Can you give me a diameter of the larger part of the cone ?
If the large part does not exceed .007" I can probably do that. I’ll need the diameter and length of the smaller part also. You can use the exposed tip of one of our larger sizes for a measuring stick to measure the length of the smaller tip under the scope.
I’ve missed your post Mike, I’ve been luxuriating in a post-holiday stupor (all visitors and friends are gone! No rotten kids running amok and pulling off my toupee!)
I’d get a hold of Ballet TCS and TCM sizes to have a look-see at tapered needles that are almost appropriate (for most uses). However, I wouldn’t waste your time trying to produce these “lovelies.”
Those using tapered needles are in “decline” as are those using blend and manual thermolysis. The next decade is “the Dectro decade” for sure as all the other manufacturers (save Instantron) have opted-out … given in … “tummied-up.” The cowards!
I would suggest sticking to your insulated needle and not waste your time on a product that is mostly misunderstood, not used and in decline.
I hate to say this; but I’m a realist!
I’m a fairly new electrologist and while I use an Apilus machine (mostly since I liked them better than the other machines I’ve played with), I’m all for experimenting with different probes and techniques.
Based on what you’ve posted and my own background that includes some electrical engineering and medical knowledge, I’d certainly have some interest in trying out non-insulated tapered probes. Having tried insulated probes from Ballet, Protec and Laurier, I definitely prefer the Laurier probes.
That said, I mostly use insulated probes for comfort when sensitivity is an issue, as I feel non-insulated probes offer a better heat profile to the follicle, particularly if the bulge is further away from the papilla. If a pull tapered probe can enhance that further, I’m definitely interested, particularly with the amount of trans faces I do.
I do make custom Probes for folks Michael. It probably wouldn’t make it to the product list but I’d be glad to make you some if I can have some dimensions. Do you have even a used one you could tape to a sheet of paper and mail to me ?
I would order the two sizes I mentioned above from Ballet (TCS and TCM). These work pretty well for beard cases. Actually, it’s with the really gigantic hairs (follicles) that the tapered needles are superior … and, for the exact reasons you state.
I can’t tell you how PLEASED I am to hear your understanding of the follicle, i.e., the location of the bulge in relationship to the “anchor.” (And in a longer follicle, “exactly where the bulge is” becomes a BIG issue. With a bare needle … no problema.)
I watched a video yesterday and the electrologist was STILL only “hammering on” about the papilla (only). And, yes, the “anagen only” shite too. So many of “us” don’t have a clue.
I will also say that those working with the TG community always seem to end up being the BEST electrologists! If they are TG themselves … well, they seem (to me) to be at the very TOP of the list of superior operators.
I suppose “being there” gives one desire to get-it-right … it’s not just a hobby or part of the “beauty trade.”
For example, I am now 75% finished with a beard case (average moderate beard). We are at 34 hours now, and this case will “come in” less than 60 hours total (that’s my average over all these years). I don’t think that’s a bad average for beard work … using my “slow method.”
Mike Roy … I pray every day that there are more “guys” in the field like you!
Impressive. Although i am becoming more and more efficient (faster and at the same time needing less energy) there is still some learning for me to get there… (i am actually looking forward to seeing outcomes of 70-80 hours).
But You are aware that beside You there are pretty few electrologists, especially blend specialists, who are able to work that fast?
But You are aware that beside You there are pretty few electrologists, especially blend specialists, who are able to work that fast?
Beate, on what evidence to you base this statement?
That’s what i see here in Germany.
I would ask how many “seen in Germany” electrologists (and their statistics) have you encountered. I mean real numbers.
There is point to my questioning here … NOT singling you out (too much) … but there is something here for all of us to consider.
I’m about to make a point … so, on we go!
Ok, let me give some numbers:
let’s assume a beard consists of 40000 hairs.
lets’ assume the electrologist works at 5 hairs per minute (including everything like wiping the dead hairs away which slows the treatment down a lot).
I therefore consider this typical for slow thermolysis and traditional blend as it is taught by the three electrologists i am aware of giving courses in blend. And as i have been taught and practised that in my beginnings.
Assuming a kill rate of 100%,
this will lead to a treatment time of 8000 minutes.
8000 minutes is equal to about 133 hours.
Total treatment time at 100% kill rate.
Assuming a kill rate near 50% will lead You to the order of 250 hours which is often reported as a ballpark figure for treatment time for beard removal.
If You are going twice as fast as those 133 hours, You need to make something really different, even more as a kill rate of 100% is hardly realistic.
I do not doubt Your estimate. It just shows me that You must be working really different from what i have been taught as blend (and what i started to do better from day 1 on).
That’ s a good well-reasoned answer Beate … where does the assumption of 40,000 beard hairs come from?
Indeed, there are difference sources for this, but from Gillette (the beard shaver people), here’s what they say (check the web yourself!):
Q: How many hairs are in a man’s beard?
A: A man’s beard typically contains between 7,000 and 15,000 hair follicles, a number that is genetically determined. No new follicles are formed after birth.
So using your computation (based on the HIGH Gillette figure of 15,000, and your “5-hairs per minute”), that would be 50 hours of work … and that’s just about where I “come in” on beards … actually, 60 to 80 is what I tell most of my beard clients.
My estimates are not “pulled out of my butt,” but based on what I’ve been doing for 40 years. Indeed, people have accused me of LYING (directly and in more subtle tones) … But if LYING were the case, just how would I deal with clients to whom I have given my estimates?
1 Like
I did not accuse You of lying at all. It is quite obvious that either the estimate of hair follicles might be wrong or that You were working faster than 5 hairs per minute (which i know is easily possible in blend, even if You do not use something like Your “body technique”.
The number of hairs is taken from at least one of my textbooks on electrolysis. Or maybe has been given by Iris Gminsky during my initial training (her material is based on Your book). A while ago James posted another number here in Hairtell - 57000 hairs removed or so. I have also seen somewhat smaller numbers, but always significantly larger than in the Gilette FAQ. Again, there are huge differences in the number of hairs in a beard: people with huge whiskers appear to me to have fewer hairs then the fine-haired -group i also belong to.
A few years ago, has been a questionnaire among electrologists in the Fachverband Elektrologie - colleagues were asked to give estimates on a few epilation situations. The times ranged form 80 to 400 hours, and there was a clear split between the “blenders” and the “fast thermolysis fraction”, the first one being all slow. And that again corresponds to everything i hear from the trans communities.
Back to the probe issue: i am fully with You in that the fine details of epilation probes do matter a lot. Your Hinkel-type probes seem to be as optimized for Your working style as the IBP is for flash thermolysis (and Mike’s tapered probe nearly as well).
A negative example is in my eyes the Sterex 2-piece probe: basically it is doing its job - i need only moderately larger settings than with the IBP, like with most other brands. But the people find treatments with that probe really painful compared to all other probes i tried. At least the larger sizes (i am still trying them in size 4 and 5 occasionally) feel pretty similar on insertions to Mike’s probes, so my insertions do not seem to be the problem.
During my time at Hinkel’s school we worked on a lot of TG clients. Hinkel would tell us that about 100 hours (blend) would be your average beard time. He also had us tell the new patients the same. It worked out that way … with student work.
I will have more to say on this topic in the morning. Lots of work today.
Another way to “compute” the amount of hairs in a beard would be to take clients, average the hair-to-minute and total hours and thus make a conclusion of the number of hairs.
I would guess that Iris Gminski would give a very high number of hairs … remember, I know Iris pretty well … both in Europe and here too.
Remember, doing any technique is not “a machine” or even a modality.
Still, I know I’m never going to convince you … of anything.
As to the questionnaire, I would ask, “how many people took part in the survey?” Ten people? Twenty-five? Two hundred? Numbers count in such a survey. (Nobody asked me or any other electrologist I know.)
The variance of 80 to 400 hours tells me that some rank amateurs were involved or the beards were wildly different in hair count. Still, “57,000 hairs in a beard” is laughable. Where do people come up with these numbers?
(I do remember, with a bit of humor, the several times Iris phoned me and ever-so-seriously asked, “How many hairs are there in a man’s beard?” I find the question somewhat absurd. I’m not actually a “bean counter.”)
But none of this matters when minds are made up and decisions are set in stone. “The blend is slow, and anesthetic is dangerous” … and that’s that! End of discussion. One will find the evidence to support the supposition.
However, for some corroboration Dee Dee is going to see one of my (our) favorite clients this week … thus she can see and report on what she observes. She has my data in hours, the area (only) I cleared two times, and an impeccably honest client … She can report what I’ve done.
One nice “thing?” I don’t have to prove ANYTHING to my clients!
I already mentioned the source and the author.
Again, i do not put any doubt in the efficiency of You work!
We have some data which apparently contradicts each other. So instead of getting upset i would suggest to look more closely for the reasons of the discrepancies. There may be many, and i think we would learn from each other. Mostly i from You, of course.
But none of this matters when minds are made up and decisions are set in stone. “The blend is slow, and anesthetic is dangerous” … and that’s that! End of discussion.
We should avoid mixing independent topics. Anestetic is potentially dangereous. That German woman really died, and the scars in my face are not only real but are beginning to be more visible as i am growing older (not unexpectedly). BTW - the injections themselves were so painful that it almost was not worth the effort. And it is not only me reporting this from that specific technique. (BTW: in by far most cases where i observe inefficiency of EMLA treatment the clients did not cover the treated area correctly).
So i can easily understand and accept in an at least general sense that anestetic is under strict regulation and therefore out of reach for most electrologists. But thats a wholly different story than the efficiency of out treatments. And be assured: i am always open to learn.
The issue I’m seeing here is what a person says or thinks in the face of dealing with something they have no experience with or real understanding about. To me that’s the issue.
But I have lost interest in continuing this topic because I realize there is no possibility of you seeing that basic issue. I’m not talking about (or so interested in) the “subjects,” but the way in which the subjects are approached. So many of us (in this dreadful little profession) establish opinions immediately … without first seeking out an abundance of facts.
For example, to date, you have not bothered to actually ASK me precisely what I’m doing with “the blend?” … I mean in a nice “fact-finding manner.” But you have made assumptions and ridiculed what I’m doing … saying, “it’s not possible.” Okay … not in so many words … but in essence YES, ridicule!
Let me try to make this abundantly clear. In this painfully long thread, have you asked me what I’m doing? No you have not. But you have done your mathematical computations, based on your assumptions, and reasoned that what I’m doing is not possible.
On the subject of anesthetic? You only mention the danger issue and legal issue and your own experience. Have you ever asked Josefa what she’s doing? Have you gone to Spain to see and appreciate what she’s doing? Have you traveled to close-by Spain to see for yourself?"
No! But you certainly don’t hesitate in proclaiming and denouncing what you have very limited experience with.
For anyone silly enough to be reading through all this, as always I’m looking at the “big picture!” And this attitude is what I see ALL the time in our profession. So, in truth Beate … this post is NOT about you … it’s about all of us and what I see as an annoying flaw that has kept this group in an ongoing uneducated state.
For me, that’s a very big issue and I have been insulted by several of your posts that reflect a basic intransigence. But that’s really okay … let’s just forget this issue and move on. Some “mountains” cannot be climbed.
Oh, and by the way, I REALLY like you a LOT! I’m not kidding! Don’t take any of this personally! Everybody knows what a royal pain in the butt I am!
I’m also thankful for this thread. I think it might give some of us an issue to ponder?
Just another source from a textbook - Gerard Peyrefitte: Anatomie und Physiologie der Haut für Kosmetikerinnen - used by Iris in her courses - p. 41:
Der Bart ist ein sekundäres Geschlechtsmerkmal des Mannes. Er besteht aus etwa 30000 Haaren, mit maximaler Dichte beim mediterranen Typ.
Which implies that “Northern European” men typically have less hairs in the beard, at least in their younger years (mine became a lot stronger until far in my 40s).
But this also shows that we need to look more closely at the control group when we want to talk about the typical effort. I am pretty sure that there are not few men with significantly more than those 30000.