Thunder's Place

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

Girth theory: Pumping vs. clamping

Originally Posted by sparkyx
Nice to have you back Xeno.

I brought up ellipical strain earlier in the thread, but it pertains primarily to tissue directly under and adjacent to the clamp and not the overall strain produced by internal pressures…so it wasn’t discussed.


I think that the elliptical strain is also interesting concept with regards to tunica tension surrounding the clamp. I agree, though, that it is not applicable to the penis as a whole with regards to PE in general.

Originally Posted by sparkyx
More likely its a genetic structural difference of either less wavey structure, less elastic fibers or a combination of both.

Growth of flaccid size may be cumulative damage of the elastic fibers, but thats just a guess.


I’ve been thinking about this orientation to try to explain the difference between “growers” and “showers”.

With an undulating orientation of the connective tissue of the tunica with the bends connected by elastic fibers (see the attachment to post #357), it would appear, in my mind, that a “grower” has shorter elastic fibers so that in a relaxed position in the flaccid penis, the collagen fibers are folded to a shorter penis length. Variable length in the flaccid penis would then be dependent the amount of blood within the penis. As blood volume increases and decreases the elastic fibers would be stretched longer or relax shorter, respectively.

In “showers”, I believe that elastic tissue fibers might be longer so that in their relaxed position in the flaccid penis, the collagen fibers would be held in a longer (less folded) position. Less blood is needed to pull the penis to it’s full erect length, knowing full well that it still has to increase to its full erection girth.

Is this genetic or can it be influenced by PE; Fowfers?

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by SteadyGains
I agree that the model I presented is not the best, but as far as PE, I can experience the same pliability gain from low level clamping or pumping. There is some load, I agree, but the pliability gain may be a factor of time than intense pressure. Then when maximum force is applied, the expansion is greater.

Are you saying the tunica is not pliable? Or not pliable under maximum stress? I guess I cannot under stand how it can be disputed? I have clamped to over an inch or more of solid base girth with absolutely no fluid.


Pliability is another way of saying compliance. At peak erection (either spontaneous or by stimulation; hear that ttt) the tunica has a very low compliance, that is it is less pliable. At lower levels of erection, the compliance is higher (more pliable).

The goal of tension-induced connective tissue remodeling in the penis is to apply an adequate tension, whatever that my be. Remember that by LaPlace’s law tension is directly related to pressure and radius. I agree with you that low level clamping or pumping works (that is if you and I agree that low level means at a lower level of erection; 50 - 75%). In this lower level erection, you can increase tension by increased radius and pressure on the unloaded (or lets say less loaded) tunica (clamping, pumping, squeezes, jelqs, slinkies). In peak erect penis, the amount of radius increase is very, very small, so that tension is developed almost exclusively by pressure.

As a number of us have said in this thread, we believe that increasing tension in the unloaded tunica leads of elongation of connective tissue fibers and that increased tension in the loaded tunica leads to increased fiber diameter.

Originally Posted by ticktickticker
I am with you, Steady.

Pudendum is an academic mind (smart ass, as ThunderSS noticed), but without experience in neither pumping nor clamping if I remember correctly.

Pe is pretty much an empirical “science”. We are trying to work on the theoretical background in this thread, but must keep in mind that the theories should not contradict our experience.


Originally Posted by SteadyGains
Pudendum seems very open minded and a great thinker, but I think to apply all his knowledge he has to take things into his own hands, so to speak.

I agree this is a good thread, I like to ground it in the empirical as well.


I have taken things into my own hands (though it would be nicer in her hands) and have had great success. That I chose not to clamp or pump was a personal decision. BUT, I have practiced tension-induced remodeling PE just as well as you have; just different. Jelqing at 50 - 75% erection has given me an over 1” increase in girth since April.

You can mash it, fry it, bake it, slice it, dice it, or peel it; it’s still a potato. We approach PE from many different directions. So if that’s the case, how can explain our success? That is what we’ve been trying to do on this thread. There is not a different mechanism for each different PE method.

I do not believe our theories here contradict experience. But we must not let the idea that varying individual experience means that tension-induced connective tissue remodeling is not important. There are many variables involved in living systems. They are complex. But as I commented to Mr. Happy, you can not just blow this all off.

For example, just because response to a particular drug varies among individuals does not mean that the proposed mechanism of its action is wrong or academic.

Success is empirical, the mechanism is not.

Yes, I am a Smart Ass.

Thanks again. :)

Originally Posted by pudendum
I agree, though, that it is not applicable to the penis as a whole with regards to PE in general.


With multiple overlapping constructively interfering ellipsoidal interaction volumes it’s very applicable.

And empirical.

Originally Posted by pudendum

Is this genetic or can it be influenced by PE; Fowfers?

Just a thought.

One doesn’t preclude the other. There are guys that are genetic “growers” that we have proven here can be turned into “showers”. It seems ADC with things like thera-p bands or some modest constriction seems to do the trick.

Originally Posted by xenolith
With multiple overlapping constructively interfering ellipsoidal interaction volumes it’s very applicable.

And empirical.

Did you ever use the multiple clamp method, as we had discussed? If you did, did you use multiple clamps spaced out over the length of the erection, or did you just move the clamp to different areas?

AND…if you used this method, what results did you see? Did you use this in a IPR format?

Originally Posted by pudendum
I agree with you that low level clamping or pumping works (that is if you and I agree that low level means at a lower level of erection; 50 - 75%). In this lower level erection, you can increase tension by increased radius and pressure on the unloaded (or lets say less loaded) tunica (clamping, pumping, squeezes, jelqs, slinkies).

I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone getting success with pumping at 50-75% erection, usually I hear the opposite, that they don’t get results unless they keep a high level erection.

I think that an unloaded tunica is easier to produce derangement of fibers in, but not while isolated from manual manipulation in a cylinder. It when you can induce ADDITIONAL strain to the fibers, WHILE UNLOADED, that allows the derangement to occur.

I believe that the the derangement force while pumping IS the net stress force on the tunica which is the sum of the internal expansive force PLUS the decreased atmospheric pressure (as has been extensively discussed here).

So if you have a low level erection, the stress on the tunica drops below an effective range. That “opinion” is based on personal experience, and responses from many pumpers on this forum.

If you were somehow able to reach in the tube while keeping the vacuum, and pull, twist or bend the penis, then yes, I believe you could get results, but as that is not possible.

Originally Posted by xenolith
With multiple overlapping constructively interfering ellipsoidal interaction volumes it’s very applicable.

And empirical.


I don’t doubt multiple overlapping constructively interfering ellipsoidal interaction volumes in the peri-clamp zones plays an important role in tension generation (by deformation) as I’ve read in your prior very interesting threads/posts. I also believe that tunica tension in the areas away from clamp resulting from changing pressure and radius changes exerted by the clamp placement is also very important. Both cause tunica tension increase that activate tension-induced connective tissue remodeling. In my mind the same concerns regarding tunica loading or lesser loading (level of erection) apply regarding whether collagen fiber diameter and/or length increase.

Again, experience actually verifies the mechanism and doesn’t exclude it.

‘sparky’ X I had the same idea as you.

Vacuum tube with a knob on end with shaft with vacuum head attachment.

Shaft goes thru greased and rubber bushing into tube.

Allows you to stretch the unit out while in vacuum.

I also too believe that the internal tension will allow tissue remodelling efforts to be conducive.

Originally Posted by sparkyx
I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone getting success with pumping at 50-75% erection, usually I hear the opposite, that they don’t get results unless they keep a high level erection.

I think that an unloaded tunica is easier to produce derangement of fibers in, but not while isolated from manual manipulation in a cylinder. It when you can induce ADDITIONAL strain to the fibers, WHILE UNLOADED, that allows the derangement to occur.

I believe that the the derangement force while pumping IS the net stress force on the tunica which is the sum of the internal expansive force PLUS the decreased atmospheric pressure (as has been extensively discussed here).

So if you have a low level erection, the stress on the tunica drops below an effective range. That “opinion” is based on personal experience, and responses from many pumpers on this forum.

If you were somehow able to reach in the tube while keeping the vacuum, and pull, twist or bend the penis, then yes, I believe you could get results, but as that is not possible.


I understand what your saying. I think I was unclear with regards to my suggestion.

My suggestion of using lower levels of erection 50 - 75% erection was with regards to the level when starting to pump as opposed to putting the pump on at peak erection. I believe the generated tension by the expansion of the penis towards a full erection with the pump will be more successful; not the maintanance of 50 - 75% erection in the pump. The net pressure influence (positive inside and negative outside) plus tunica radius increase are the key to this tension (as explained by LaPlace’s Law). Experience verifies this. It just seems difficult to see enough pressure/radius changes with a pump placed AT peak erection with a low compliant (and thinning) tunica.

I totally agree that manipulation of the penis at lower levels of erection (less loaded) allows mechanical deformation through pressure and radius changes leading to tunica tension increases.

Any ideas how a mechanical deformation can be add to the penis in the vacuum chamber without pressure leak?

Originally Posted by sparkyx
One doesn’t preclude the other. There are guys that are genetic “growers” that we have proven here can be turned into “showers”. It seems ADC with things like thera-p bands or some modest constriction seems to do the trick.


I wonder in light of the undulating collagen fibers arrangement in the tunica, whether the contribution of elastic fibers is lower in “showers” as compared to “growers’. This is an unknown. A lower influence by the elastic component of the tunica connective tissue might suggest a lower number of fibers (compared with “growers”). I haven’t seen any comparative studies.

It could be a combination of both increased elastic fiber length and decreased number. I agree that PE could influence both.

Please note: I am NOT suggesting or recommending that PE aimed at disrupting or destroy elastic fibers (very high intensity) should be performed. The study to which I referred shows major tunica fiber deformation when the distending tension generated by pressures greater than 750 mm Hg. As I said before, this can not be a good thing.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 AM.