The Urinator Review: An Unreliable and Risky Electric Urine Warmer for Drug Tests

Today, I’m reviewing the Urinator, an electric urine warming device designed to maintain urine at the required temperature for submission in drug tests.

However, I must emphasize that I do not recommend using it for drug testing due to several serious drawbacks which make it challenging and unsafe for such purposes.

However, I’ll tell you about reliable and discreet alternatives later in this post.

In this review, I’ll delve into the Urinator’s pros and cons, explain how it operates, and compare it to popular alternatives like the Whizzinator and Incognito Belt.

What is the Urinator?

Picture this scenario: you’re about to undergo a drug test and, for various reasons, you decide to use synthetic urine or a sample from a friend.

You’ve meticulously followed every step – securing clean urine and discreetly tucking the bottle in the area near your groin.

You manage to enter the drug testing facility’s bathroom without raising any suspicion. Despite feeling a bit nervous, you reassure yourself that you’ve done everything correctly.

Your hands tremble slightly as you carefully take out the bottle of clean urine and pour it into the test cup.

After concealing the bottle once again, you hand the cup over to the drug test collector, feeling a surge of relief, confident that you’ve passed the test.

But then, something unexpected happens. The collector checks the urine temperature and discovers it’s below normal.

This is a major red flag in drug testing, signaling potential tampering or falsification.

Immediately, the collector requests that you provide another sample, this time under direct observation, meaning they will watch as you urinate into the cup.

This is a nightmare scenario. You know that if you provide your own sample, it will likely fail the drug test.

On the other hand, refusing to submit a sample under these conditions is typically reported as a failed test.

This could result in job loss if it’s an employment-related drug test or other severe consequences.

Enter the Urinator, an electric urine warmer designed to automatically maintain the urine at the required temperature for such tests.

While the concept of the Urinator is innovative, its practical application, especially in the context of drug testing, is questionable.

In the following sections, we’ll delve into the pros and cons of the Urinator, outlining why its use in drug testing is problematic.

Pros and Cons

The Urinator positions itself as a unique solution in the world of synthetic urine devices, but it’s essential to weigh its advantages and disadvantages carefully.

Pros:

1. Refillable Urine Bag: The Urinator is not a one-time-use product. It’s a reusable, refillable urine bag, providing potentially unlimited uses.
2. Includes Supplies: It comes with two premixed synthetic urine samples, enough for initial double usage. Additionally, a syringe is included for refilling the bag with synthetic urine or someone else’s clean urine.
3. Temperature Monitoring: The package includes two temperature strips for convenient temperature monitoring, complementing the liquid crystal thermometer already attached to the urine bag.
4. Electric Heating and Temperature Control: The Urinator is equipped with an electric heating device and a temperature controller, ostensibly offering automatic temperature regulation, a feature intended to set it apart from other synthetic urine products.

Cons:

1. Battery Dependency and Cost: The device requires two 9V batteries, which are not only an added expense (approximately $7 for each use) but also necessitate new batteries for every use.
2. Bulky Design: The reliance on 9V batteries significantly increases the device’s bulkiness.
3. Additional Insulating Blanket: The inclusion of a thermal insulating mini-blanket, intended to cover the device, adds further to its bulk, making it challenging to conceal.
4. Lack of Stealth Belt: The absence of a stealth belt means the only feasible hiding spot is within your underwear, which can result in an obvious and suspicious bulge.
5. Conspicuous in Drug Testing Scenarios: In a drug testing situation, where you’re required to empty your pockets and remove extra clothing, a conspicuous lump in your pants is likely to draw attention. Drug test administrators are well-versed in identifying such cheating methods.
6. High Price Point: Priced at $170, the Urinator is an investment. When considering its bulky nature, the need for additional batteries, and its questionable efficacy in real-world drug testing scenarios, the value proposition diminishes.

In conclusion, while the Urinator offers innovative features like electric heating and refillable components, its practical application, especially in discreet situations like drug tests, is highly questionable.

The cost, bulkiness, and conspicuous nature of the device present significant drawbacks that cannot be overlooked.

Manufacturer website considerations

Upon reviewing the official website selling the Urinator, several red flags immediately became apparent:

• Unprofessional Language: The website is rife with grammatical errors and aggressive language, using terms like “idiot,” “moron,” and “blow your balls off.” Such language is uncharacteristic of a professional company and raises questions about the credibility of the product.

• Poor Website Design: The overall design of the website appears untrustworthy and lacks a professional touch, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the product.

• Outdated Instructional Videos: The instructional videos provided are from 2004, which is quite outdated by current standards. This could indicate a lack of updates or improvements to the product over time.

Based on these observations, both the product and its official website appear unreliable. I would not recommend purchasing the Urinator for drug testing purposes.

Urinator vs Incognito Belt

The Incognito Belt is another product designed for the same purpose but differs significantly from the Urinator:

• It is a stealth belt with premixed synthetic urine, designed to be discreetly worn around the waist, unlike the Urinator, which is bulkier and must be hidden in underwear, often creating a noticeable bulge.
• The Incognito Belt uses a heating pad, as opposed to the Urinator’s electronic heating element. While electronic heating might seem more reliable for maintaining temperature, the questionable quality of the Urinator’s construction casts doubt on its safety and effectiveness.
• The Incognito Belt is perceived as safer and more reliable, particularly given the unprofessional presentation of the Urinator’s creators.

Cost and efficiency

• The Urinator is reusable, allowing for multiple uses with additional clean urine. It also includes two premixed urine vials, but given the concerns raised, this may not be a significant advantage.
• The Incognito Belt, priced at $130, is less expensive than the $170 Urinator, which also requires the purchase of additional batteries.

Considering all factors, including safety, reliability, cost, and ease of use, the Incognito Belt emerges as a more suitable option.

Its discreet design, reliable heating mechanism, and overall professionalism make it a preferred choice over the Urinator.

Urinator vs Whizzinator

Let’s take a closer look at two popular fake pee holding devices on the market: the Urinator and the Whizzinator. (If you are interested in whizzinator alternatives, here’s our review )

Key differences

• Prosthetic Inclusion: The Whizzinator includes a prosthetic, which is a significant difference from the Urinator. This feature is designed to mimic a real urinary experience, primarily for males.
• Gender Usability: While the Urinator can be used by both males and females, the Whizzinator is specifically designed for male use.
• Heating Element: The Whizzinator relies on heating pads for temperature control, which can be  and more challenging to manage. In contrast, the Urinator uses an electric urine warmer, promising easier temperature maintenance.

Considerations

• Necessity of Prosthetic: In most drug testing scenarios, no one observes the urine submission process directly, rendering the prosthetic unnecessary. However, in cases of directly observed drug tests, the prosthetic becomes noticeable, potentially defeating its purpose.
• Safety and Quality Concerns: Despite the Urinator’s advantage in gender neutrality and electric warming, concerns about its safety, spill-proof design, and potential for electrical short circuits cannot be ignored.
• Urine Quantity: The Urinator provides enough synthetic urine for two uses, compared to the Whizzinator’s single vial.

Given these factors, the Urinator might seem a more flexible option than the Whizzinator.

However, considering the overall safety and discretion issues associated with the Urinator, the Incognito Belt is still the recommended choice.

Conclusion

The Urinator was conceptualized as an innovative solution for maintaining urine temperature during drug tests, with its electric temperature control being a standout feature.

However, its execution leaves much to be desired. The device is bulky, indiscreet, and raises concerns about its safety and reliability. There are indications that the urine bag could be prone to leakage or electrical faults.

At this point, we cannot recommend the Urinator.

Future iterations might improve upon these issues, but for now, the Incognito Belt is advised as a more stealthy and reliable alternative for passing a drug test.