This is a question for James Walker, but his clients may choose to answer as well. I read on James’ web page, “DAYS WITH ME WILL BE MONTHS OF WORK WITH OTHER ELECTROLOGISTS. OVER 700 HAIRS REMOVED PER HOUR TREATMENT” In my inexperienced, never-had-Electrolysis opinion, the speed of James’ work sounds unusually high. My engineering math skills tell me this is 5.1 seconds per hair, and possibly as fast as three times the speed other Electrologists can achieve.
So, James, presuming you really are as efficient as you indicate, what are you doing right that other Electrologists are not? I realize that this is sort of an open-ended question, but help me understand.
I think when any professional in any field sees their colleagues administering inferior work, using inferior equipment, does not reinvest in their tools even though the government provides incentives, it is embarrassing for those of us who do, as it reflects poorly on that profession/industry.
Within the hair removal community, whether it be laser, IPL, waxing, threading, electrolysis or another method, there are those who are better skilled, care more, invest more in their tools and want the client to achieve results with as little tissue trauma as possible. Since James invests more in his actual tools and is concerned with self improvement, he is going to pick up speed as his state-of-the-art equipment enables him to do so.
Does that mean that other’s can not reach 700 hairs an hour or others do not have superior equipment and great skill? No.
5.1 seconds a hair is easily achieveable using thermolysis.
Over the years, I have seen the work of some of the grandest self promoters as many of their clients have ended up in my office and, I can tell by their work that they did not use the newest equipment. That is clearly why I say, visit several professionals in your community and see for yourself.
How many hairs per minute depends on the area being treated, the structure of the hair and the ability of the client lay still.
If one has to work on the neck of a woman who is obese and has arthritis in her neck, it is really hard to position the client so the electrologist does not have to contort like Gumby. I can see how five hairs per minute could be tops in that case. On the other hand, I can easily remove 700-900 hairs per hour on a flat area like a man’s back. That translates into 12-15 hairs per minute. Facial work can go very fast, too. It is rare when I can’t remove 500-600 per hour on someone’s face. Five hairs a minute is slow, but passable, but what are the other specifics involved? Hey! electrolgists are not located on every corner in every city of the planet. We are a rare species. If five hairs is the fastest she can do, you will still receive permanent hair removal, so be careful who you snub.
Like Arlene said, good tools of the trade is the secret. Thanks to corporate titans like Apilus and Silhouet-Tone for bringing these good tools to the market. Modern tools allow a great electrologist to become even greater. Look around and compare. Verbalize that you are doing so. Maybe if consumers told practitioners about the electrologist that uses better tools on the other side of town, then maybe those using antiquated equipment and techniques would bring it up to a higher standard and not embarrass the rest of us.
My electrologist easily gets 700 per hour; I’ve counted the seconds between hairs. She has excellent hand/eye coordination as well as custom built magnification (her prior job was manufacturing glasses).
I have a pretty good idea what I should ask and look for. After all, I have been delaying this for years (I am 24). The laser consultation form was just so convenient. It was nice to know I didn’t miss anything important.
The funny thing is, there is nothing left for me to say here.
It’s all been covered. 700 hairs an hour is not the fastest pace in electrolysis, it is not even the fastest I can work, and yet, it is not necessarily possible given certain circumstances. It is, however, VERY UNLIKELY, if one is not using an auto sensor, or micro-flash, or pico-flash.
Note:
speed is a variable thing based on what one is treating, and on whom one is working, and comparing one person working against 4 people working is strange math. The 700 hundred hair figure is an average, and therefore is not the maximum speed limit, nor a guaranteed minimum.
If one has 100 or more hairs per square centimeter, it is easy to rack up speed above 1,000 hairs per hour on a face. Not as easy on, say, a back, or belly.
As for E 2000/3000, I have had enough clients sample both and choose to continue with me to feel just fine about my alleged inferiority.
Dee last two pages in above thread indicate E3000 to be twice as fast as James, and James has regularly posted how fast and good he is since I have visited these forums – so I assume E3000 is incredible if James’ claims about his own superiority are true.
I need to go back and read that thread and will do so when I have a moment, tembo. You’re a hard person to keep up with! I’m trying to read all these links you provide, so I sound half-way intelligent when I comment! Thanks, I think!
Well… yes, they work in two’s with lidocaine at E-3000. Reading that link tells me that Jenny Sand received first, full clearance in 13.5 hours with two electrologists. James said that he can clear the average male beard in 20 hours or less. So, by my calculations, at E-3000, it would take one electrologist 27 hours if she worked alone to clear male facial hair, but two can get it done in 13.5 hours. By my calculations, even with James working alone, James is faster.
This is not a betting competition to see who is faster. If E-3000 and James Walker can clear a male beard in under thirty hours, for the first time, then the public should know they exist and perhaps seek their services if they so desire.
Well if you read that thread, James says his estimates agree with the E-3000 client’s quotation, assuming the quoted E-3000 times were for two people. It turned out that the quoted time was per person, so they are twice as fast as James and therefore super fast.