I’ve heard it’s possible to die of a heart attack if the electrodes of a multimeter break the skin because the resistance of wet tissue is relatively low. And in diagrams of hair shafts, it looks as though the hair root is connected to the blood stream.
So if you could soak two hairs in a liquid electrolyte but leave the skin dry, and then use clips to connect the hairs to an electrical circuit, would electrolysis occur in the roots? Is there any history of this idea?
Why would you go through all this when a metal probe can be inserted into a follicle where energy could then be dispelled so tissue could be permanently damaged? How would you make clips small enough to attach to a soaked hair?
Really negative statements! Before anybody can reply properly you’ve butted in with valueless skepticism! The topic is whether this method could or could not cause permanent damage equivalent to needle electrolysis. A statement which compares its assumed failure with needle electrolysis is uncalled for.
If this idea works then a machine could operate a hundred or so clips simultaneously, so it would be much faster and easier than using a needle for one hair at a time. It would be fairly easy to buy some clips “small enough to attach to a soaked hair”, and in a professional or sophisticated diy version, a clip could be designed along the lines of a small sponge filled tube.
I hoped that somebody would clarify the feasibility of the basic idea in electro-chemical terms, for example whether an appropriate electrical circuit could be established by this method, how long it would take to soak a hair, and whether NaOH would still be produced if the cathode was not located in the hair root, etc. Is a non-skeptical response to much to expect?
Thanks for answering my questions, genius.
Why don’t you just go ahead and invent these “clips” and try them on the thousands of fine, accelerated hairs under a woman’s nose? I’m skeptical that your idea has merit and I will make a comments anytime or anywhere I choose to do so. Your rudeness is not valued here, in fact, it is a deterrent to having any kind of meaningful exchange with you about your idea.
Peace be with you.
You justify calling me an idiot by focusing on accelerated hairs when it’s obvious that I’m talking about galvanic electrolysis and terminal hair. I commented on your skeptical attitude, I was not rude, yet after insulting my intelligence rudely, you tell me my rudeness is a deterrent to having a meaningful exchange with me? How can peace be with me after such a frightful ordeal?
Gentle Poster Gurl:
The idea you are postulating is equal to the electronic tweezer machines of the 70’s. To address what you said directly:
Hair is not a conductor, and so if you could “soak the follicles without wetting the skin” (already a scientific challenge that is economically unfeasible without needle insertion) the clips would not transmit current down the hair shaft and into the follicle. It is this reason that tweezer machines slather on gels or use conductive solutions to soak electrified cotton swabs (that’s right, Q-tips) and while most of the electricity is dispersed through the surface skin, a small amount of lye is produced that causes the hairs to be easier to pluck, but one would dissolve the surface layers of skin before one ever made enough lye in the follicle to cause the desired permanent hair removal.
In short, since skin, hair and fingernails are made of different states of the same material, just like vapor, water and ice, one is up against the problem of what can you do to eliminate the hair, (water) that would not aslo eliminate the skin (vapor)?
This is more the answer I expected in tone and content, thankyou. However is it not possible that capillary action would let an electrolytic liquid coat the surface of a hair shaft?
As skin IS a conductor (due to its moisture content) and hair is not, coating the hair, and or follicle, by definition puts the electrical system in contact with the skin and the rest of the body, so electricity will disperse into the skin and if powerful enough, other structures of the body, thus lowering the amount of charge that stays in the desired zone of treatment, as opposed to migrating into the surrounding tissue.
So, we are back to delivering energy or making a chemical change happen (sodium hydroxide) by solely introducing a very tiny metal probe to the INSIDE of a hair follicle, not attaching clips or metal tweezers to hair above the skin. Energy is needed below the skin to affect hair. Thus, with the most technologically advanced professional epilators made on earth today, we can safely remove any structure of hair in 1/1000 to 1/10,0000 of a second. Why would anyone want anything else?
It’s surprising that electric tweezers can still be purchased, which is the same concept as “clips” , but there is a hopeful or foolish person born every minute.
The tweezer devices still flourish because there are still people who don’t know their science and biology, and the government is only interested in certain scams. Make unauthorized copies of a movie whose rights are owned by the Walt Disney Company and the FBI will be knocking at your door. Sell books that violate Time Warner’s copywrites and you will be in jail on felony charges in no time, but if you bilk people out of money selling them a machine that, while satisfying the definition of an electrolysis machine, but when used as directed doesn’t work, you need not fear anyone but the IRS. While you are at it, you can get away with copying and selling movies and books that are not owned by the major corporations, especially if the owners are on the power elite’s dog house list. 
So true to all those things, James. The saddest thing about these scammy hair removal devices complete with their little animated pictures is, the excited people that pay for and use them as told can end up with a face full of scars thinking they have discovered something that will save them time and money. Either that or they will become insanely frustrated, when they discover that a dead piece of hair above the skin will not transfer or transport energy. This has all been said many times before in so many ways.
Thank you James for your gentlemanly approach and explanations.
Dee