Can someone shed me some light if you have used both Clareblend/Hinkel (manually) VERSUS Apilus (computerised treatments)? What’r the pro and con? I think this questions may be asked many times previously, please share the links for answers if u may.
Because I only use the devices manually either Blend or only thermolysis. Never ever use the computerised one before.
Thank you all the caring Electrologists out there for your time,
Nora
The reason I ask because I’m still reluctant to invest in something cost more than half the price of a new effective laser hair removal machine. In addition, the computerised ones won’t let me control the energy settings I want to use.
But I’m definitely looking for alternative machine or ways to reduce the treatment time per follicle => Which mean higher energy required but I’m not so sure whether it is safe to do so with the manual blend devices?
Also which such high energy, I believe insulated needles r recommended to minimise therapists’ errors.
In the real world both computerized (high-intensity) flash and manual low-intensity blend are equally effective for permanent hair removal. To the best of my knowledge, no single machine is available that offers both techniques. Aside from owning two machines, the electrologist must choose which approach better suits their business and buy accordingly. I am currently debating which route to go.
Yes the xcell pro is expensive. I’ve never the less had some success with mine, notwithstanding the probeholders which fail constantly.
You can actually set your own parameters and it’s easy to do with slide controls on the touchscreen. After working with the machine for a year, I still find myself finding new features and way to do things. But I’ve been an Apilus machine user since I first started doing electrology, and that’s what I stuck with. At the price though, it will be the only Apilus I purchase again .One of my concerns when looking at swittching away from Apilus was that I wouldnt be able to learn a new way of doing things if Iwent to another manufacturer. But Skip from instantron was a great help in having me get over these apprehensions. And instantrons are less than 1/3 the cost of an Xcell . So that might be one of the options you may consider looking into.
Seana
In reality there is no such thing as “computerized electrolysis” (which is what the public assumes when they hear “computer”).
Indeed, many machines have computerized programs, but the actual electrolysis procedure depends on the operator’s skill ONLY.
Look at it this way. Your modern car has a computer, and there are many features that can assist your driving skills (e.g., APS brakes). However, if you’re a terrible driver, nothing in your car’s systems will keep you from crashing.
Self-driving cars? Probably so, in the future. Fully automated electrolysis? Probably, but in the very distant future (maybe never).
Typo: make that “ABS” brakes
There is a machine that allows you to work manually or through the application of automatic pulses that you have previously configured. It’s the Elite Spectrum of Instantron. At the push of a button, the system switches from manual (where you have timer control) to automatic mode (with which the current will continue to flow until the pre-programmed pulse duration ends).
The only drawback of this machine is that it does not include a clock that controls the treatment time.
Thank you for the clarification Josefa. This leads to my next question - at low intensities, can the Elite Spectrum duplicate the Hinkel/Clareblend technique of several seconds per hair using progressive epilation? In other words, what range on the Spectrum RF settings would be equivalent to the 35 - 90 volts of RF typically employed by the Clareblend and Hinkel machines?
Hi All
So from my digested info, with the machines that I already have (Clareblend & Hinkel) I have to master the how to use the machines in high energy setting!!!??? Can you please tell me what should the settings be for HF & DC says for underarms & legs of says around 60 units of lye so that each follicle released within 2 sec on average?
So far, I have never set the RF above 63 (higher than that client wont tolerate the feeling) & DC never be more than 1 miliAmp. With such setting it took around 4-6 sec to release each hair within 4-6 sec on average.
I cant tell you. I dont work anything like Michael or Josepha do. I did try and do some fast blend experiments back in the day but I cant say I ever got it right. Generally I think the thermolysis pulse is lasting half a second to 1 second so you may not need to turn your settings up as high as you think. The Dc is mostly an aftercurrent it’s the thermolysis that does the heavy lifting.Think along the lines of what it would take to do a normal thermolysis treatment in under a second, then add a second of galvanic on 1ma to seal the deal.
melb if you look in Michaels book the blend method there’s a good description on how to find your working point in thermolysis.
Hi Seana
Thank u very much for your advice.
I’ll probably re-read Michael’s book the Blend again today. But I’m still awaiting for info of those answers.
page 109
Hi Seana,
With reference to page 117 Figure 7, when the hair is from 30 unit of lye or thicker, the book only suggest to treat each hair for minimum of 6 sec. But I have find my working point where each follicle can b treated for 4-6 sec on average (sometime I used Bono’s body technic).
My issue is I wish to treat each hair follicle within 2 sec on average.
How can I do it safely with the machine I currently have got? I believe any higher energy settings require proper insulated needle (by that I mean around 1mm or less of insulation from the skin surface so that the energy still working where the bulge suppose to b)
On the top of my head, Michael Bono suggested in his books at least 4 sec should allow galvanic to work in each follicle. But it took too long to clear the big area.
I wish to clear the big body area (1st clearance) says within the first session or 2 (within 6-8 hrs in total) & then using Bono’s blend technique for later clearance for lower regrowth rate. It takes around 4 clearances to clear all the BODY area permanently using blend technique with uninsulated needle.
But the quicker technique I believe not enough time for the energy to destroy all follicle containing hair stem cells & growth factors, thus higher regrowth rate. But at least I can significantly increase client’s commitment to continue to finish the whole journey since they have the feeling of not having the unwanted hair for the 1st time.
gosh my copy is at the office, and I’m having pc problems with my portable so I dont currently have a computer and the book in the same place:) so I’ll have to wait to reference.
By all means, do use an insulated needle. It will help with your energy levels and with putting that energy in the right place.
Michael has stated several times in the past that what he presents in the book, is not the way he practises.You have to throw away the rule book for blend, ( or at the least the unit of lye calculations part)
Hi Seana
I’ll try.
Thank u,
Nora
Think “Grammar!”
When you learn any new language, you have to think about the various rules of grammar. Once you know the language you no longer have to think about the rules … at all. For example, when you speak your native language, I’m sure you never form the sentences in your head first (with proper grammar) before speaking. (Okay, nowadays we have to think about PRONOUNS!)
In the early days, the blend machines had no DC meters. Hinkel watched what his operators were doing (how they found the balance of currents) and only then he put meters on the machines to discover more precisely what they were doing. Hinkel formulated the “Units of Lye” chart based on what people were already doing. Not the other way around.
And, this is exactly how grammar is developed. “Rule makers” create “rules” in language based on how people are already speaking. The language comes first … and the grammar is formulated later. (That’s why grammar is never perfect.) The first mistake was when Hinkel (actually Bill Schuler) put a “unit computer” on the machine and started to tie people into this “rule nonsense.” (Hinkel himself was opposed to the “unit computer.”) I also emphasized the “chart,” and other manufacturers computerized the whole damn thing.
If I owned a school, I would cover up all the meters and gizmos and have the students find their working point organically using their hands and eyes. Rules and computers cannot supplant the operator’s skill or judgement. You don’t have to break the rules, but you do have to know what constitutes a good treatment. These are two different things.
Additionally, I get a few emails daily that ask, “What are your settings?” I don’t even respond. Why?
The question makes no sense. It would be like somebody asking you, “How many “RPMs” do produce in your motor to drive your car?”
The best answer to professional newbie electrologists or do-it-yourselfers about settings is, start low and work it up until the hair releases … AND the skin looks fine. I get those questions, too, and they cannot be answered precisely because of so many variables. Using a size 2 Gold probe is different than using a size 6 Gold probe. Insertions must be perfect, especially so when doing thermolysis. If insertions are not perfect, the tendency is to turn up the energy level, which is not good.
Hairtell is not a place to educate consumers about the art and skill of doing electrolysis, though we do say general things that can be helpful.
Dee just described the process for finding your working point (same as the book).