DennisLinkletter Posted October 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 What about a perforated deflector? To combat this heat loss and make indirect more efficient, has anyone ever tried anything perforated. Maybe some small holes that would let just a little heat pass through but not scorch anything above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcoliver Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Once again I would test anything you put out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerard Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Re: What about a perforated deflector? To combat this heat loss and make indirect more efficient' date=' has anyone ever tried anything perforated. Maybe some small holes that would let just a little heat pass through but not scorch anything above?[/quote'] Would probably be fine but why bother? Just make the stone smaller than you're itching to right now. Seriously, I once thought as you did... FIRE EVIL, MUST PROTECT FOOD FROM GETTING EVEN A GLIMPSE OF THE FIRE... but it's simply not a factor on these extremely limited air flow cookers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Just curious here, why do we even need a big heavy stone for a heat deflector? Why not a simple cast iron disk? Another thought, would a very heavy perforated screen work (it would arrest the flame yet allow heat through)? Just some food for thought (or I could just be smashed outta my gourd right now too). -=Jasen=- Oh yeah, scary, but I agree with Gerard's last statement too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 does this make sense? that the closer the heat deflector is to the firebox, the smaller it has to be? seems to make sense to me. if i were concerned about too much radiant heat (direct heat) getting to what i'm cooking, wouldn't a smaller heat shield closer to the hot coal bed (kinda like what dennis already has designed) keep the radiant heat from getting out. the kk is kind of like a cone, and the radiant heat goes out from the coals in the same shape (lets not talk about all the radiant heat reflected off the sides for a second here...). so, while a big ol stone would be needed up high, just a small one would suffice down low. gosh, wish i could just draw a pic of this... does this make sense? ********* ok, how bout this picture... so, basically, with the added room provided by the improved firebox/grate design, i would think that a smaller stone would be ok, but i also think that the OTB shape would be good as well. i also think that the hot spots i've notice around the edge of the stone when it is positioned up high would be reduced, as that hot air is not blasting up from being deflected and immediately hitting the meat. does that make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetzervalve Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Makes perfect sense Choppy. That's why an inch smaller seems to make sense to me. I think the current defector would still be smaller than the new design would be even at an inch smaller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkchop Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 i guess it would depend on use too. i mean, if you need to use a pizza stone, you want something bigger. heat deflector, placed right over the firebox and smaller. plus, and correct me if im wrong dennis, the ceramic material is thicker towards the bottom, plus you have a layer of the ceramic from the body, and an extra layer from the firebox (depending on your version of the firebox, i guess). the added thickness should help protect the exterior from tile issues (i would think, anyway), and would just overall make it a better candidate for handling excess heat than the material higher up on the body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 I completely agree with what you are saying Porkchop. But at the same time, how can you go any smaller than the surface of your fire/firebox and it still deflect? If you go an inch smaller than the firebox all the way around, then there is a potential for the outer surface area of hot coals to directly radiating or flame up without being deflected. So lower = smaller => agree, but I think it should take up the same area as the fire box opening - directly above. -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetzervalve Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 I completely agree with what you are saying Porkchop. But at the same time, how can you go any smaller than the surface of your fire/firebox and it still deflect? If you go an inch smaller than the firebox all the way around, then there is a potential for the outer surface area of hot coals to directly radiating or flame up without being deflected. So lower = smaller => agree, but I think it should take up the same area as the fire box opening - directly above. -=Jasen=- DudeJ how often do you have fire outside the general circumference of the lump basket (clear out to the edge of the firebox [ring]?? That would be required to come anywhere near getting past the edge of a smaller deflector. The current round version is easily an inch or more smaller than the firebox but seems to do fine blocking all the direct heat. I had her up to 600 last week as you may recall and the deflector worked fine - in fact, I had it on the lower grill which is another 8 - 10"? above the normal resting place. Blazing hot fire, elevated smallish round deflector- great pizza! However, I don't think I'll do that again, the lower grill warped (sagged) some from the heat with the heavy reflector on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 I completely agree with what you are saying Porkchop. But at the same time, how can you go any smaller than the surface of your fire/firebox and it still deflect? If you go an inch smaller than the firebox all the way around, then there is a potential for the outer surface area of hot coals to directly radiating or flame up without being deflected. So lower = smaller => agree, but I think it should take up the same area as the fire box opening - directly above. -=Jasen=- DudeJ how often do you have fire outside the general circumference of the lump basket (clear out to the edge of the firebox [ring]?? That would be required to come anywhere near getting past the edge of a smaller deflector. The current round version is easily an inch or more smaller than the firebox but seems to do fine blocking all the direct heat. I had her up to 600 last week as you may recall and the deflector worked fine - in fact, I had it on the lower grill which is another 8 - 10"? above the normal resting place. Blazing hot fire, elevated smallish round deflector- great pizza! However, I don't think I'll do that again, the lower grill warped (sagged) some from the heat with the heavy reflector on it. Are we saying the same thing but getting it confused? I am not saying the deflector needs to be the same dimensions as the outside of the firebox - I am saying it needs to cover the area of the firebox with a charcoal surface (the inside diameter)! If it is 1 inch smaller than the inside of the firebox, then there will be charcoal exposed to a direct line up - right? -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetzervalve Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Only if the burn is in that outer 1" of the firebox. How often does that happen? I just fired up to around 400 tonight - dumped a big load in - out to the edges, by the time it got up to temp it had sagged down and the fire was nowhere near the outer 1". Dig? Just make it big, I'm getting weak, I want to change my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dude, just trying to get it right for everyone! If it is not discussed, then Dennis will never know what everyone wants! -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetzervalve Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dude, just trying to get it right for everyone! If it is not discussed, then Dennis will never know what everyone wants! -=Jasen=- That makes it simple: we need a 2 piece, OTB shaped, adjustable size heat deflector (with an 80g hard drive and 12 woofers......) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dude, just trying to get it right for everyone! If it is not discussed, then Dennis will never know what everyone wants! -=Jasen=- That makes it simple: we need a 2 piece, OTB shaped, adjustable size heat deflector (with an 80g hard drive and 12 woofers......) Only if it can have a Pentium dual core processor too (we will have none of this Mac stuff)? OMG, I bet I just started something else. -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twharton Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 MAC Daddy I AM!!! You sure did start something else. Ever had your fire go out while cooking, or your computer lock up and crash while playing solitare? Not me...not ever...since 1983 a Mac Cult Member. twharton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeadDog Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Only if it can have a Pentium dual core processor too (we will have none of this Mac stuff)? OMG, I bet I just started something else. Did you forget that the whole Mac line is now Intel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Re: MAC Daddy I AM!!! You sure did start something else. Ever had your fire go out while cooking, or your computer lock up and crash while playing solitare? Not me...not ever...since 1983 a Mac Cult Member. twharton I knew something was wrong with you - hehehe! That makes about 4 or 5 of you culties on this forum now! Man, what are we doing wrong here to attract this kinda crowd? Opps, forgot Dennis was one of them, hehe! -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeDJ16 Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Only if it can have a Pentium dual core processor too (we will have none of this Mac stuff)? OMG, I bet I just started something else. Did you forget that the whole Mac line is now Intel? No, I did not forget that Mac is now trying to turn their computer into a PC. Funny how cycles go; since it was the reverse for years. -=Jasen=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twharton Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Did you forget that the whole Mac line is now Intel? It's not the chips...it's the operating system! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennisLinkletter Posted October 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Blanket for Linus! Did you forget that the whole Mac line is now Intel? It's not the chips...it's the operating system! Yea, and now we got both! You can also natively boot windows as a blanket Linus.. BTW.. The OTB.. designed on a Mac... That's proof in the puddin' "Never ask a man what computer he uses. If it's a Mac, he'll tell you. If it's not, why embarrass him?" Tom Clancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
