A comparison between two techniques of electrology. The ULTRA-lysis technique, described and named by Mr. Harvey Grove, and the traditional technique used by the vast majority of electrologists.
Here an old thread where the founder describes the advantages of the Ultralysis technique.
Josepha,
I asked this on the youtube, but it’s worth archiving the reesponse here. Here is my question.
I’m wondering about the results shown , which unquestionably support that the electrolysis treatment was more effective. To what do you attribute this difference in overall effectiveness? Is it possibly, that when a hair resists removal it is then treated with more energy, making for the difference in outcome? If not, to what do you attribute the difference? I’m assuming HF amounts and all other factors are the same. A dead hair, where the germination cells have been killed, should not produce another hair, whether or not the hair has shed. Is it possible that given more time the hairs left will shed as normal, and the follicle would still be dead afterwards? I’m thinking it might be worth looking at the results comparison even further down the line at perhaps 6 months or so.
To further explain what I am getting at, what is the normal life cycle of a hair in this area? Is it possible the capillaries feeding he hair are not destroyed, but the ability to create a new hair once they do has been eliminated?
Sorry to ask a tough one, but the dormant scientist in me thinks that the experiment may not yet be finished!
Seana
the other possibility I’m thinking is that finer or shorter hairs may not be seen for the other larger hairs, and that mightmean a mor thorough removal oce the other hairs are out of the way.
I agree with you, Sea. The experiment is not over yet, not because of the waiting time for all treated hairs shed (3 months should be sufficient, even for some of them shed because of its natural cycle), but because a single case has no scientific value. We need to repeat, at least 20-40 cases to draw any meaningful conclusion.
This was just a test to design a protocol (method) which serve as a basis to start.
Why the difference in the results? well, I can only speculate here. Like you mentioned, and I describe at the end of the video, machine, method, size and type of probe, were the same. The settings ​​were also similar, and in both cases I was practicing, so the insertions were right or wrong for both techniques. As with traditional electrolysis, the results were quite acceptable (I think the reduction is 85%, two months later), we have to conclude that the accuracy of the insertions is not the cause of this difference.
What’s left then? HF current. Presumably, the heat did not reach the entire follicle. At least, we know that in a lot of hairs the anchorage zone was not “cooked” or otherwise, these hairs have fallen, as with the few hairs which were detached by themself during the following two weeks.
Scientists say that the simplest explanation is the most likely cause, or something similar. The lesson here is that “the guide hair” tells us everything we need to know: phase, angle and direction of the follicle, but also the location of the anchorage area (our primary goal) when the probe is removed and hair slides without resistance. If you suppress this step, the results will be as disappointing as when the client feels tugging, plucking, or popping. Even if they are made with great sweetness.