New video today …
Here’s what I’m hoping: for decades, all I’ve ever heard is, “the blend is too SLOW!” Maybe, just maybe, seeing body technique in operation might change this perception. “Slow” … I don’t know … you decide …
Overall speed depends on a variety of factors, not just current time in the follicle. Yes, blend spends more time in the follicle, but this extra time is made up by using the 2-hand technique. I think so anyway. What do you think?
I think…You may not be ready for my comments! Too bad I’m going to say them anyway.
The video you presented shows you working with your two handed technique, entering into the follicle and exiting in less than a second and smoothly extracting the hair. It’s worth noting that the method used is NOT standard blend which might take 8-15 seconds a hair treatment time. You have adjusted your currents with settings particular to your machine in order to accomplish this. You have undoubtedly proven your method works and is efficient, however, I am unable with my current equipment to duplicate your work, and neither would any modern computerized epilator user. I’ve tried, and come pretty close with some settings, but there is no way to make my machine …work like yours and to continue testing in an attempt to do so, would surely have put the faces of those I worked on at risk.
I dont think a two handed technique would make up for 8-15 seconds in the follicle, and I’m unable to duplicate your method to test it for myself with my current equipment.
Seana
No, I love your comments Seana. There’s the deal. The “blend method,” as outlined in my book, is a GRAMMAR. This does not mean making no variation. Remember, just like in all languages, the grammar tries to describe the language; not the other way around.
I remember after my first year in business I went to visit Hinkel. His first question was, “What have you discovered and how have you modified the technique.” We talked about this “fast blend” and he said that both he and St. Pierre did it too … (and that was as early as the 1940s).
Rules? What rules? Standard? Well, I did write a book about the “standard blend” … but this is not the real-world of experimentation and discovery. And, I’ll bet you can find the settings I’m using … With your mind, I know you will be coming up with new/improved methods … so, keep at it!
(BTW, in my book I do talk about 3- and 4-second Body Technique. Still, EVERYBODY, and I mean all of us “Hinkelites” do go much faster … and, this is nothing new or original.
I remember when Bill Schuler (Hinkel company) came-up with his "unit computer’ for the blend … to semi-automatically set the DC-units. I didn’t like the idea and neither did Hinkel. Why?
Well, at first people learning the blend have to deal with "figuring out the DC … by calculating ‘units’.’ However, when they understand what they’re doing … get a feel for it … they NEVER do ANY math and NEVER have to figure out the DC settings (or HF either): they know just know it … like an instinct.
BTW, the first Blend units didn’t have a DC meter! Hinkel installed a meter not to TEACH people … but to figure out what they were already doing. They were already "speaking the language,’ and Hinkel wanted to develop a grammar to teach others their "language.’
This how you learn a language. At first you struggle with the grammar; but then it becomes second-nature. I’ll bet that not one "native speaker’ ever thinks about "proper tense’ or any grammar issues, because they know the language, the right inflections and the subtle nuances that communicate the message. "It just sounds right!’ Instinct!
It’s the same in electrology, and the machine you’re using … it becomes an extension of you. If your machine "holds you to a specific ‘grammar’,’ … then, that’s not a great idea. Your machine should allow a full range of freedom and experimentation. If your machine has computerized features, these features should offer you MORE possibilities; not less.
I don’t know a single electrologist that has not developed her own interesting "twist’ to the basic theory … like people have their own mannerisms of speaking. It’s not about "grammar’ it’s about killing hairs, lots of them, and as fast as possible with the least amount of pain.
I was thinking about this benign exchange today (and ZERO offense taken, Seana).
However, what always makes me unhappy, is that nearly all of us won’t "show our work.’ And, certainly not any problems we are having, like side-effects. Most of us won’t even talk about it.
So many of us are afraid to show our work or talk about what we do, because we get judged or condemned. It should not be like that. Everybody who "shows’ on-line gets a heap of criticism; just ask Josefa or Dee Dee. I don’t care, I’m doing it anyway.
Michael I’m curious with what DC and HF settings you’re working with in this video? I know all brands have their own settings and there is no universal standard of measurement of energy settings, but I’m curious with what numbers you work with on your Hinkel to push the boundaries outside the textbook teachings on Blend and still being safe on skin. If I recall from past posts, you mentioned that your HF settings are set to max in the blend mode, and D.C. 1.5?
How did you start pushing the limits on settings and still feel safe to experiment on skin going beyond what even your texts describes?
Sure … but, really … TRULY …
My video shows fast "body technique’ that has been practiced since 1936 (I checked my old Hinkel notes today). Not very revolutionary is it? (However, don’t do this on the face!)
I did not go into this detail in my book because I didn’t want people suing me, you know, "He said I could do this.’ Still, Hinkel taught all of us how to do this "fast body work,’ and for 50 year, this was normal and commonplace.
My Hinkel machine (the low-end version) is set at HF: 3.0 (plus or minus … 4.5 is the “max”), and my Clareblend would be at HF: 70Vp-p and DC usually at 1.0mA to max of 1.5mA (I still have two brand-new, never-used Clareblend machines). However ALL OF THIS depends on your manual control of the currents … with your footswitch. (If you want a video on this … let me know I WILL do it! Sure, why not?)
I also have a full-time "always on’ DC switch, so with body work I insert with the DC on (called “live probing” in New Zealand and Australia, the term was invented by Neil Blok; again nothing new at all).
And then I’m watching VERY carefully for the skin reaction I want to see … with my own two eyes (the machine tells me nothing! And I’m not listening either … and please don’t BEEP at me!).
There is about a half-second to less-than one-second window of "perfect treatment … to too much,’ and everything has to be right, including your needle selection and depth of insertion. I use only tapered needles (bare) with body hair … gotta get the current to dispatch the stem cells in the upper follicle!
For example, if I see a telogen hair, my insertion will be more shallow … however, I know the HF current will react more violently … so my ‘tap’ is a tiny bit less than, say, with the large anagen hairs in the same area. It’s all sort of "split second’ but not a big deal once you get the "hang of it.’
Anyway … please know that what I’m doing is STANDARD technique … mostly in Southern California with us old-fart "Hinkel-trained’ zappers.
The youngsters today absolutely duplicate this speed (probably faster?) with their super machines; and they ARE wonderful units too. It only requires a little change in technique … Jossie is the QUEEN of all this and our results are identical (well, she’s actually much better than I am … and NICER and prettier too!)
Just remember, only ONE thing matters and that is TTT … total treatment time.
Who would say no to a video? 
I’d like to see your foot work, settings and visually see the stuff we don’t see while you treat telogen and anagen hair, as you say the foot work slightly changes for different hair depths.
The only difference I would say between the modern HF epilators (Apilus) and Hinkel type blend machines is you set the probe at single depth and wait for current to rise to cover 2/3d of follicle; while for a modern HF machine, you will have to move the needle at different depths in the follicle to cover the 2/3 of follicle since modern HF produces narrow grains of heating patterns.
YES … that’s it totally!
I have no fear of criticism, what bothers me is that those who judge and condemn me, does not have the courage to teach me how to do a better job.
Great and no truer words, Josie.
I really need to get on the horse again and show some of my work. It is neat when others can see how different we all are, complete with temporary skin manifestations. I take pictures all the time. Sorting and labeling those pictures takes great time and effort, something that I’ve slacked on recently.
I love your videos, Mike and Josefa. You two are gold to our profession and to the consumers.
Michael! You are a treasure chest!
Everyday I watch your and Josefa’s video and learn, learn and learn. Thank you both for inspiring and teaching.
Never heard about the technique “DC always on” and I wonder if it is possible to do on Instantron?
By the way, I ordered it and can’t wait for receiving )
I didn’t know that Instantron makes a blend unit (@DC) … if so, you can do this, but I don’t recommend it unless …
With the “live probing” (DC) you must insert quickly … not linger at the follicle opening (for obvious reasons). Some of the “Hinkelites” would insert with live HF too … for very tiny hairs … again a fast insertion or you make a mess of things … I’ve never done this and don’t recommend it.
Thanks for the thumbs up … believe me it helps. I’ve had some harsh criticism (emails) and sometimes I wonder why I’m doing this … but “my Jossie” is my inspiration so I have no choice.
Hmmmm… You just made me doubt. I checked once again and yes, Instantron Elite Spectrum has blend.
I will try all the modes and tecniques it lets do. Overwise what an experimenter I am? Just trying something new we can find something new ))
I truly think that nearly all innovations and improvements are made by "new electrologists.’
New-to-the-trade people are generally not set in their ways. The "experienced’ in our ranks are often cement-headed and, because their methodology has worked for them in the past, don’t even bother to consider other modalities or methods. Their attitude is dismissive, and usually starts with the statement, "Oh, she doesn’t know what she’s doing … "
Well, maybe "she DOES!’