In theory we know that you need to match probes to hair thickness. Also, we know that thin probes have “point effect” and narrow pattern of energy spread that’s why thicker probes are always preferred.
But what if you only had thin probes to work with, can you overcome the problem and effectively treat thickest hairs with thinnest probes? What would be your strategy? Has this ever been attempted with high kill rates?
yes, you can use thinner probes, especially when that probe is mostly supplying a pathway for galvanic current, such as with blend where heating patterns tend not to count as much.The larger probes are better in my opinion though
Not working again … Anyway, I will retype my answer here:
I most strenuously disagree. Probe size is critical.
An operator can get other parameters wrong, but probe size causes the greatest errors (and benefits) in so many ways. I have written extensively on this topic.
Needle size is significant with both “thermolysis” and with “the blend.” Using a “thin needle” for every hair size is perhaps the most common error made by inexperienced electrologists. (Also extensively explained in Hinkel’s book.)
Saying that “[with the blend]… heating patterns don’t count that much” is totally wrong. Please!
And Mr. Bono is absolutely correct.
Hey MIKE!
I got your “tele needles” yesterday and they are gorgeous! I will give them a test-drive next week.*
Laurier Needles: don’t bypass “independent” manufacturers! They put a LOT of “heart” into their products.
Mike if you like, I will make you a list (with contact information) of the various “tele-dudes.” SELL them suckers, baby!
(Oh … who’s “Mr. Bono?” YUCK … I’m getting goosebumps! I would rather be called “MR. ASSHAT!” Thanks! Why? Because I am one! Certified too!)
More on needles sizes: (I hope this works)
In the “old days” Hinkel made 16 sizes of tapered needles: YES SIXTEEN! With the advent of “generic” manufactured needles we all had to adapt. I never really did and miss the many choices.
The way all of us used to work is like this: if we were reasonably sure we had machine “parameters” correctly set, and were not getting the look we wanted, e.g., difficult release or current rising too fast, our FIRST operation was to check NEEDLE SIZE! NOT timing or intensity!
This is especially true with a “bare needle.”
Indeed, only a miniscule change in needle thickness (or length … so the taper actually FIT the follicle) … changed everything. From a “shitty” treatment to a perfect one! Just using the correct needle.
Sadly, there are no manufactured tapered needles that fit properly. “They sell,” so “what the hell?” I only have 2-dozen of my favorites (for men’s back) left. After that? Maybe I’ll move to Vanuatu. (It’s a possibility.)
Have you tried our bare tapered needles Michael ? Most are overwhelmed with the array of Probe sizes we offer. In reality, most settle on only maybe 6 sizes at most. They settle into the sizes of a cross section of the clients they encounter. We have to accommodate all the cross sections.
The hair size should NOT determine Probe size. The hair is but dead cells. The size of the follicle is the determining factor. The hair producing follicle is the target, not the hair and that is what the Probe must fit.
@Michael Bono, you missed the point of the question(and the answer I gave). IT isnt that wouldnt a properly guaged needle be better, absolutely it would . The question was, WILL IT WORK if you have nothing else. And the answer, is yes it will work, but will be less than ideal.
Seana
I will take you literally - you only have small diameter probes to work with. The strategy I would use is to perform current application with multiple insertions, moving each insertion around the diameter of the hair. For example, noon, 3:00, 6:00, and 9:00. Or…noon and 6…or in a 4 hour pattern.
Now to sound geezerly - yes, it has been done. In my early years I was given one size (fits all!) by my trainer/mentor. Beards and other unwanted hair got gone.
Seana, what caught my attention was your incorrect statement about the blend method. I could not NOT respond to that!
Certainly, one CAN use a thin needle for everything? Sure. You can also drive a car with flat or under-inflated tires too.
I’m hopeful that we talk about high standards that have been established, and that writers promote good electrology practices; not “kitchen electrolysis.”
But how do you see hair-follicle to determine the proper size? Hair is the closest guide to size of follicle, or so the literature suggests?
You are good at explaining stuff with words. I like how you use a clock to explain insertion patterns.
And thanks to everyone for chiming in. I don’t intend to stir tensions. I’m reading and learning from everyone’s experiences.
Never worry about “tensions” Fenix. The best learning outcome is “Yin & Yang” dialogue. Ever notice that when there is disagreement, it gets everybody’s attention? All good!
Also, yes “Fenix” indeed you can’t see the follicle. The only gauge is the hair itself. Dr. Schuster once used the example of a sausage casing (the casing being the follicle). Take away the sausage casing and the contents will remain the same size as the sausage itself.
Technically, the follicle really does shape the hair. Hair size is your most accurate gaugue. (Unless, of course, you’re a demonex mite! YUCK!)
Yes, and doing thick hairs with a fine needle feels a lot like that. Despite of that it is often done, successfully. Even by me - imagine a client wants to have a lot of fine hairs removed and of course also those 2 or 3 hairs which have become thick from plucking - doing that with a small setting and multiple insertions would not interrupt the working flow.
Let me bet that most practitioners would not switch to a larger probe in such a situation.
(mhmm, hopefully they would try multiple pulses … at least my beard hair had been attacked with a #3 and single shots - the only one to try thicker probes was me in my DIY phase…)
Not true beate, you are NOT the only one to try thicker probes in DIY. Ya , I think it was you who kept beating it into me to do so.
Upper lips tend to be a challenge, because of the mix of thin and thick hairs. In those cases I tend to go through and thin with the thicker probe first.
@Felix, dont be concerned about tensions. I expect Michael to to misconstrue most of what I say. It’s the way of things here.Its taken time, but I dont get upset about it anymore.I have every right to an opinion everyone else does.
Seana
And I expect defensiveness on issues I’m trying to make more clear. You never spoke to the issue of your statement that “HF doesn’t count that much with the blend.” I really hope that people understand that indeed it DOES and it makes great impact on the treatment.
THAT was the issue I was talking about.
If I dont feel like getting involved in a discussion, I dont. That simple.Read the last post in forest for the trees for a clue by four as to why I would be disinclined to get into a discussion about it, or well, much of anything at the moment.
Seana
Putting a finer point on it: More about HF-thermolysis and the blend.
In simple terms, the DC (pattern) reaction “follows” (is congruent with) the pattern of the HF. What you do with the manual thermolysis is just about the whole deal … with the blend. The actual “blend method” is not just putting two currents together.
STORY TIME … you “lucky people” you!
(From Mr. Hinkel himself … to me, in Art’s office with me gasping from his damned CIGAR!).
Henry (St Pierre), inventor of the blend, had a patent on the blend. Art (Hinkel) and Henry had a major “falling out” (See Seana … it happens even to people that like each other, and we do … don’t we?).
Anyway, Art was left with no machines to produce (legally). So, he simply disconnected the DC circuit and produced a machine he named “Model F” (I will let the reader imagine what the “F” was for. And yes, Hinkel was a RASCAL! And, I loved him!)
Of course, Henry (French) and Art (German) did get back together again (it’s sort of a “German/French” thing? They do that!).
However, during the period that Art made the Model F, he said, “Bono, there really wasn’t all that much difference!” Yes, this statement coming from “Mr. Blend” himself!
I have never related to the idea that “the blend method” was some sort of “religion.” Hell no … I’m only about what works. For me, in my own opinion, it’s truly THERMOLYSIS that RULES our profession.
If you were to use the “blend method” (I mean the eye-hand technique) with straight manual thermolysis only … well, you get damned good results too. What I do personally is ALL about thermolysis …
For the sake of my beloved “thermolysis users” … YES, of course … IT’S ALL ABOUT THERMOLYSIS!
Oh shucks … what I failed to mention is that Hinkel’s Model F was “thermolysis only” no DC at all.
I am a big probe type of “guy”.