if they fill less than 80% full, but
>>I'm not paying for anything more than what they dispensed.
>
> May be the best policy, but refill stations are exceedingly
> rare any more. Those trade-out racks are everywhere.
> And the one at Wal-Mart is only $16 for a trade. Cheap.

There are several refill stations near my neighborhood, and I can get a
refill for an average of $8.65. I'm too poor/cheap/skeptical to fiddle
with the trade-out tanks. :-)

> The tank I just emptied started at 32 lbs and ended at 18.
> It had 14 pounds of gas in it. Which for a 17.5-lb tank
> at 80% capacity is about right.
>
> The new one, however, weighs in at 35.5 lbs. We'll see
> how much of that is sear and how much is pot-metal. In
> about a year.

I've never actually weighed a tank, empty or full. 3-1/2 pounds sounds
like a big difference in tanks.

>>> Someone invented a fiberglass propane tank. It's not clear, but it is
>>> translucent, and you can see the fluid level with a little
>>> backlighting and sloshing. They'll sell like mad if they're ever
>>> approved.
>>
>>Maybe I'm overreacting, but I would be skeptical about a fiberglass tank
>>under pressure.
>
> Me too. Not so much if it's in good condition, but after
> being jostled and dropped a couple of times, and going
> through a few Arizona summer/winter cycles, I'd expect a
> much higher chance of invisible fissures. The metal ones
> will just get a bit dented.
>
> But the see-through feature is neat.

I'm surprised someone hasn't built a metal tank with a vertical slit
window in the side of it to easily see the level of liquid. It works for
underwater gear at far greater pressure. Probably would drive up the tank
price too much.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

"Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote

> There are several refill stations near my neighborhood, and I can get a
> refill for an average of $8.65. I'm too poor/cheap/skeptical to fiddle
> with the trade-out tanks. :-)

Heh, I remember my ex going to some place with our brand
new tank and being all ****ed off that they wanted to trade it
for a full one that was all rusty and nasty. No thank you.

Luckily there are a couple of places around here to get my
tank refilled without the trade-in thing. I think maybe you can
even buy a full tank for some $25, not real sure about that, I
think that's what it said on the trade-in cage.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:e833lh$fhs$1
@news.monmouth.com:

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote
>
>> There are several refill stations near my neighborhood, and I can get
a
>> refill for an average of $8.65. I'm too poor/cheap/skeptical to
fiddle
>> with the trade-out tanks. :-)
>
> Heh, I remember my ex going to some place with our brand
> new tank and being all ****ed off that they wanted to trade it
> for a full one that was all rusty and nasty. No thank you.
>
> Luckily there are a couple of places around here to get my
> tank refilled without the trade-in thing. I think maybe you can
> even buy a full tank for some $25, not real sure about that, I
> think that's what it said on the trade-in cage.
>
> nancy


What hogwash! You refill YOUR tank. Not some stupid/negligent other!

Andy

: The newer Weber Genesis models have a spring-scale hanger
: for the tank, but it's useless. Mine registered "empty"
: about ten fires ago.


You have to calibrate it for your tank - I'd guess you didn't tighten it
down enough when you initially set it up. Get out your owners manual
and read it.


: The liquid-crystal thermometer things they paste to the
: sides don't work either. At least not when the ambient
: temperature is 95 or above...

They don't work at all until you pour boiling water over them.

: Nah. There aren't many mechanisms above the string-theory
: level that are unknown to me, and I'm guessing the Weber
: people aren't out-foxing my dog. It's a cheap spring scale
: and a friction-heavy bracketing device. It depends on a
: standardized weight for the tank and gas, and from what
: I've seen the trade-in people don't care what tank they use
: so long as it has the right license stamp on the collar.


No, it _doesn't_ depend on a standardized weight for the tank and
gas - you calibrate it yourself for your full tank which you've
obviously failed to do.

Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>>
>> Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're
>> destroyed long before they get near the food.
>
>Highly branched aliphatic hydrocarbons burn
>cleanly. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
>such as napthalene, anthracene, and their
>derivatives are much more resistant to
>initiation of combustion.
>
>There's some relevant information he
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
>
>There will still be uncombusted and
>partially combusted molecules which
>make it past the flame front.
>
>But if you choose to continue living in
>a fool's paradise, don't let yourself be
>dissuaded by me. You can slather yourself
>with 10-year-old duck confit for all I care.

Okay, first, don't throw the ****ing Wikipedia at anyone
and claim you're smart. It's where the truth goes to be
buried under petty political nonsense.

Second, don't use links that don't say anything about the
topic you're trying to discuss.

Third, that blue flame in the burner is at a very high
temperature. Thousands of degrees. The autoignition
temperatures of the two molecules you mentioned are much
lower than that. Hundreds of degrees. The reaction
constant will point to near total combustion.

Fourth, heating the food to a smoking temperature will
create more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than could
have got past the burner element of a gas grill. This will
occur on a charcoal grill, or in your frying pan. But the
world will not be giving up on the Maillard reaction in
our lifetimes.

Your duck's discomfiture is your own damned problem.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
> >>
> >> Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're
> >> destroyed long before they get near the food.
> >
> >Highly branched aliphatic hydrocarbons burn
> >cleanly. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
> >such as napthalene, anthracene, and their
> >derivatives are much more resistant to
> >initiation of combustion.
> >
> >There's some relevant information he
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
> >
> >There will still be uncombusted and
> >partially combusted molecules which
> >make it past the flame front.
> >
> >But if you choose to continue living in
> >a fool's paradise, don't let yourself be
> >dissuaded by me. You can slather yourself
> >with 10-year-old duck confit for all I care.
>
> Okay, first, don't throw the ****ing Wikipedia at anyone
> and claim you're smart. It's where the truth goes to be
> buried under petty political nonsense.

Uh huh. All Wikipedia articles were written
by your enemies, just to make you look like
an arrogant fool. And somehow they succeeded
masterfully. :-)

> Second, don't use links that don't say anything about the
> topic you're trying to discuss.

You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article about
octane rating, which is directly relevant because it
discusses the relationship between molecular structure
and initiation of combustion.

Here, for example, is propane:
http://www.purchon.com/chemistry/images/propane.gif
Note that the carbon chain has two ends, where
combustion is more easy to initiate.

And here are napthalene and anthracene:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...aphics/35a.gif
Note that neither compound has any ends.
All of the carbon atoms form rings.
These compounds will be much more difficult
to combust.

> Third, that blue flame in the burner is at a very high
> temperature. Thousands of degrees. The autoignition
> temperatures of the two molecules you mentioned are much
> lower than that. Hundreds of degrees. The reaction
> constant will point to near total combustion.

You don't know squat about combustion.
Propane burns cleanly because it is a small
molecule, but also because it is linear
(not a ring or a set of fused rings).

While some polycyclic hydrocarbons will be
burnt in a propane flame, some will pass
through. Even worse, some will be partially
burned. The napthalene and anthracene core
structures are not carcinogenic, but many
of their derivatives are among the most
powerful carcinogens known, and indeed are
use in cancer research as reliable initiators
of cancer.

> Fourth, heating the food to a smoking temperature will
> create more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than could
> have got past the burner element of a gas grill.

You're just spouting baloney. In fact, it will
vary depending on the cleanliness of the gas
supply. Very dirty gas will indeed be full of
these molecules. Over time, they will collect
in the bottom of the propane tank. Each time
the tank is filled, new contaminants will be
introduced. Because the tank pressure is lower
than at any point in the supply chain from the
refinery, these molecules will tend to accumulate
in the tank. When you run the tank completely
empty, you force some of them to come out.

> This will
> occur on a charcoal grill, or in your frying pan. But the
> world will not be giving up on the Maillard reaction in
> our lifetimes.
>
> Your duck's discomfiture is your own damned problem.

Let me guess. You woke up with a nasty
hangover this morning.

Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> >"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're
>> >> destroyed long before they get near the food.
>> >
>> >Highly branched aliphatic hydrocarbons burn
>> >cleanly. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
>> >such as napthalene, anthracene, and their
>> >derivatives are much more resistant to
>> >initiation of combustion.
>> >
>> >There's some relevant information he
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
>> >
>> >There will still be uncombusted and
>> >partially combusted molecules which
>> >make it past the flame front.
>> >
>> >But if you choose to continue living in
>> >a fool's paradise, don't let yourself be
>> >dissuaded by me. You can slather yourself
>> >with 10-year-old duck confit for all I care.
>>
>> Okay, first, don't throw the ****ing Wikipedia at anyone
>> and claim you're smart. It's where the truth goes to be
>> buried under petty political nonsense.
>
>Uh huh. All Wikipedia articles were written
>by your enemies, just to make you look like
>an arrogant fool. And somehow they succeeded
>masterfully. :-)

You keep dreaming, some day you might never wake up
and have to face reality.

>> Second, don't use links that don't say anything about the
>> topic you're trying to discuss.
>
>You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article about
>octane rating, which is directly relevant because it
>discusses the relationship between molecular structure
>and initiation of combustion.
>
>Here, for example, is propane:
>http://www.purchon.com/chemistry/images/propane.gif
>Note that the carbon chain has two ends, where
>combustion is more easy to initiate.

So?

>And here are napthalene and anthracene:
>http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...aphics/35a.gif
>Note that neither compound has any ends.
>All of the carbon atoms form rings.
>These compounds will be much more difficult
>to combust.

So?

>> Third, that blue flame in the burner is at a very high
>> temperature. Thousands of degrees. The autoignition
>> temperatures of the two molecules you mentioned are much
>> lower than that. Hundreds of degrees. The reaction
>> constant will point to near total combustion.
>
>You don't know squat about combustion.

Try again, hypocrite.

>Propane burns cleanly because it is a small
>molecule, but also because it is linear
>(not a ring or a set of fused rings).

You're a very poorly educated person. Probably a result
of your reliance on the "information" *** folklore in the
wikipedia. My only question is why you haven't added your
new discovery that running LPG tanks dry causes cancer.
I'm betting nobody there will challenge it, because they're
too busy challenging facts and calling experts "trolls".

>While some polycyclic hydrocarbons will be
>burnt in a propane flame, some will pass
>through. Even worse, some will be partially
>burned.

A continuous burn temperature of thousands of degrees
vs. an ignition threshold of hundreds of degrees in a
system designed to burn slowly and fully rather than
explode quickly and imperfectly.

Stop reading that article about octane. It does not apply.

>The napthalene and anthracene core
>structures are not carcinogenic, but many
>of their derivatives are among the most
>powerful carcinogens known, and indeed are
>use in cancer research as reliable initiators
>of cancer.

Then stop eating cooked food, because they're produced in
anything that browns.

>> Fourth, heating the food to a smoking temperature will
>> create more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than could
>> have got past the burner element of a gas grill.
>
>You're just spouting baloney.

Everything you eat must taste like baloney, then.

>In fact, it will
>vary depending on the cleanliness of the gas
>supply. Very dirty gas will indeed be full of
>these molecules. Over time, they will collect
>in the bottom of the propane tank.

Over what length of time? and to what degree? You can
let that tank sit for six months and through simple
thermal effects the disparate molecular constituents of
the fluid may not separate out. I suspect that you're
purely imagining this effect you're describing. I can't
find anywhere that it's described online, but then, I'm
not working to prove your silly hypotheses.

You point something out and I'll show you where you missed
its fallacies.

>Each time
>the tank is filled, new contaminants will be
>introduced.

From what? Another tank, that's been sitting there even
longer than mine has. But, that tank delivers from a
siphon tube that goes to its bottom (so it can siphon
liquid and skip the gas phase). So, if I am the first
person to fill my grill bottle from a depot tank that
has been sitting for, well, years, I will be getting all
the impurities from that tank, leaving the remaining fuel
quite a bit more pure.

And how often would I be that unlucky? How often would
an Amerigas PPX or Blue Rhino bottle have been filled
from such a tank in such a condition? I'm betting they
don't let a load sit more than a couple of weeks before
it's tapped.

We can play this "who gets the backwash?" game all the
way up the chain.

Until you can prove that the aromatics settle out of the
liquid propane, and then that they don't burn, I'm just
not going to worry about it. You've done neither, and
the links you've posted haven't even mentioned those
processes.

>Because the tank pressure is lower
>than at any point in the supply chain from the
>refinery,

Um, bunky, I just described how the siphon works.

These tanks transfer liquid, not gas.

Pressure has nothing to do with it, if the effect
of concentration of impurities in my end system
even exists.

What could be happening is that your tank never gets
its bottom siphoned out, and you never vent it fully,
so every time you fill the tank you add heavy molecules
that never leave, so eventually your tank has nothing but
heavy molecules in its bottom layer.

Nothing to do with pressure.

And you know how you would prevent it from accumulating
to a dangerous concentration?

BY LETTING THE TANK BURN DRY EVERY TIME.

Dumbass.

>these molecules will tend to accumulate
>in the tank. When you run the tank completely
>empty, you force some of them to come out.

Good. Then the next person won't be subjected to the
murderous intent of the negligent propane industry
(these guys must be as bad as the asbestos people)
or your vacuous sophistry.

>> This will
>> occur on a charcoal grill, or in your frying pan. But the
>> world will not be giving up on the Maillard reaction in
>> our lifetimes.
>>
>> Your duck's discomfiture is your own damned problem.
>
>Let me guess. You woke up with a nasty
>hangover this morning.

You keep guessing, some day you'll figure out why you
walk into fan blades.

--Blair

Mark wrote to Blair:

> You don't know squat about combustion.

Now THIS is what I call a flame war!

Bob

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>
> Until you can prove that the aromatics settle out of the
> liquid propane, and then that they don't burn, I'm just
> not going to worry about it. You've done neither, and
> the links you've posted haven't even mentioned those
> processes.

Here's what the warning says on a 14.1 oz container
of Bernzomatic brand propane, Model TX9:

"This container and byproducts of the combustion
of its contents contain chemicals known to the
state of California to cause cancer, birth defects,
or other reproductive harm."

So at least Bernzomatic is aware that not all
of the hydrocarbons are completely combusted
to harmless carbon dioxide and water.

In the supply chain, propane is handled as
a liquid. However, your tank is a "converter",
that is to say conversion from liquid to gas
occurs in your tank. That's why heavy ends
(hydrocarbons with higher molecular weight than
propane) accumulate in the tank.

Here's what PetroCanada said to a guy inquiring
about accumulation of impurities in propane-
powered vehicles.

Quoting from:
http://cars.rasoenterprises.com/Propane-Residuals.htm

Most propane as it is produced at a gas plant
(the majority of product in Western Canada) or
refineries is very clean. However, during
distribution it can pick up contaminants such
as traces of gasoline or diesel fuel (if pipelined
through a common products pipe line, or in storage
caverns) or extract some plasticizers from hoses
and gaskets. Some of these contaminants,
particularly diesel fuel and lube oil range
materials, have low volatility - so as propane
is evaporated in a converter (changing from a
liquid to a gas), the contaminants remain behind
at a low point in the system - which can be the
bottom of the converter, or a low-lying loop
in a fuel pipe delivering propane vapours to
the carburetor. So there is no 'conversion' or
'breakdown' of propane into oily residues in
a converter - the residues are contaminants
left behind when the propane evaporates.
Unfortunately, the current propane specification
allows rather a lot of oily residues - up to
500 ppm. I've seen instances of 6 - 12 ppm
oily contaminants (6 - 12 litres of oil from a
million litres of propane used in a high volume
heating situation) being enough to cause problems
with build-up of the oil in the bottom of large
converters.

While instances of contaminants in propane have
been on-going for decades, and appear in different
forms (oily materials, 'grease-like', 'black
shoe-polish', and waxy deposits), they are usually
sporadic, even seasonal, and we (the industry)
have not been successful in finding the sources
of all the contaminants. It is clear that potential
future uses of propane, such as fuel cells, will
require very clean product, and current
contaminants will be totally unacceptable.

Great idea; never thought of using the digital thermometer on the grill;
will try that.

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.food.cooking, Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> > >> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't
wait.....Sharon
> > >
> > > Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?
> > >
>
> > 80% chance they are loins, not tenderloins too.
>
> Probaby. But the question would still stand as to why you would
> slow-roast a loin roast.
>
> I like to grill them until the outside is nice and golden brown ad seared,
> and then I move them off the heat to "bake" until the Polder goes "beep".
>
> --
> A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> --Edward R. Murrow