Thunder's Place

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

What is your penis weight?

The volume figures, in cubic inches, shown in the size data chart can easily be converted to weight by the application of appropriate conversion factors. For example, a dick having a volume of 20 cubic inches would be found to weigh 12.25 ounces, or about 0.77 pounds; some dicks are going to weigh in at more than a pound!

The following assumptions and relationships have been used for these calculations.

(1) First, although obvious, it should be recognized that two different units of measure are involved; i.e., we are starting with volume in cubic inches but we want weight, which can be expressed either in the metric system as grams, or in the English system as ounces or pounds. The units of measure in the two systems cannot be used together without appropriate conversion factors. Furthermore, to convert volume to weight, something has to be known about the density of the substance in question, or what the weight of a given volume of it is.

(2) Inasmuch as the penis is composed largely of blood at full erection, it is appropriate that a value for the density (specific gravity) of blood be factored in as the basis for the final results. This is not completely accurate anatomically, but in the absence of data on the density of the penis per se, this is as close an estimate as can be made at this time.

(3) The following factors have been used to make these calculations:

****To calculate weight in grams, multiply cubic inches by 17.37.

****To caculate weight in ounces, multiply cubic inches by 0.613.

****To caculate weight in pounds, multiply cubic inches by 0.0383.

(4) The intermediate calculations are:

(a) To obtain weight in grams, multiply the cubic inch volume values shown in the size chart by 16.39 to convert to volume in cubic centimeters (cc), and then multipy this value by 1.06 (grams whole blood per cc at body temperatere of 37 degrees Celcius) to obtain total number of grams of penis weight.

(b) To obtain weight in ounces, divide the gram weight by 28.35.

(c) To obtain weight in pounds, divide the gram weight by 453.59.

(5) List of individual conversion relationships used above:

**** 1 cubic inch = 16.39 cubic centimeters (cc)

**** 1 cc of blood weighs 1.06 grams at 37 degrees Celcius (average from Google search, not exact)

**** 1 pound = 453.59 grams

**** 1 ounce = 1 pound/16 = 453.59/16 = 28.35 grams

I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time, so I’m glad cclark raised the question.

HANK (WB9x7)

Originally Posted by gprent
What length and girth did you plug into the equation?

8x6

I’m 8” BPEL and 6” mid-shaft. I know it’s not a perfect cylinder and that’s probably what the equation assumes, but the result is probably close enough.

I’ll attach the calculator (2Kbyte zip file) if anyone wants to play with it.

Attached Files
pvol-calc_in2.zip
(2.0 KB, 52 views)

I dont see why my water scale wouldnt work. If you put weights in water and mark the spots, you now know how much weight it takes to displaced the water to said point. With 4 or 5 pre measured lines, this should give you the ablity to get a pretty accurate weight by displacing the water.

The question is will you’re dick displace the same amount of water as an iron fishing weight? Let say you’re dick weighs 12.25 ounces, would a iron fishing weight that weighs the same displace the water the same distance? I guess the weights have to be relitively the same mass to get the displacement correct? hmm, maybe golf balls would be a good alternitive to fishing weights…


In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

weighing the penis

I have a scale the my wife uses to measure a portion of her food for her diet. Would that measure the volume of the penis?


Starting Stats 7/15/05 -- Flaccid L 3.375"x Flaccid G 2.125", BPEL 5.250" x EG 3.750"

Stats as of 11/17/07-- Flaccid L 6.000"x Flaccid G 5.6875", BPEL 8.000" x EG 6.125"

Long Term Goal: BPEL 9.000"x EG 6.500" Dusty

Originally Posted by cclark369
I have a scale the my wife uses to measure a portion of her food for her diet. Would that measure the volume of the penis?

No, that would measure the weight, if you could isolate just the penis.

Originally Posted by cclark369
I have a scale the my wife uses to measure a portion of her food for her diet. Would that measure the volume of the penis?

I’m definetly not eating at your house.

Originally Posted by MDC
I’m 8” BPEL and 6” mid-shaft. I know it’s not a perfect cylinder and that’s probably what the equation assumes, but the result is probably close enough.

I’ll attach the calculator (2Kbyte zip file) if anyone wants to play with it.


MDC, I tried out the calculator and noted the same as you did, i.e., that it’s based on the penis being a perfect cylinder, using the standard equations for calculating the volume of a cylinder from length and circumference (to obtain the radius used in the formula for area of a circle). I agree that it’s close enough for ballpark estimates, and it’s also the same procedure used in the PE Data calculations (for total volume in cubic inches) from the link at the bottom of Thunders’ homepage here.

I do have a quibble tho about the calculator calling the volume result “mass” when the value calculated is in cubic inches (even the calculator title refers to cylindrical volume). Please note that I’m not questioning the volume result itself, only what it is called.

However, I have no idea how the weight result, in ounces, is calculated. Do you know? As you indicated earlier, your 8” x 6” dick calculates out to have a weight of 12.71 ounces. This is very interesting because with the procedure I outlined above in post #16, you have 14.05 ounces, or 0.88 pounds. The procedure I use to arrive at the weight of a penis, starting from volume data in cubic inches, is fully explained in my post.

BTW, by my procedure it only takes a slightly larger dick, for example, 8.125” x 6.375” or 8.250” x 6.300” for a full “pounder” (imagine, four times the meat of a Mac quarter-pounder!).

HANK (WB9x7)

Originally Posted by WannaB9x7
The procedure I use to arrive at the weight of a penis, starting from volume data in cubic inches, is fully explained in my post.


ADDITION to what I said above: If you don’t know your volume, you can get it from your length and girth by applying a standard formula from solid geometry, and from that you would calculate your weight by the procedure I outline in post #16.

However, the best way to get your volume is to enter your penis data in the PE Database (see link at the bottom of Thunders home page). If you still want to calculate your volume yourself, I’m sure you can get the formula from the net (search term: volume of a cylinder), or send me a PM.

How far away are you from a full “pounder”?

Thanks.

HANK (WB9x7)

Pud, you are still confusing volume with weight (mass). Picture this, a tennis ball which is light weight and hollow, and a solid lead ball of the same size.

The lead ball weighs maybe 20 times more than the tennis ball. Drop them both in the water bath and they displace the exact same amount of water, because they have the same size (volume). Weight has nothing to do with how much water is displaced.

Other points:

Calculating a penis weight by assuming a density, as wannab9x7 did, isn’t very meaningful to me.

Using the assumption that the penis is a cylinder is not good either, as in MDC’s formula.

The water dip method is a very accurate way to calculate volume, much better than the cylinder formula.

Why do the calculated weights of MDC and wannab9x7 differ? Obviously, because different densities are assumed, since the volumes are calculated the same way (cylinder formula). Which one is more accurate? Who knows.

The density is the missing factor, unless you could directly weigh the penis, in which case you don’t need to know volume or density.


Horny Bastard

Argggh. You have to make things difficult!


Horny Bastard

Originally Posted by mravg
Calculating a penis weight by assuming a density, as wannab9x7 did, isn’t very meaningful to me.

mravg, you have provided a lot of food for thought. I agree that my method may not be the best or most accurate, but it’s based on the fact that an erect penis is filled with blood, for which the density is known to be approximately 1.06 g/cc at body temperature.

Quote
Using the assumption that the penis is a cylinder is not good either, as in MDC’s formula.

Yes, the formula MDC referred to (in “MaxN’s Penile Volume Calculator”) is based on a perfect cylinder to calculate penis volume. But that’s also the basis of the cubic inch volume calculations shown in the PE Data Site, to which hundreds of Thunders members have contributed their measurements. And as I stated in my original post, it’s also the assumption I made in the absence of anything better, even though we know that the results for a curved dick, or one shaped like a tree trunk or baseball bat would be off to varying degrees.

Quote
The water dip method is a very accurate way to calculate volume, much better than the cylinder formula.

mravg, I thought you might be referring to a method mentioned previously in this thread, but I’m not sure. Can you give a few details about it? I agree that a better scientific basis could be devised to determine penis volume or weight, but all I was trying to do was to provide a quick-and-dirty way for guys to use the volume data in the PE Data Site to calculate their penis weight, by doing only one simple multiplication. My method, or any other reasonable one for which the basis of the calculations are stated, could provide a common way by which guys could compare their dicks with others in terms of weight. This is going only one step beyond the PE Data Site, using it’s cubic inch volume calculations to obtain the equivalent in mass, or weight, by applying the factors shown in my post #16.

Quote
Why do the calculated weights of MDC and wannab9x7 differ? Obviously, because different densities are assumed, since the volumes are calculated the same way (cylinder formula). Which one is more accurate? Who knows.

These are the questions I was trying to get at in post #22 to MDC. We know that both methods calculate volume the same way; we know how I calculate weight (blood density basis) as this is set forth in my post #16; but we know nothing about the basis of the other method’s (MaxN’s) weight calculation. Therefore, it is impossible to judge which is the more accurate.

All we know at this point is that MaxN’s weights are about 90.5% of those obtained by my method. But FWIW, if it were to be assumed that the penis is composed entirely of water (density approx. 1 g/cc), instead of blood, my results would be about 94% of the original calculated values.

Quote
The density is the missing factor, unless you could directly weigh the penis, in which case you don’t need to know volume or density.

My words exactly. BTW, let’s thank cclark369 for bringing up this interesting question.

Hank (WB9x7)

:rolling: at Ike!

I know where you are coming from wannab. The assumption of density and cylinderical shape are not terrible assumptions, but you just don’t get the exact penis weight. I understand that assumptions are necessary when exact measurements are not practical. For volume, I was referring to simply dipping the erect penis in water and measuring how much water is displaced. Even with this method it would have to be done carefully, and some error is inevitable. I invision dipping the penis in a completely full container, so that water would spill over into a secondary catch basin where this displaced water would be measured. Dipping the complete “bone pressed” penis would not be easy however.

The cylinder calculation may not be an exact measurement of volume, but gains in size could be represented fairly well by using the cylinder formula to represent the magnitude of change, so it works ok in the thundersplace database…

Density of the penis is probably less than that of blood, because it is a composite of blood, various tissues that may be lighter than blood and even ligher than water, and even some air space (the urethra for example). So I would guess that blood density was an overestimation, and whoever did the other formula also figured that by having a density, as you point out, which is 90.5% of blood. We don’t know if this number is a guess or based on something scientific.


Horny Bastard

Originally Posted by mravg
I know where you are coming from wannab. The assumption of density and cylinderical shape are not terrible assumptions, but you just don’t get the exact penis weight. I understand that assumptions are necessary when exact measurements are not practical. For volume, I was referring to simply dipping the erect penis in water and measuring how much water is displaced. Even with this method it would have to be done carefully, and some error is inevitable. I invision dipping the penis in a completely full container, so that water would spill over into a secondary catch basin where this displaced water would be measured. Dipping the complete “bone pressed” penis would not be easy however.
The cylinder calculation may not be an exact measurement of volume, but gains in size could be represented fairly well by using the cylinder formula to represent the magnitude of change, so it works ok in the thundersplace database…
Density of the penis is probably less than that of blood, because it is a composite of blood, various tissues that may be lighter than blood and even ligher than water, and even some air space (the urethra for example). So I would guess that blood density was an overestimation, and whoever did the other formula also figured that by having a density, as you point out, which is 90.5% of blood. We don’t know if this number is a guess or based on something scientific.

mravg, I think you have made a fair assessment of the current situation, and I have no basis on which to disagree with most of your comments. If anybody wants to suggest a modification of my blood density method, I’m all ears. The main thing my method has going for it is that I have set forth the entire basis of my calculations, which have a reasonable if not an entirely accurate basis. I would be happy to hear ways in which the method could be improved, or replaced. I’m a scientist by training and am looking only for facts, or at least clearly stated assumptions. If I see an improvement, I’ll be the first to applaud and support it.

One thing I hope that results from this exercise is to encourage more Thunders members to enter their measurements in the PE Data Site.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 PM.