So how many of you have seen this little video by Boveda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPqKLkBLFU

In it Boveda claims to be "The only true two way humidity system"

I would think that in order for HF beads to do that all the salt solution would have to be washed off of them. Then they would have to be fully saturated with water. I mean you can make Boveda packs do the same thing , by overcharging them to the point that the salt can longer effectively control the RH. On an 8g boveda pack this point of over saturation is around 9.5grams (as determined by members here , T.G. and Shilala)
Link - http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showth...harging+boveda

Now what is interesting about the video , is that the HF beads took 10 minutes or so to reach 70% RH. While the boveda packs (4 times the neccassary amount) , took 2.5 hours (15x times longer than the HF). While the HF beads continue on to 100% , as a result of being used improperly this still makes an interesting point about evaporative surface area. Even four boveda packs dont have nearly the same surface area as the single tube of HF beads (HCM having significantly more surface area yet). This means that if Boveda had used one pack in this experiment it should have taken 10 hours to bring the RH up 70%.

One day someone should do a little study and do a true comparison , Boveda , HCM , HF , Cigar Mechanic , HBS , Kitty Litter and maybe some Ebay beads or something. Maybe myself if I get the time, hygros , Tupperware and ambition.

Right now my aristocrat plus 48 , takes around a minute or so to reach 68RH after opening the door , depending on how long I am in there , what the ambient RH is etc. That's with Bobs S&F and about 11ish pounds of HCM beads (triple the recommended amount :P) And the odd time the S&F does run , it only runs for a few moments , generally less then 10 seconds :P
[Reply]

Do you think they oversaturated the beads in that experiment?

Personally, I cannot stand those tubes as I have no idea how much water I added. I put my beads in small Tupperware type containers so I can see how wet they are.

From the looks of the video, it looks like all the HF beads are coming wet does it not. Of course they are not going to absorb humidity if they are saturated.
[Reply]

The salts would have to be washed off. Otherwise they would only release humidity until the salts setpoint. There was no excess to absorb initially.

Reading other forums , when people questioned about how the beads were prepared Boveda deferred and said "The fact that they can be over saturated means they are not a true 2 way system" , the comments were quickly disabled on the YT video by the looks of it.
[Reply]

I've been pronouncing "Boveda" wrong this whole time...
[Reply]

:-):-) me too! I'm glad I know now :-)
[Reply]

Well, something is very wrong with the Boveda rep's "controlled" experiment.

Does anyone really believe that the HF beads stabilize at 100%? What do you think the cigars would look and smoke like at 100%? Ya think anyone might have an issue with that? So how come we haven't heard about soggy smokes from users of HF beads?

:-)
[Reply]

It's clear that the test was biased, and they disabled comments on the video, so no one can say anything contrary to their test.

I am really disappointed that Boveda would do such a thing.
[Reply]

This. Clearly the experiment was rigged.
[Reply]

Gee wiz, a vendor representative does a biased "unbiased test". I think I've seen it all, now. :-)
[Reply]

Yes it happens all the time, and yes we are free to b!tch about it :-)

They did not show their comparison of HCM beads -- I'm sure it's because they did better than the Boveda's :-)
[Reply]

Used to be a Boveda whore...now I'm HCM all the way :-):-):-)

When I go off to school for months at a time, I come back to the cabinet still at a steady 65-67% every time.
[Reply]

While its not a surprise , it is unfortunate coming from a company i used to respect. The test does make some interesting points about evaporative surface area however.
[Reply]

:-) I agree. They had a great opportunity to talk about facts and the explain how they tackled all the hard issues and should be a vendor of choice. Instead, they did a dubious comparison that doesn't help the in the long run, at least for S/BOTLs here at CA where the is a wealth of information on the subject.

I have no problem with Boveda and am still shaking my head a bit over that video.
[Reply]

Shame is, the video really did have opportunity to teach and inform.
There are plenty of inferior products out there that Boveda could have pit themselves against in a quest to increase their market share.
[Reply]

I saw the video sometime within the first week of it's release and comments hadn't been disabled yet. Needless to say it was many pages of people calling Boveda out on their obviously rigged and biased test. Everything from polite technical explanations to outright insults.

I would have thought the smart thing to do would have been to take the hint, pull the video down entirely and redo the tests properly or not at all, but I guess honesty and integrity are in short supply in their marketing department.
[Reply]

I saw the video and what surprised me was that they felt the need to stack the deck in their favor. I imagine that if they really believed in their product, they wouldn't. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
[Reply]

Simple both Boveda packs and HF beads can hold a consistent RH. Both add and subtract water from the air. It would look bad if they just showed how much more quickly HF beads do so. HCM beads doing so significantly faster yet , weren't even tested...

Clearly they scoped out the competition so they must have gotten some HCM beads to try... Apparently the HCM beads performed so poorly that Boveda opted not to include them in their test.

:-)
:-)
[Reply]

You know I thought I remembered the video as well. I might not have understood what was going on as well the first time I watched it though.

I thought we had talked about it here before but when I searched/googled I couldn't come up with anything. Hence why I started this thread.
[Reply]

:-):-) Very true! IMO, HCM is the best I've ever used.
[Reply]