Strain ellipse mechanics adjacent to clamps
sparkyx had proposed the idea that deformation of tissue adjacent to clamps is where girth gains come from in aristocane’s clamping thread. The idea made sense to me from the standpoint of strain ellipses which I tried to explain:
I’ve done a little modeling of the area adjacent to a clamp/hanger using principles of statics. Upon application of a normal stress to tissue (applying the clamp or hanger) the geometry of the tissue adjacent to the edge of the clamp (or hanger) is forced into tension (i.e. elongation) oriented at some angle (which is a function of the magnitude of impingment of the clamp/hanger, i.e. how tight it is) from the impinging edge of the clamp/hanger. This induces compressional deformation of tissue located orthogonal to the tension vector. Together, this tensional and compressional geometry defines a strain ellipse. Take a look at this site for an explanation of strain ellipses and associated shear strain and elongation. Make sure to click “next” to view all seven slides (#7 is the most meaningful for this discussion). What does this mean for us? It means that elongation (e) of tissues adjacent to normal stresses (clamps and hangers) is expressed by means of mobilization of shear strain (ψ) along a vector that becomes oriented more radially (with respect to a penis) at increasing normal force (tighter clamp/hanger). Translation: tighter clamp/hanger = more radial strain = more girth growth.
I followed that up with an attempt to describe how strain ellipses work with an example:
Loose translation of a rough approximation:
The change in radius of the penis under the clamp equals the distance away from the edge of the clamp that the maximum value of radial (i.e. girth affecting) strain ocurrs.
Ex: EG=6”, so radius=0.955”, EG under clamp=4” (a guess), so radius under clamp=0.635”; so change in radius=0.32”, so the maximum radial (girth affecting) strain ocurrs at a distance of 0.32” outboard from the clamp…for this hypothetical example. It’s important to note that this approximation approximates the location of maximum strain, some strain, but less, ocurrs for some distance both toward the clamp and away from the clamp from the point of maximum strain; a reasonable guess for the dimension over which say, half the maximum strain ocurrs would be half the distance to the point of maximum strain, or, for our example, 0.16”. So the distance of ‘effective’ (where effective = strain > 0.5 maxiumum strain) strain outboard from the clamp, would, for our example, be 0.32”+0.16”=0.48”…about half an inch. So, for our example, clamps placed every 0.5 inches would, in theory have overlapping interaction volumes, resulting in near maximum strain throughout the 0.5” between them. However, this loose translation of a rough approximation is two dimensional; obviously it’s really a three dimensional problem; so there is certainly some interaction with the volumes of tissue on either side of the hypothetical two dimensional slice of tissue that we’ve analyzed here. The three dimensional aspect of the real penis+clamp configuration will serve to reinforce the generation of strain by virtue of multiple interactions of multiple interaction volumes…translation: The 3-D aspect of the real situation means that we can add some further distance between clamps and still retain the criteria for ‘effective’ strain between the clamps. For our example, I’d guess we could add another 0.5 times the 2-D ‘effective’ strain…0.25”, yiedling, for the real (i.e. 3-D) case, a maximum total distance between clamps that is sufficient for ‘effective’ strain of ~0.75”. For this hypothetical example.
I’d recommend going with observation and intuition when deciding where to place clamps, but it is fun to try to guage our intuition against principles of physics. Bottom line: based on our example, half an inch is probably too close together (i.e. overkill), an inch is probably too far apart (unless you’re going for a ribbed pussy pleaser :) ) and somewhere in between is probably just about right. Maybe.
Turned out that not much understanding was conveyed. Figured a few sketches would help. So I drew up a few. The main aspect of sparky’s hypothesis that strain ellipses explain very well is deformation of clamp adjacent tissue in both radial and longitudinal directions. Because, in this clamping scenario, long axes (tension vectors) of strain ellipses are oriented in both the radial (girth growing) and longitudinal (length growing) directions, deformation and therefore growth, in both girth and length would be expected if strain ellipse mechanics is operant. Aristo says he’s gained both from his multiple clamping training. Proof that strain ellipse mechanics are operant adjacent to clamps? Nah. Supporting evidence for it? I’d say so. Anyhoo, here’s the sketches, I hope they help guys make sense of my earlier posts.