Auto Tuning - Group Results

P: 61
I: 468
D: 183

Environment :  Las Vegas Desert summer night, 97F, windy.  Probe 1 attached to top grate in the rear using a alligator clip that is only touching the cable, not the probe itself - this will assure the probe is always in the same position.  3 Bricks on second shelf, + tray of water on the bottom shelf.  No bypass at this time, perhaps in the future.

I have not taken her out for a smoke since autotuning, will report back if results are poor.
 
SI #3 Autotune results:

P - 77
I - 992
D - 124

Permanent probe mounted about 1/2" underneath top rack, dead center.  Bypassed standard controller. Foiled the bottom of the smoker as well as the top of the box.  Added a water pan with approx 16 oz of water.

Ambient temp was 83F, autotune ran approx 90 min.

Ready to rock and roll baby!
Rick
 
SI2
Ambient temperature 55
Wall mount probe 1" from top
2 bricks 2nd shelf & pan of water on bottom
P - 53
I - 830
D - 207
 
Walt, I had 62, 902, 112 in the #2.  Your probe placement is a little different from mine, so that probably makes the difference.  Let us know how it works out!  What model PID do you have?
 
Okay, auto tune took right at 2 hours for the "AT" to stop flashing.  CO1 was the only temp achieved and maintained even though the set time was only the .5 hour prescribed by the instructions.

After finishing the auto tune, numbers on my model 4 were as follows at an outside air temp of 50 degrees:
P-49
I-823
D-205
 
DivotMaker said:
How was your program set, Dave?
Not sure I understand the question.  CO1, CO2 & CO3 were per the Smokin-It instructions.  And like Msmith, the Auber temp readings never reflected the autotune program.  But after the AT was complete, it seems to perform as directed under regular use. 
 
Tested the Bypassed setup yesterday with a brined chicken.  Started flashing AT as soon as I started it up.  I let it go for a couple hours until done (again)  Same PID readings.  Manually turned it off useing the 166 code after complete.  Expected it would revert back without having to manually do it.  Was trying to cook @ 325 but only got to 290 before the meat hit 165 because of the AT delay hovering around 140 from the recommended program.  Best chicken yet, skin was easily edible but not completely crispy.  Meat was very moist.  I'll get it crispy next time.  I think i, now,  have the tools to accomplish this.
 
SuperDave said:
DivotMaker said:
How was your program set, Dave?
Not sure I understand the question.  CO1, CO2 & CO3 were per the Smokin-It instructions.  And like Msmith, the Auber temp readings never reflected the autotune program.  But after the AT was complete, it seems to perform as directed under regular use.

You understood perfectly, Dave, and answered it. ;)
 
Walt said:
Tested the Bypassed setup yesterday with a brined chicken.  Started flashing AT as soon as I started it up.  I let it go for a couple hours until done (again)  Same PID readings.  Manually turned it off useing the 166 code after complete.  Expected it would revert back without having to manually do it.  Was trying to cook @ 325 but only got to 290 before the meat hit 165 because of the AT delay hovering around 140 from the recommended program.  Best chicken yet, skin was easily edible but not completely crispy.  Meat was very moist.  I'll get it crispy next time.  I think i, now,  have the tools to accomplish this.

The issue of having to manually turn off the autotune is apparently a known issue with some of the earlier-made 1200G series PIDs.  I've been told you can contact Auber for a fix to this (not sure how that works, though). 

One thing you might want to do is perform an autotune with some bricks or sand as a heat sink, rather than meat, due to what you were talking about.  The AT program can be a little weird, and it works more stress-free if meat is not on the line!
 
My 1st autotune was with bricks & I finished with the exact same PID numbers.  I didn't expect that.
 
Just finished an auto tune with the following results;
P=87 I=153 D=288. Ambient was 78 degrees. Load was a large(19"x3"x3") filled water pan and three coral blocks that approximated the weight of three bricks.
Are we still pursuing this effort to collect data? If so then we need lots more participants and probably a standard testing protocol as previously suggested.
 
Limey said:
Are we still pursuing this effort to collect data? If so then we need lots more participants and probably a standard testing protocol as previously suggested.

We're just taking them as they come, Roger.  We're not that formal around here - just collecting results for comparison purposes, I guess! ;)
 
OK Tony, duly noted! I'm concerned that my I value seems out of line. Will smoke a chicken tomorrow and see how it does.
 
Back
Top