Share your settings! (blend, therm, galvanic)

I thought it would be interesting to see what kind of settings everyone is using. I realize that there’s really not many active DIY’ers on this forum but still, hopefully this gives those that just read the forum a chance to share!

Silhouet-Tone SB 2 [Thermolysis range 0 - 10] [Galvanic Range 0 - 3.0] (in decimal increments)

Thermolysis i use 3 as kind of a global setting. With deeper insertions (lower stomach) i find that taking it up a notch to 3.5 - 4.0 effectively kills the follicle. My timer is set to shut off at 0.33 seconds, occasionally i will pulse twice if i don’t think it is fully dead.

Galvanic i’m using anywhere from 0.7 to 1.0 depending on the depth of the hair. For thick dark hairs i find i can apply galvanic at about 0.8 for 3-5 seconds and the hair will be dead. i use 1.0 at about 5-8 seconds for deeper hair.

Blend has always been a bit confusing to me, since i rarely use it. Stomach hair for example requires a deeper insertion, i use Galvanic at 1.0 and thermolysis at around 2 and ‘pulse’ the follicle quickly to heat it up with thermolysis every second for about 5 seconds. For arm hair etc, i usually use Galvanic at 8.0 and therm at 2 and pulse the hair with the same method for usually less time. Perhaps there’s a happy median that i just haven’t found yet.

My Ballet F3 probes are a favorite regardless of the area i’m working on. I still have a couple of TC, TB and TA shanks lying around that i might try out again using blend.

[color:#990000]Hey iLikeDIY,

I don’t want to leave your post hanging, but it kind of is difficult the way all these machines have their own proprietary way of labelling strength levels. My 75 Watt ST SEQ-1 uses a different system and so does my Apilus. I can say I for the bigger coarse hairs I hit with 95% @ .09 seconds with a machine rated at 110 Watts. I stay with F3G’s and F2G’s, but definitely need to buy some 4’s to get some experience with.

I’m kind of eyeing all that Laurier Insulated probe party hoopla going on over there on the pro forum. All I can see is confetti and fireworks from way over here on the south side of town. At first I thought, nah, too costly per needle. But the truth is, it’s actually better for a DIYer, because we can re-use needles over and over. So having a really good needle would be more cost effective. I mean, I’ve used my current two needles for three or so weeks. Now, I wouldn’t recommend it for a beginning DIYer that bends needles frequently, but paying $2.50 for a needle that minimizes eschars would be worth it, pretty much by far.[/color]

There are better reasons to invest in a Laurier IBP than to reduce the size of crusts or just avoid them altogether. A DIYer, who has not yet mastered fully the depth of a follicle will feel better the barrier separating it from the interfollicular tissue. Let’s see if I can put a clearer example. Have you ever played a game on one of those machines Pinball? If so, you’ve seen how the ball bounces when it hits an obstacle. Well, this is what happens with the bulbous tip of Laurier. The roundness of the tip acts as the ball bounces when collision with a wall or the base of the follicle.
If you allow me a suggestion, try the .004 short. This is perfectly suited to the average of follicles in the body of a man.

It is difficult for professionals from different countries to agree when it comes to something related to Electrolysis. However, here’s a general consensus. Until today, no one has succeeded in fabricating a probe so perfect to work with Thermolysis.

[color:#3333FF]Thank you Josefa,

See, that’s perfect, having a bulb on the tip like that, or at least a very blunted end. I was thinking of that the other day when clearing hairs on the male nipple region. I was thinking how neat it would be to have a tip that flexed to slight contacts with the path I was trying to guide it down. And here it is. Those follicles were just so hard to predict. I’m still getting regrowth because of my misses, but only one every once in a while. They reminded me of toes, probably even more random than toes. I did see that graphic somebody posted showing the radial patterns of the arreola hair, but even with that they’re a challenge with so many changes in depth and turns. Kind of like hair on the kneecaps.

I think I’d be silly not to try the Lauriers. It’s now officially on my to-do list. Your suggestion is appreciated because it’s a lot quicker than reading through those extensive threads to find out. :o

And thanks to the poster ekade who brought it to my attention.[/color] :slight_smile:

You are more than welcome, Mantaray :slight_smile:

Can you suggest from your experience, which Laurier IBP would be best for the thin light hairs of a woman’s face, and for thin hair on womans leg/arms ?

Im not Josefa, but anyway: do You follow the ongoing discussion on that subject in the Laurier thread? Despite of that: thick hair -> thick probe, thinner hair -> thinner probe. Regardless of their color.

Yes, correct the probe should match the diameter of the hair, Danika.

.002 Short and .003 Short o Medium will work very well on fine hair of a woman’s face.
.003 Medium and .004 Short on woman´s arms.
.004 Medium, .004,5 Medium, .005 Medium on legs.

Danika, one thing you should keep in mind if you do not have much experience, is that you should always choose a size slightly larger than initially seem to need. This is because the heat pattern cover a larger area, so you avoid the desiccation and cutting effect.

Sometimes, the selection of the probe does not coincide with the thickness of the hairs, but of the size of the follicle. For example, some women (and men) who have large follicles with large sebaceous glands, however, since these follicles, hairs are very, very fine, then it is best to choose a probe diameter thicker than hairs. Or else, you will be trying to grill “the chicken” with pinpoints hot.

[size:11pt][color:#3333FF]Thanks so much ! At this time I am FAR from being able to implement this information but it is all very m[/size]uch appreciated[/color] :slight_smile: