Alright, my answers are any of infinite possibilities for doubling the volume of a cylinder with a length of 6.5” and circumference of 5”. I was merely pointing out two distinct possibilities. The first case is assuming that the length and girth both increased by an equal amount. The second case was the case in which the ratio between length and circumference was kept constant.
Penises come in many different sizes, but I think that 6.5x5 is a very common size, so the L/G ratio of 4/3 is what I looked at. This will keep the general size of the penis the same, but with simply an enlargement factor applied to it. For instance, I came up with 8.189x6.300 as a doubling of volume, while keeping the L/G ratio intact. In this case, both the length and the girth are 1.260 times bigger than they were in the original case of 6.5x5 (a gain in size of about 26%).
I suppose you could examine looking at length vs. area, but I’m not sure how that would work exactly. Area is a function of the cirumference ( Area = [(Circumference)^2 ] / (4 * pi) ), so it does get taken care of properly I believe. I think it’s just easier to compare length and circumference (or width even), simply because that is what is used in PE terminology the most often. So you could find a correlation between length and area and find a formula to solve for the proper “ratio” between them, although I think this could be a bit tricky. This is mostly because you are comparing units of inches to units of square inches, and therefore have that whole squaring issue to worry about.
hobby, I guess I see your point about comparing the area, but in my opinion, I think the area gets taken care of properly as long as you keep the ratio between current length and current circumference intact. That way, the penis has the same general shape, but is simply a bigger version of itself.
In my case (6.5x5 to 8.189x6.300), the width of the penis also increases by a 26% factor, as diameter increases linearly with circumference. So, if you were looking down at your own erect penis while standing up (looking at it as a 2-dimensional object), its width and length will have increased proportionally, so therefore it would look like the same “rectangle” (I know I’m making a big stretch there in describing the shape), only the length and widths will have increased by the same factor, hence keeping the same aspect ratio.
If you also took a cross-section of the penis in the case I mentioned, the area of a cross section of the penis would increase by a factor of 1.587, or about a 59% increase in actual area (1.989 square inches vs. 3.158 square inches). This seems like a significant increase to me, as yes, this is more than double the increase of the 26% for the cases of width or circumference or length (due to the squaring action).
So, if you were to flop things around, and only had a 26% increase in penis area, that would only result in a little over a 12% gain in girth. And I kinda just forgot where I was going with this argument, so I’ll stop for now, haha.
Alright, I guess it’s apparent that I’m getting tired here, so I’m going to try to get a quick nap in before I have to be up in a couple of hours. Not sure if I was answering any questions along the way, or just merely complicating matters, but I hope anything I said made sense.
In any of my visualizations, it does help to picture the penis as a cylinder, which becomes a rectangle if you were to imagine it in a 2-d plane, assuming you were observing it from its upper surface (like standing up and looking down at your erect penis). As for the cross-sectional view, assume basically that you are looking head on at the penis, and if you were to take a slice (ouch!), this would be in the shape of a circle. I guess it helps if you ever took cad or know anything about orthographic drawings. I would use more anatomical terms to describe the various planes and surfaces, but I don’t think they would be of much help in this case.
Anyways, I’m rambling on, so I am cutting myself off now.