| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:14 pm  |
Bethany, RK told me that these type of physical masks work great with these devices.
Good sleuth work, you! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:27 pm |
Cross posting from the Sqoom thread.
I don't know if these have been posted but they
are the specs for the Sqoom. I think someone was interested in them.
Ultrasound Frequency 1MHz
Intensity levels from 0,1 W/cm2 to 0,5 W/cm2
Ionisation 1 Hz/150 usec pulse range |
_________________
Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:29 am |
| bethany wrote: |
| Just an FYI that I recently emailed Lotts who makes the Sqoom, Merbe, and the Fyola in hopes of getting more details on the spec differences. Unfortunately I have not yet heard back from them yet. |
Hi bethany,
Any words from Lotts? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:20 am |
| summer2004 wrote: |
| bethany wrote: |
| Just an FYI that I recently emailed Lotts who makes the Sqoom, Merbe, and the Fyola in hopes of getting more details on the spec differences. Unfortunately I have not yet heard back from them yet. |
Hi bethany,
Any words from Lotts? |
Unfortunately not! But I found a different email address on the website above, and sent a 2nd email last night. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:35 am |
Wow, the nasolabial folds before & after pictures on page 9 are impressive!
Thanks for posting the link, this is very encouraging! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:58 am |
The US device in this article has a power of 1.5 W/cm2, I wonder how is that compared to the devices you guys are using. Sqooms seems to be at max 0.5 W/cm2, way below the one from the article.
Nora |
_________________
52 years, sagging sucks |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:34 am |
Maybe that's for safety reasons:
"As to beautification, the action strength must be much lesser, for not over-stimulating the tissues. On the face, the output is 0.5W/ cm2, to muscles, 1~2W/ cm2. That is why almost all beauty devices limit the highest output".
Source:
http://www.skylarkdevice.com/ultrasonictherapy.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:35 am |
| light123 wrote: |
The US device in this article has a power of 1.5 W/cm2, I wonder how is that compared to the devices you guys are using. Sqooms seems to be at max 0.5 W/cm2, way below the one from the article.
Nora |
Does it mean that Beauly Si-New outperforms Sqoom/Merbe/Fyola? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:52 am |
Can't say, but the pictures in the article from Bethany's link are a result of more powerful US/iontophoresis device, those results should not be extended to be valid to all other 1 MHz US with ionization. When comparing, it should be apple to apple, here it looks more like apples to watermelons 
This is fascinating!
Nora |
_________________
52 years, sagging sucks |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:08 am |
On page 6 of the above mentioned pdf, it says that
"......Therefore, Fyola is supposed to be reformed with consideration of those strengths from Beauly Si and Beauly 2......"
Can anyone elaborate it?
Here is the website of Beauly.
http://www.beauly.co.jp/
The latest Beauly Si-New
http://www.beauly.co.jp/beauly02_3.html
One the bottom of the home page of Beauly; it lists all 4 generations of Beauly.
The latest one was launched in 2006.
Beauly Si (Japanese version of Sqoom/Fyola/Merbe) was developed in 2004.
I am learning everyday!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:09 am |
| light123 wrote: |
Can't say, but the pictures in the article from Bethany's link are a result of more powerful US/iontophoresis device, those results should not be extended to be valid to all other 1 MHz US with ionization. When comparing, it should be apple to apple, here it looks more like apples to watermelons
This is fascinating!
Nora |
I wanted to ask if the power of Beauly-Si was 1.5 W/cm2. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:18 am |
It is in the article, page 3, left column on the bottom.
Light |
_________________
52 years, sagging sucks |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:06 pm |
FYI that I have a Sqoom presentation that says:
| Quote: |
Physiological effects of our SQOOM Concept devices:
Low frequency ultrasound waves (0.6MHz-2MHz) increase the intercellular space |
|
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:33 pm |
Those differences in the results of the Before and After photos are so minor. Really?? The most impressive photos I've seen have been right here with Karenlee!
BTW found a great water-based gel (while waiting for Le Mieux)! Works like a charm, doesn't dry out and easy to get. It's also used for other things . . . and then again if it's good for that, it's good for the face!  Inexpensive, natural ingredients.
PJUR
http://www.amazon.com/Pjur-Med-Repair-Glide-3-4-ounce/dp/B004A6SVTM
Did the new routine today. One pass with gel on #2. The second pass with just good, anti-aging serum and a water spritz on #4. Still experimenting. We'll see! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:47 pm |
| JaeBlue wrote: |
Those differences in the results of the Before and After photos are so minor. Really?? The most impressive photos I've seen have been right here with Karenlee!
|
But Karen is using the Sqoom gels, and those tests did not.
I do think the NL lines showed major improvement, plus the pigmentation on the temple, and the eye bags were good. But the rest of the skin squares....not so much. But it was only 23 days I think. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:09 pm |
Note the lighting on that photo. Lighting is everything! But you're right - there is a difference on that one! The other photos are so minimal.
True about Karenlee!
I'm showing great improvement on my neck so far! Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:13 pm |
I decided to try making a sprayable ultrasound "gel". Used liquid measure rather than a scale.
1 TB Sea Emollient (similar to SKB, but a little thinner consistency)
1 TB pre-mixed 1% HA serum
1/2 tsp glycerin
1/4 tsp Helichrysum extract (green tea extract could be used as an alternative or distilled water)
Makes about one ounce.
I was looking for something that I could easily spray on over a serum. I did a trial run with this spray on my hands. Worked pretty well. One spray lasted almost the 4 minute cycle. I'll try it on my face this evening.
The consistency is thicker than water, but not quite a gel. It has some body to it. My concern is that it may clog in the sprayer, or not disburse well when sprayed. We'll see.
You could substitute aloe gel for the sea emollient. My HA mix has some peptides in it also and I add a preservative.
I'm not a big fan of glycerin, but this amount was ok on the hands. Not too sticky. Might be able to increase it and get a little more slip. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:46 pm |
BTW - personally I think the LED light on this is the least effective part.
I have the Quasar MD, it's a $700+ LED. It takes a half an hour of holding the light flush against the skin for it to work and it's strong. It takes about 4-6 months of use for the those results to last for a length of time.
So I don't think we can expect much from the LED in these, too short of time, not strong and not held directly on the skin. BUT probably won't hurt either!
But I have to add - I'm starting to get excited about this. I am seeing improvement. In photos, too. After less than a week. BUT - want to wait a few weeks before recommending! Let's see what happens then! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:40 pm |
| JaeBlue wrote: |
Did the new routine today. One pass with gel on #2. The second pass with just good, anti-aging serum and a water spritz on #4. Still experimenting. We'll see! |
Hi JaeBlue, Why aren't you using Mode 2 for penetrating your serum since that is considered the infusion mode which uses the ultrasound, galvanic (-), and infrared according to the RK manual. Mode 4 only uses ultrasound, which is used for lifting. New at this and would like to be sure I am doing the right thing. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:41 pm |
Wow this thread is a hotbed of activity!
Thanks Cookie for the article - turns out I do have that - in the multitude of saved US pdf's! 
And thanks to you Bethany as well for all the technical articles. I have plowed thru them but like you the last highly technical one went right over my head!
http://lotts.cafe24.com/eng/image/beauty/new/2005MORECULAR%20STRUCTURE.pdf
Gonna give it to DH to review, but he has been stuck under our Airstream virtually all day & just now closing up shop!  (he is a man of many talents !) Was there something in particular you wanted to know regarding this study Bethany?
And in regards to this link : http://lotts.cafe24.com/eng/image/beauty/new/2003Skin%20Clearing%20and%20Skin%20Protection.pdf
I believe the Beauly was only galvanic & the Beauly 2 was galvanic plus Infrared - but please correct me if I'm wrong! So this does not help with the ? of whether we need combo of US and galvanic + & - ions to get the best results. (after all Jae Blue is getting great results it sounds like & the RK does not have any of these functions)
However this one http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=45731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=200
is a bit more persuasive despite it's small sample size. (so perhaps those settings are not so "gimmicky" after all)
So devices that have it "all" are back on the table atm. I feel a purchase coming on very soon!
Just a soon as I get the final go ahead from DH! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:25 pm |
| packratmack wrote: |
| JaeBlue wrote: |
Did the new routine today. One pass with gel on #2. The second pass with just good, anti-aging serum and a water spritz on #4. Still experimenting. We'll see! |
Hi JaeBlue, Why aren't you using Mode 2 for penetrating your serum since that is considered the infusion mode which uses the ultrasound, galvanic (-), and infrared according to the RK manual. Mode 4 only uses ultrasound, which is used for lifting. New at this and would like to be sure I am doing the right thing. Thanks. |
I wondered the same thing. Mode 4 is going to be one of the least effective. You need galvanic AND ultrasound at the same time for the best penetration. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:00 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| Lowbrowscientist wrote: |
Bethany, do they specify anywhere which form of Vit C they used? The results do look impressive, but I'm still unclear about whether LAA is a good choice for US devices.
I'll probably opt for MAP if I can't find anything about LAA. |
What are your concerns about LAA? Aren't the vitamin C supplements we take orally LAA? Also, it is my understanding that if you take too much Vitamin C it just gets expelled in your urine. |
Hi Keliu 
I love LAA in general, but my skin has been really sensitive in the past and it took a good year or so for it to settle down to where I can use products like LAA and retinol. Since it's an acid, I'm concerned that pushing LAA even deeper into the skin might be more than my skin can handle. I don't want to overdo it and sensitize my skin all over again.
I'll still be using it topically, along with some form of Vit A. I'd really love to use vit A with the US as well, but that's another thing I can't seem to find solid info about (i.e. what forms of A are being used during treatments). I'm sure it's available and I'm just missing it because there's so much to learn and my eyes are glazing over 
Bethany, thank you for finding/pointing out which type of C they used! Look like it's going to be MAP for me, and maybe at some point I'll experiment with a low concentration of LAA. |
_________________
302 (Part one): http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=28855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0 |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:29 pm |
| packratmack wrote: |
| JaeBlue wrote: |
Did the new routine today. One pass with gel on #2. The second pass with just good, anti-aging serum and a water spritz on #4. Still experimenting. We'll see! |
Hi JaeBlue, Why aren't you using Mode 2 for penetrating your serum since that is considered the infusion mode which uses the ultrasound, galvanic (-), and infrared according to the RK manual. Mode 4 only uses ultrasound, which is used for lifting. New at this and would like to be sure I am doing the right thing. Thanks. |
I already use a Quasar LED that is much more powerful. Right now I'm using that daily for 8 weeks, after that I might then continue with #2. I don't want to overdo with infrared light. I think the one on this device is pretty meaningless. I used galvanic in the past and I used it with just water, it worked great. And we know from research Ultrasound is good for product penetration.
As I've said, I'm experimenting. I'm thinking of using #1 and #4 but that will all shift as I go and keep reading. I may just stick with #1.
We'll see. That's the beauty of this! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:33 pm |
I believe the Beauly was only galvanic & the Beauly 2 was galvanic plus Infrared - but please correct me if I'm wrong! So this does not help with the ? of whether we need combo of US and galvanic + & - ions to get the best results. (after all Jae Blue is getting great results it sounds like & the RK does not have any of these functions)
Confused by this comment. RK has US + Galvnic + LED.
What is missing? |
|
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:33 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
