Egggenuis

Cooper

Have done a few cooks on this now and, it’s great and really good but I find it uses far more lump than without it.  Can someone confirm they have had this problem as well?  

Running out of lump is a pain and just want to know if it’s not just me and other people have found this. 

pgprescott

I think you are likely mistaken.

 If you run a cook at 250 w EggGenius or without one it should be pretty much the same. Variables being type and amount of lump at start, how much lump is new vs reused and lighting method or consistency.  

stlcharcoal

A temp controller will not change the amount if lump used if you are maintaining the same temp.  Law of conservation of energy.  It takes the same amount of BTUs to maintain 225F for 4 hrs no matter if there is a controller or not.  If it burns charcoal faster, it MUST be accompanied by a higher temp.  There is no other way to get rid if those BTUs. 

cookingdude555

My smobot uses less than my fan based controllers. They both cruise along on little fuel, but the fan based controller uses more fuel. It reminds me of someone that hits the gas, then the brakes, and repeat over and over. My observations, no science here. 

lkapigian

On my Egg , I go through less lump without using Fan Assist. I have compared with and without, I think it burns more during the " warm up" and after you've opened the dome getting it back to temp, otherwise burn amount is probably close...ive stopped using Fan Assist on my egg,one last thing to set up and it holds just fine on its own

SmokeyPitt

Even if the fan assist does use more, it is a small difference and you shouldn’t be running out of lump. You should fill the lump half way up the fire ring. 

stlcharcoal

cookingdude555 said:

My smobot uses less than my fan based controllers. They both cruise along on little fuel, but the fan based controller uses more fuel. It reminds me of someone that hits the gas, then the brakes, and repeat over and over. My observations, no science here. 

Then the snuffing of the fire should cancel out the increased use from the fan.

There's no way to get around the Law of Conservation of Energy.  All things being equal, it's impossible to get rid of those BTU's without an increased temperature.  Neither controller uses any more of less than the other, nor is it any different that running without one.  

Wisv1k

Wisv1k

Not my test, of course, just sharing their results.

stlcharcoal

Wisv1k said:

Not my test, of course, just sharing their results.

I remember that test, lot of other factors besides just the weight and the temp.  The weight of charcoal doesn't mean it's the same BTU/#.....would need to ensure the carbonization was the same.  What was the weight of the remaining charcoal and ash AFTER the cook?  Outside air temp, humidity, size of egg, size of meat, etc.

On of the biggest factors is actually going to be where the pit probe is placed (and that can change between cooks because of where the fire decides to migrate.)  The pit probe is what is ultimately driving the controller--and it measures a one cubic inch amount of air underneath the dome.  Temps can be 20, 30, 40+ on the other side just depending on how things are flowing.  

My point is, you can run that test 20 times and get 20 different results because of all the factors.  Without a lab controlled environment, knowing the EXACT carbonization and BTU/# of the charcoal, then adjusting for the remaining weight, that test doesn't mean much to me.  I'm going to stand with the Law of Conservation of Energy saying you cannot burn something faster without having a subsequent temperature rise......where else could those BTU's go??