THE BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS

Welcome to The BBQ Brethren Community. Register a free account today to become a member and see all our content. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mark

somebody shut me the fark up.
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Location
St. Peters MO: 38.786730,-90.642551
Name or Nickame
Mark
Sorry for the redundancy of this post for those of you that already saw it in my heat shield post but Phil and I thought this discussion important enough to make it a seperate thread.

Water is pretty amazing stuff when you think about it and these properties make it the ideal substance for the water pan. Hopefully, the information below shows why:

The specific heat capacity of sand is less than 0.2 Btu/lb F
The specific heat capacity of water is exactly 1.0 Btu/lb F

This means a pound of water can hold over 5 times the heat of a pound of dry sand. This also means that water is nature's perfect heat sink and will control smoke chamber temperature swings better than anything else.

On top of that, water at 212°F (0 P.S.I. Gage) is changed to steam at the same temperature by the addition of 970 BTUs per pound. This also controls temperature swings.

Finally, water evaporation is assisted by the vapor pressure gradient between the hot, dry smoke entering the smoke chamber and the surface of the water in the water pan.

So while you can use sand or even kitty litter (ugh!) if you want to and may even produce good Q doing so, water will help reduce the variables thus improve your odds of prodicing consistantly good Q.

Hope this helps.
 
:D
Still prefer the ease, convenience and clean up that comes with using sand.
StL Mike
 
Okay - guess I'm sold with water but I'm really dumb at this science stuff. Here's why my dumb ass has difficulty with the above. Isn't sand capable of getting extremely hotter than water? Water hits 212 max, while sand, being right next to baffle and fire will get much hotter. If you cover the sand in foil it would seem to have less capability of losing heat, and because of the higher heat, radiate it out of the pan better. Also, water evaporates and sand doesn't. Just some additional things that seemingly should be considered. Mind you - I've never used anything but water.
 
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but water gets hotter than 212.

Water boils at 212. But it continues to get hotter.

It does not hit instant evaporation at 212. Otherwise the water is gone in a "poof". It continues to get hotter, up to a point, doesnt it?

If you add stuff to the pan, especially something with sugar, I am sure it gets hotter, cuz when I make sugar candy with the kids, I am boiling sugar and water to over 300*

Granted I am not advocating turning the warter pan into a 3 gallon lollipop of pork POOPIE. I just think it must go higher than 212, but I'm not that technical so maybe not.
 
Water will stay at that temp unless under pressure. All extra energy is converted to steam and released. This is why you can boil water in a paper cup. take one of those popcorn tubs, fill it with water and but it on your turkey fryer burner. You will not burn the container, and the water will boil.
 
I will stick a temp probe in my sand tonight and test the temps if no one beats me to it.

EDITED: added "temp" in front of probe.
 
I set 2 pans outside about 3 hours ago. The first I filled with water, the second I filled with sand. I just measured the temperature of both, and both are colder than a witch's tit.

All kidding aside, thanks for the info Mark. I geuss now it just comes down to personal preference. I will probably continue to use water in my pan, as I always have. It would however be interesting to get the perspective of a designer at one of these factories to give us the complete science behind the use of a water pan. Beyond that, I don't see the that either is wrong. Nobody using either method seems to have any complaint about the Q that they turn out. If any of the sand users were turning out dry ass Q, I imagine that they would probably switch back to water in the water pan.

Now, what are we going to do about all of these star-bellied sneetches. (Any one remember that reference?)
 
Here are the results of my sand probe test last night in the bandera:

EDITED:
I had to attach a .xls (excel spread sheet) so it keeps the formatting.

John
 
The "water" pan was about 3/4 filled with sand. I will weigh it tonight and let you know.
 
I'd guess ~4 lbs seems that's what I used I thnik. Need a water guy to do the same thing.
 
I am going to do the same test sometime this week with water. That way all the same equipment/environment is used.
 
I suspect the sand takes longer to heat but retains the heat longer. Just a guess.
 
john said:
I am going to do the same test sometime this week with water. That way all the same equipment/environment is used.

Be sure your probe is bare.
 
What about a pan filled 3/4 with sand, then pour in water till the sand is saturated and the water is about an inch above it? Wouldn't the sand hold a higher heat, which it could distribute to the water, which vaporizes and heats the chamber as the temps fall?
 
i thought that myself. The two of them may satisfy the the skeptics. I like the idea of the steam in the chamber.
 
Back
Top