Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Circumfrence shape MATTERS!!!

123

I wonder if it would be possible to grow a square penis the same way the Japanese do with watermelons. That would be fun/weird to see. I wonder if there is anyone crazy enough to try!

A cross section of my unit at the widest point would be - half an ellipse on top and more of a rounded boat hull ‘V” shape on the botom half. Great for riding the waves of pleasure.

dkp


July 2007-BPEL 7.0 MidEG 6.0

Current BPEL 8.5 MidEG 6.3 Goal 8 NBPEL / 6.5 EG. Progress Pictures Progress Report My ADS

Originally Posted by enrdbrow
On the volume aspect of things. If you want an honest measurement of volume, you could always fill up a jug with water (one of the cylindrical one’s that chemists use would probably be best), Get in push-up position above and pop your erect penis in. The volume of the water that exited the jug/cylinder is your erection volume.

I have thought of doing that before. When I get some more time, I may go ahead!!!!!

Gimli


Start: May 12, 2007 BPEL: 5.551" EG: 4.646" FL: 3.051" FG: 3.858" Please Fill Out My Survey: Click Me!

Now: July 13, 2007 BPEL: 6.250" EG: 5.500" FL: 3.346" FG: 4.488"

Goal: BPEL: 7.000" EG: 6.000" FL: 5.000" FG: 4.750"

Yes I was also considering this. Accuracy would be difficult to attain.

You could just use a graduated cylinder, and mark a line for water height before you put your penis in, and then after.

Gimli


Start: May 12, 2007 BPEL: 5.551" EG: 4.646" FL: 3.051" FG: 3.858" Please Fill Out My Survey: Click Me!

Now: July 13, 2007 BPEL: 6.250" EG: 5.500" FL: 3.346" FG: 4.488"

Goal: BPEL: 7.000" EG: 6.000" FL: 5.000" FG: 4.750"

What is interesting is that the shape of a circle results in the biggest area for a given circumference as mentioned earlier on this thread. That would mean that in order to have a large circumference compared to cross-sectional area (ie.relatively low cross-sectional area) one would pursue in growing a very elliptical penis. This is only if surface area is wanted to be gained with minimum requirements for actual tissue growth (chamber tissue growth). Surface area is wanted because it in turn stimulate a greater surface area within the vagina. So the best way to increase girth if you want to minimize the need to grow more tissue (except tunica tissue of course) is to increase the width as appose to the depth of the penis. But then again seeing as the tunica probably limits girth gains increasing the penis depth is probably easier as it won’t increase circumference as much as it is giving the penis a more “perimeter-sparing” or “circumference-sparing” shape which is circular, as a circle will have maximum area with minimum perimeter. So if you want to minimize the need to stretch the tunica (as this is hard apparently) then you could increase the depth of your penis which should happen more easily than increasing width, yet will require more tissue growth as it results in a greater increase in volume than if the same girth gains where due to increased width. Hope that made some sense!

I recently posted on this. The theory that there is more area to be had from a true circle to true ellipse is False I believe, assuming you are looking at both axises. Also the thought that any calculation can be based on this would also be false. The coefficient or value to calculate size based on diameter would not be 3.14 nor would the equation for an ellipse be accurate since the shape is not mathematically defined by these shapes. In fact, it would almost certainly be somewhere between the square and the circle (closer to circle) and have some obscure value like 3.25R(squared). A lot of people screw up the calculation for Diameter by crushing themselves with a ruler as studies put the average between 1.25-1.55 for diameter. That said, it would be great to add more circular shape by adjusting routine if that is possible.

Thought it was obvious.

My MSEG is bigger than base girth and head girth so to calculate my volume by using MSEG would be incorrect. If ever had any interest in calculating my volume I think base girth would be the best since even if it’s not accurate, I’ll know I’m not below that


Start » 6.70 x 5.30 (BPEL x MSEG)

Yeah, I’m just saying that a lot of people have mentioned using diameter and depth as if they can calculate their size from it and you can’t. Almost all dicks fall within that range of circle/ellipse and square/rectangle almost always falling CLOSER to a circle/ellipse, but it’s still not very accurate. Long story short- they should really look at volume in studies. As the original author posted, this can vary greatly depending on shape. I don’t know- Maybe this is obvious to everyone, haven’t been around in a while haha!

You can increase the cross sectional area in the vagina very easily by changing the angle of penetration in whichever dimension you desire. Technique trumps shape here

Top
123

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 AM.