Would there be any advantages to a blend sequence which starts out with galvanic, the DC stops, and only then, thermolysis is briefly applied at a low setting?
There are quite a few modulations of blend, some keep the thermolysis throughout, some in short bursts multiple times through the treatment time, and yes, some at the end. Some even use different radio frequencies.
I think the idea behind constant or pulses throughout rather than the end is to heat up the lye as it’s being created, so as it speads around the follicle it is already warmed, and thus gives a more even heating pattern, so I dont see the advantage of the thermolysis pulse at the end, but I could be missing something. I do know that that is how some electrologists choose to work though. The measure of if it is as effective or more effective, would lie in the results.
Seana
You need to follow proper blend formulas. If your HF and DC currents are not blended correctly, then one current will flood the other and you won’t be doing proper blend. So doing DC first and adding thermolysis later at a “low setting” does not sound like efficient blending. If anything, The Blend Method (textbook) encourages to follow through with DC after-count when you finish applying the HF current. DC current is doing most of the magic in Blend but HF is the driving current that needs to be set accordingly.
I hear more about HF aftercounts than I do DC ones. The idea is to heat up the lye and make it more effective, so adding the heat before the lye is even present, doesnt make sense to me.
Maybe someone who uses thermolysis at the end, can give you a better answer, as for me it’s all theory, I dont work that way. I tend to use multiplex blend, which will give DC throughout the 10 second or so treatment, with 4-6 thermolysis pulses throughout. Even doing that, the thermolysis pulses dont exceed 10-12% of capacity of the machine I use. I’ve tried 30% and the same timing, and was lucky I didnt leave a smoking hole in my chin. To put it into perspective, I’ve removed skin tags with a 1/2 second 70% pulse, with absolutely no difficulty whatsoever. So the low thresh-hold for thermolysis, doesnt seem odd to me at all.
Seana
Well sure, you can do whatever you want with your machines and I suppose that’s a good thing: invention & creating one’s own personal discovery and method?
Still, the “blend method” itself is not just two currents acting together in a random manner. It’s a well-constructed procedure of how to use the currents based on the currents destroying the so-called “target area”, but not encroaching into the “critical zone.”
If one were trying to follow the actual “blend method” as developed over many decades, an aftercount with the HF would be dangerous … and would not make much sense either.
The new computerized units have all sorts of interesting ways to approach this “2-current” idea, of course. And, “more power” to y’all.