Is this suppose to be better than using a rejuvenator oven?

Not impressed with the before and after video. May be if they were using throbot.

Not impressed with the difference in before and after shots? I naturally assume you're joking. The difference is clear, and as expected.
However, at $1,795.... Not geared to the personal market.

I have put more thought into this than I should. Here are some of the thoughts of each system and their pros/cons that I came up with. Please comment freely.

Revivor Oven:
- Use of controlled heat to raise the temperature of the converstock
- Removes oil by way of heating the coverstock causing "expansion," pushing oil to the surface
- Pressure differential between the compressed coverstock and the atmosphere is the driving force for oil removal.
- Atmosphere applies lower pressure causing highest pressure differential. This leads to oil moving faster in the coverstock to the surface
- Using hot air has a lower heat transfer rate causing long heating times to remove oil
- Oil must be removed from the coverstock separate from the process
- Must be used at pro shop unless an individual buys a Revivor (cost)

Use of Water (for this case, I will consider both a water bath method with stagnant water and a water "washing" method with heat control and constant water movement over the surface)
- Use of heated water to raise the temperature of the coverstock
- Removes oil by way of heating the coverstock causing "expansion," pushing oil to the surface
- Pressure differential between the compressed coverstock and the atmosphere is the driving force for oil removal
- Water applies higher pressure causing a lower pressue differential. This leads to oil moving slower in the coverstock to the surface
- Using hot water has a higher heat transfer rate causing shorter heating times to remove oil
- Oil is constantly being removed from the surface of the coverstock when using a wash technique
- Water baths require replenishment of hot water
- Water baths can be done at home

Initially, this list is a beginning point in making a decision to which method one would use. I feel both methods have benefits and both can be used equally safely.

The Revivor Oven does have the benefit of providing a higher pressure differential causing oil to be extracted faster once the coverstock has been heated. And since the pressure at the surface is lower, it can be assumed more oil may be able to be extracted when compared to the water method. However, using heated air as a heating medium will take longer, but that may be offset with the quicker oil removal once the set temperature is achieved. One area of possible improvement (if it hasn't been done already) is a way to remove oil from the surface of the bowling ball during the process. Not having a Revivor Oven myself (have used one), I am also not sure if there isn't a fan in the Revivor Oven allowing the heat transfer to improve.

A professionally designed water system (possible Powerhouse Wave) can be a viable option to the Revivor Oven. A water based system can heat the coverstock quicker perhaps decreasing the time required, but will give up some of that time benefit due to the lower pressure differential between the coverstock and the water. The pressure differential can be reduced if the amount of water staying in contact with the ball is reduced (something like a water spraying method or only keeping a small water film on the ball). Another negative to the water method is the amount of energy it will take to heat up the water source. If the process time can be reduced with the use of water, then the energy usage may be less.

Spmcgivern, the Rejuvenator Oven has a fan that circulates air and the oil is removed from the surface of the ball by pads that the ball sit on and rotate on during the process. Once the pads get oil soaked, you simply replace them.

Once the oil is brought to the surface for a given temperature, and wiped by the pad, the ball stops "sweating" and the process is complete. Whether using water or air, once all of the oil is removed from the ball, then that has to be the optimum obtainable condition.

Perhaps this water based system will be faster, but I see no other possible benefit, other than saving time.