# Wet Vs. Dry Wood Burn Comparison



## meateater (Jul 29, 2011)

Some say wet some say dry, I figured I would do a little myth bustin. I bought a new bag of apple chunks and looked for two about the same weight and shape. The heavier one will be the dry burn .242 pound. I soaked the lighter one .216 pound dry weight for 24 hours. Final weight after soaking was .330 pound for a gain of .114 pound. Next I got a good bed of charcoal going and placed the chunks side by side, wet on the left, dry on the right. First pic is right on the coals and then 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 60 minutes, and 150 minutes. After 20 minutes the dry chunk was pretty much burn’t up and created Thick White Smoke. I discarded it and let the wet chunk go ahead, it was creating a nice wisp of TBS and was sweet smelling. This is not a post to start a flame war, it’s just a Comparison. You are more than welcome to start your own. I actually encourage it.


----------



## exhaustedspark (Jul 29, 2011)

I have always done the wet and got a longer burn. Mostly i do elect smoker and sawdust or chips though. Very interesting comparison though.

Thank you

Karl


----------



## rowdyrawhide (Jul 29, 2011)

Vert interesting!!  Thanks for taking the time and photos for comparison.  You definitely have me thinking now.


----------



## SmokinAl (Jul 30, 2011)

You got me thinking too Meat!

I have always used dry chunks, but now will try both ways and see how it works.

I think the key here may be soaking them for 24 hours, instead of a couple of hours.

Thanks!


----------



## fpnmf (Jul 30, 2011)

Nice!!

 Thanks!!

  Craig


----------



## cliffcarter (Jul 30, 2011)

3.872oz is the weight of the dry chunk

3.456oz is the weight of the wet chunk before soaking in water

5.28oz is the weight of the water soaked chunk

1.824oz is the weight of the water added to the water soaked chunk

The water soaked chunk increased in weight by 53%

Questions-

Will all apple wood chunks of this size add this much weight, by percentage, when soaked in water for 24 hrs?

Do all types of smoking wood, in chunks of comparable size, add this much weight when soaked in water for 24 hrs?

Is increasing a wood chunks dry weight by 50% by soaking in water the optimum for producing TBS using your method of placing the chunks directly on the coals?

Will adding 25% weight by soaking in water produce the same results?

How much water is added by weight with soaks of 12, 36, 48 hrs? How do these perform?

Do soaked chunks perform the way they do in your method when used in the Minion Method? 

Comments-

For a more accurate comparison you should have put them on the coals seperately IMHO, in order to see how each one did without any possibility of influence from the other.

I bury the wood chunks in the charcoal when I use the kettle for smoking rather than just laying them on hot coals, if you had done this it would,IMHO allow the dry chunk to preheat and perhaps eliminate the white smoke. For the record the chunks I use are smaller than your chunks by about 1/3. I generally use 4 of them when smoking on the kettle and don't have a problem with thick, white smoke.

IMHO your results indicate that by soaking the wood for 24hrs you eliminate the need for using more than 1 chunk of wood.

Good job, you've really got me thinking


----------



## exhaustedspark (Jul 30, 2011)

Now for the next test. soaking in wine, beer apple juice etc etc.

I have use all the above including the water and i do think it is best with soaking and i do think each adds its own flavor. I have also been told it is all in my head.







What the heck i feel better doing it.

Tnx again Meat

Karl


----------



## meateater (Aug 1, 2011)

Thanks for looking.


----------



## whtplainssmoker (Aug 1, 2011)

I've read up on this somewhat from a website that sells "gourmet wood" smokinlicious.com .  The basic theory is that the longer your wood sits around, the more it dries out, especially if you are in a dry climate.  There is a sweet spot in moisture content according to them.  Here's the link to the table about whether your wood needs to be soaked, the amount of time needed to re-hydrate to the proper moisture content and the likelihood of the re-hydration efforts. Generally, if the moisture content of the wood is in excess of 20% you generally don't need to re-hydrate.  Of course, unless you regularly install wood flooring, most of us don't have $395 wood moisture meters


----------



## venture (Aug 1, 2011)

Very difficult.  Impassioned positions on both sides. 

Time to burn?

Amount of smoke?

Most importantly, quality of smoke?

Good luck and good smoking.


----------



## meateater (Aug 1, 2011)

I say post your own results folks. If chips work for you tell us how. I just found a recipe that works for me, that's all. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





  I'm curious to the results with different smokers and chunks or chips, that's all.


----------



## smokinstevo27 (Aug 1, 2011)

I sometimes forget to soak and if you don'[t do it for long enough it doesn't help any way. What I do when I don't soak is to wrap the chunks in foil with breathing holes to allow the smoke to escape. They smolder well that way for me. I like the test, thanks for the side by side pics.


----------



## cliffcarter (Aug 2, 2011)

Lowes has moisture meters that will suffice for what a BBQer needs for $30.

http://tinyurl.com/3sann3b


----------



## oldschoolbbq (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks for the comparison;however I will continue to do what I do,and think a while on that one
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





I have soaked a few times and always got clouds of white smoke.Maybe I use too much wood this way,but it works for me


----------



## Bearcarver (Aug 2, 2011)

Very interesting Meat !

I always recommended not soaking chips used in the MES, because I never noticed any difference, but I never soaked them that long.

Maybe if people soak them longer, like you did, it would be worth it.

I think you have some good points for those who use chips & chunks------But now I just keep my Dust & Pellets dry.

Thanks for a great thread!!

Bear


----------



## jemm (Aug 9, 2011)

How long do you think it would take chips to soak through as well as that? Obviously chips are going to soak through much faster... 12 hours enough? 6? Less? I have been soaking mine (been using chips) for an hour or so, feel like theres a difference in longevity of burn but it could be in my head.


----------



## meateater (Aug 9, 2011)

jemm said:


> How long do you think it would take chips to soak through as well as that? Obviously chips are going to soak through much faster... 12 hours enough? 6? Less? I have been soaking mine (been using chips) for an hour or so, feel like theres a difference in longevity of burn but it could be in my head.




I have noticed that chips behave differently in my watt and charcoal UDS's. Chips tend to absorb water instantly and take a while to smoke in my watt burner as compared to my charcoal UDS where they smoke almost instant. Just the nature of the beast. I have to say that all smokers work well, you just have to learn them. I soak chips for about five minutes or less.


----------



## menk45 (Aug 10, 2011)

Here's a video comparison of soaked vs dry, but does not compare burning times.

http://www.youtube.com/virtualweberb#p/u/14/rv7y1TWyKEw


----------



## sqwib (Aug 10, 2011)

Meateater, I am glad you posted this, its always a question of whether to soak or not to soak, and your post points out in some cases there may be a benefit to soaking in certain applications.

I never soak and most likely never will, but my applications are different, I just put a huge chunk or 2 or 3 in my cast iron smoker box on my GOSM BB and will get TBS for several hours, here’s a link to my test.,
_The much sought after TBS aka Thin Blue Smoke (LESS IS MORE)_

When I use my Stick Burner Reverse Flow, Frank, I try not to get any visible smoke at all.

When I do jerky in my GOSM I use an electric heating element with a Dutch oven pot and foil the chunks with a few fork holes.

A method used for cold smoking (and I may be doing this winter) is a soldering iron and can, (and as fpnmf would say…use the handy dandy search tool).

The fact that you conducted a test burn  with photos, shows other smokers the results they can achieve  for that specific application and there are quite a few different ways to achieve good quality smoke.

It also shows other members that there is not a cure all answer for any one question like, _To Soak or Not to Soak,_ because their specific application may be different.

In the end we all want TBS, so to all my fellow smokers, find what best suits your smoker and your style of smoking and get that TBS!.

 

Well done Meateater!


----------



## jirodriguez (Aug 10, 2011)

.... of course Meateater, if this was truely in the fashion of Mythbusters you would have blown something up at the end of it! Where's our explosion! 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





  
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Thanks for the thead though.... will have to do some teststing with my WSM.


----------



## meateater (Aug 10, 2011)

Thanks everyone for checking it out, whatever works is the main goal ! Hey Johnny you asked.


----------



## daggerdoggie (Aug 10, 2011)

Years ago, I used to soak my smoking wood for a few hours and then I read, it doesn't make any difference.

I just tried this last night.  Soaked my large chunks of wood to put in my offset smoker for 24 hours.  I can say I was making TBS from the start with some Cowboy lump charcoal from the start. No waiting for the white smoke to burn off and, I expected the white smoke to begin forming after a while on the heat, it never did.

I think you're on to something here.  I have only tried it once, but the results were great.


----------



## exhaustedspark (Aug 10, 2011)

Way Cool. 

Far out man.
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Karl


----------



## meateater (Aug 11, 2011)

kid creole said:


> I appreciate that you did this experiment, but it's what we should expect to see.  We all knew before this started that dry wood burns faster than wet wood.
> 
> Why do we care what color the smoke is? I do.   Creosote.  I think where we get hung up is, what do we want to do with the creosote? Eliminate it.  Contrary to what some people think, we want to deposit that on the meat.
> 
> ...


Like i said to each there own.


----------



## cliffcarter (Aug 11, 2011)

kid creole said:


> I appreciate that you did this experiment, but it's what we should expect to see.  We all knew before this started that dry wood burns faster than wet wood.
> 
> Why do we care what color the smoke is?  Creosote.  I think where we get hung up is, what do we want to do with the creosote?  Contrary to what some people think, we want to deposit that on the meat.    Creosote is a tasty preservative.  What we don't want is the nasty bitter junk that results from burning creosote.  By soaking, we've added water, and evaporation is cooling the hot wood.  This keeps the temps down on the surface of the wood to allow the creosote to evaporate and escape before burning.
> 
> ...


Huh?

I really think that you are confused as to what creosote is and how it forms.

If creosote is being deposited on the meat in your cooker you need to clean out your cooker.

Far from being tasty, creosote is simply nasty,  powerline poles are preserved with it, not food.

How is it possible to burn something that has evaporated?

A short article about creosote formation-

http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/creosote_from_wood_burning_causes_and_solutions


----------



## meateater (Aug 11, 2011)

cliffcarter said:


> Huh?
> 
> I really think that you are confused as to what creosote is and how it forms.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, great info.


----------



## meateater (Aug 11, 2011)

kid creole said:


> Yes, we all have unique smokers and our own taste buds.  It's more important that people know if it tastes bad it is bad, and like I said, I appreciate you sharing you knowledge, experiment, and experience.




I would like simple answers to # 25 here, that would be nice!


----------



## cliffcarter (Aug 12, 2011)

kid creole said:


> For the most part, you can ONLY burn something after it has evaporated.  You need to make space for Oxygen.  This is why gasoline must be atomized before it will burn efficiently (or expeditiously), and why you can burn steel wool but make a grill out of steel.  If you want to burn creosote, put a wood chunk in a paint can.  Poke a hole in the top, and heat it up.  The gases that come off the top (largely creosote) can be lit afire, but this is specifically what we are trying to avoid in a smoker or grill.    When that flame extinguishes on top of the can, you will be left with a piece of charcoal.  That is wood with all of the creosote (and other things) evaporated off.  And, this is why we largely use charcoal or more specially designed cookers for raw wood.
> 
> Read here about the discovery of creosote:  http://books.google.com/books?id=OCTzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q&f=false   .
> 
> ...


AhHa, so this is what you are talking about-







I am talking about that nasty crap that builds up in the chimneys of people who burn wood. That's the same nasty stuff that will ruin meat if given a chance.

I wouldn't eat that ever.


----------



## sqwib (Aug 12, 2011)

Oh boy







I'm not going to debate this topic and will stick to my TBS, However I would like to point out a few things many of you may already know.

The way I understand Barbecue, was that the meat was cooked indirectly with the use of hardwood coals, getting smoke was a by product of the coals burning  and was not desirable the purpose wasn't to add more smoke flavor but rather to cook low and slow.

Many of us stickburners use wood, some purist use hot coals, the latter of the 2 produces a less smokey flavor, which was preferred many moons ago.

Smoking is a different beast and can be used as a means of curing foods as well as smoking foods.

I done a little homework on the process of burning wood when making my own charcoal

_*Gasification Process**:* The essence of gasification process is the conversion of solid carbon fuels into carbon monoxide by thermochemical process. The gasification of solid fuel is accomplished in air sealed, closed chamber, under slight suction or pressure relative to ambient pressure._

What this means is all the water is evaporated from the wood and the gasification process begins
[h2]*http:// Pyrolysis*_: is the thermal decomposition of biomass fuels in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis involves release of three kinds of products : solid, liquid and gases. The ratio of products is influenced by the chemical composition of biomass fuels and the operating conditions._[/h2]
This is when the wood starts burning and releases highly volatile gasses and other fun stuff.

This process leads to carbonization, like lump charcoal

I have done this process in a 55 gallon drum and the gasses being expelled were like a blow torch and the tar left behind could fill a coffee can.

Upon opening the Drum after it had cooled the tar coating/Creosote on the inside of the drum was enough to choke you.

For more info and video on this, click on *Homemade Charcoal* in my signature.

My point is that the stuff was left behind because it was in a sealed unit and captured everything but the gasses which had burnt up during gasification.

If not in a contained unit all the by product has to go somewhere so in essence you are still getting this stuff on your food. This really opened my eyes as to what was actually in the wood

However, the idea is by achieving what the good folks of SMF refer to as "TBS", limits the amount of creosote/Tar buildup on your food and smoker. This is achieved by having proper ventilation and proper combustion. 

The Philosophy on SMF, or what I have come to believe the philosophy is on SMF is that more smoke at one given time (white billowing smoke = more undesirable smoke) and Less smoke (Bluish thin smoke gives a more desirable smoke) the reason it looks blue is less concentration of smoke.

Here's a quick story: The other day I accidentally threw on one of my Junk pieces of wood while doing 4 chix.

The bark was that spongy crap, anyhow I noticed it when I got an undesirable smoke from my stack, so I opened up the smoker.

I was too late the birds had what looks like little tiny hairlike ashes on them, sort of what you would see if burning plastic or styrofoam.

Anyhow I spritsed them and wiped them down to try and save them. I did manage to save them.

If too much creosote/tar builds up on the food it leaves a nasty bitter taste, it gives a tingling sensation on your tongue... have you ever tested a 9 volt battery with your tongue, sort of like that.

Here's a brainteaser for you guys, *Technically speaking wood does not burn*. It is however true.

Personally I don't want To see any smoke at all...I want to smell it.

My 2 cents


----------



## Bearcarver (Aug 12, 2011)

Thanks SQWIB!!!

Great post!

Bear


----------



## exhaustedspark (Aug 12, 2011)

cliffcarter said:


> Huh?
> 
> I really think that you are confused as to what creosote is and how it forms.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that link.

As someone that not only used wood heat all my like as far back as i can remember i still use it. I had a wood stove built from a small company that the EPA put out of business with the new regs and i knew about creosote as i scrub the chimney down at least once every month in the heating season.

I think there is a great bunch of misinformation regarding Creosote on food on the different forums. Hopefully this info will help with some of that.

Knowledge is power. 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Karl


----------



## exhaustedspark (Aug 12, 2011)

Actually Liquid smoke is pretty good. In moderation. I gave some to a guy once after i show him how i made a smoked salmon spread using the liquid smoke and he thought a little was good so a lot was better. He actually dumped it on his beef steak like Ketchup or BBQ sauce.

YYYUUUUUUUCK

Any way the American Cancer Society recommends it for those who wont give up there smoked meat. They have pamphlets in the treatment waiting rooms warning about eating smoked meats and using liquid smoke instead.

For my money when used in moderation i have never been able to find some one that could tell the difference unless new what to Look for in smoked meat.

Smoke ring, Color on your fingers etc etc.

If buying smoked meat in the stores you have to be careful about how they state smoke flavoring added etc.

Most of the cheese i found in the stores used liquid smoke. It just does not penetrate like real smoke would but then again i like it very heavy smoked.

And now for the Statements clairifier.

This is only my Humble Opinion.
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Karl


----------



## coffee_junkie (Aug 12, 2011)

Thanks for the thread M E. I have a recipe that works for me also and it involves soaking chips and using try chunks.


----------



## sqwib (Aug 12, 2011)

kid creole said:


> I agree with every thing you wrote except this.  The coating on the inside of the drum was tar, not wood creosote.  The blow torch of gases was wood creosote, and this is what would be captured (without burning) to make liquid smoke.  The tar is tar, and is separated from cresosote (liquid smoke) via distillation.


I understand the stuff inside the drum  to be vaporized creosote.

The stuff that dripped out was tar like but I understand this to be 3rd stage creosote.

The Blow torch gases are methane and methanol as well as acid and Carbon Dioxides, however, creosote is present in these gasses.

Here's a video showing the vapor, then gasification


----------



## hfactor (Aug 12, 2011)

Now I'm really confused.....


----------



## tyotrain (Aug 12, 2011)

cool test... Thanks for posting its got me thinking now...


----------



## meateater (Aug 12, 2011)

tyotrain said:


> cool test... Thanks for posting its got me thinking now...




Give it a try and post the results, the technical stuff is to much for me......TBS=Good,  billowing white stuff=bad. How you get there is all good.


----------



## Bearcarver (Aug 13, 2011)

meateater said:


> Give it a try and post the results, the technical stuff is to much for me......TBS=Good,  billowing white stuff=bad. How you get there is all good.


Yup !


----------



## flash (Aug 13, 2011)

ExhaustedSpark said:


> Now for the next test. soaking in wine, beer apple juice etc etc.
> 
> I have use all the above including the water and i do think it is best with soaking and i do think each adds its own flavor. I have also been told it is all in my head.
> 
> ...


 I am NOT wasting MY beer, wine or apple juice soaking wood


----------



## flash (Aug 13, 2011)

hfactor said:


> Now I'm really confused.....










   That's when you just keep on, keeping on.  I always soaked, but not for any 24 hours. 2 to 3 hours is fine.


----------



## jimf (Aug 16, 2011)

Switching up the conversation a bit... Lets talk wood chips.  Soak/Not Soak, wrap in foil or put directly on coals?

In the past I have always soaked for 3 hours, wrapped in foil, cut slits in foil, and put directly on the coals.  The chips seems to burn pretty fast and I am replacing every 30-45 minutes.  The foil doesnt seem to slow down the burn by much.  I would like to switch to Chunks but I bought too many bags of chips


----------



## exhaustedspark (Aug 16, 2011)

JimF said:


> Switching up the conversation a bit... Lets talk wood chips.  Soak/Not Soak, wrap in foil or put directly on coals?
> 
> In the past I have always soaked for 3 hours, wrapped in foil, cut slits in foil, and put directly on the coals.  The chips seems to burn pretty fast and I am replacing every 30-45 minutes.  The foil doesn't seem to slow down the burn by much.  I would like to switch to Chunks but I bought too many bags of chips


Always Always Always Spray mist down the wood chips. I am talking reg. elect or charcoal etc.

Always unless of course you don't.
	

	
	
		
		



		
			






   Seriously though I do. I also use wine or apple juice and i think it adds flavor.

Some think its all in the head but i don't have to much going on up there so i don't think so. Makes me feel good any way.

Karl


----------



## flash (Aug 16, 2011)

Soak chips, then in a foil pouch with small holes.


----------

