Thunder's Place

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

Hybrid Vacuum/Clamping Hanger

Originally Posted by mbuc
Just a minor point guys. The force applied to the penis by the weight induced vaccum, P, is not the crosssection glans area x P as shown in the diagrams.

The force applied to the penis by P is the cross sectional area of the penis, as it enters/exits the vacuum cup, x P.

Yep, which is the reason for the flange at the end of the hanger. Think of it as a size adapter.

Since the hanger is anchored to the shaft, the weight would be supported by the full cross sectional area.

You’d probably need to experiment with different flange widths to find one that provides the desired balance of pull on the shaft/head and on the hanger itself. For example, imagine a flange 2 feet wide. You wouldn’t need much vacuum at all, but almost all the load would be applied to the hanger. Only a tiny percentage would be on the head. Might as well just tie on a cord and forget the vacuum tube.

However, if the shaft/head area is (guessing 1” diameter) .79 in^2 and the flange area (based on a 1.75” diameter) 1.6 in^2, 2/3 of the weight should be supported by the hanger, with the head taking the remaining 1/3.

Originally Posted by MM
The properties of the blue collar are critical, I think.

True. Maybe something about the consistency of a plumber’s helper would work. Have the flange thick and stiff, with the rear portion sturdy but flexible enough to roll up for application. The roll up feature may not be feasible.

Or, the flange could be hard plastic. There are several ways of connecting the tube to the flange. Threads - screw the tube on. Or use latches and a gasket.

Quote
I don’t see how a compression hanger would work with this arrangement, however. Were you thinking of including one in this version?

Yes, the hanger would need a circular clamping device, not shown. If you only clamp the sides you’d probably break the seal.

In a preemptive effort to avoid another embarrassing correction by Mbuc, I’ve now had some time to think about this whole thing in my best thinking spot, the shower.

Here’s where I’m at. I don’t think that the collar/flange imparts the full pressure*extra area to the skin when using the oversized hanger. I think it imparts some fraction of this.

Here, the “extra area” is the internal cross-sectional area of the glans cap minus the cross-sectional area of the penis as it enters the glans cap.

If the glans cap were a cylinder with a back opening just large enough to accommodate the penis, then the force exerted on the penis would be pressure time penis area, regardless of the internal, cross-sectional area of the cylinder. What’s different about this arrangement is that the “cylinder” is closed at the bottom with a flexible membrane. The membrane has “give.” When the vacuum is established, the membrane defects inwardly. HOwever, it is constrained on the outside by the glans cap. It is only free to pull on the penis on the inside. I think, therefore, that there is some reduction in force.

Mbuc is a genius at these things, and I hope he’ll reply, because it would take me a week to figure it out. I’ll bet the answer has PI in it :) .


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

I went back to bed but couldn’t sleep, couldn’t stop thinking about MM’s hybrid. Out of all the shit going on in my life right now all I can think about is this new concept because it would actually combine the three principals of PE into one device. Hanging pumping with vacuum and a clamp attachment. I think MM sums it up right here:

Modesto wrote:

Quote
This is a little off topic, but maybe using an oversized glands cap would help. When I tried Monkeybar’s vacuum hanger for the first time today, I was somewhat surprised to see that the silicone tube that wraps down from the glands cap over the shaft gets pulled pretty substantially back into the cap when the weight is attached. It’s just the vacuum pulling back. As the tube gets pulled, it exposes some surface area normal to the direction of applied force. The resulting pressure then pulls on that part of the tube. When it does, I believe the force is transmitted around the corner and back into the shaft, at the “neck” of the penis.

I agree that a bigger cap might help, but broader at the bottom and narrow at the top. Kind of a bell shape or Darth Vader helmet shaped. This way equal or close to equal stress would be applied at or around the base of the cap and the tip, without significantly increasing the volume at the tip thus keeping the vacuum area at a minimum.

I still haven’t worked with MB’s device yet, still waiting for the bigger cap, but with Crash’s hanger this alteration would help, I think. I believe one of the reasons the MV causes blisters on the tip of the glands when used for long periods of time is because of the shape of the cup. The bigger flat ended cup allows too much of the tip to be pulled in and smashed against the flat end, where MB’s cap looks to be a little more forgiving because it is more dick shaped. Actually by adding a little nipple to the shape of the cap, like the semen reservoir of a condom, I think this smashing against the tip of the cap would be eliminated transferring the broader base of the cap and distributing the force onto a larger area, the coronal ridge. Also at the same time this would decrease the actual vacuum area even more. The only down side I see to this shaped cap is it will probably put a lot of vacuum directly onto the meatus which already gets somewhat puckered from pumping causing the erratic piss stream some of us pumpers enjoy as we piss all over the floor and our pants after a long pump session.


2003: 6X5 2010: 7X7

No Nukes

Hobby, unless I am misunderstanding you, the idea of having a flange doesn’t make any difference to the force exerted on the penis by the vacuum in the cup. The only thing that ultimately bares the weight is the penis. Whether you have a big flange or no flange doesn’t alter the weight baring capacity at any particular pressure.


Feb 2004 BPEL 6.7" NBPEL ???? BPFSL ???? EG 5.65" Feb 2005 BPEL 7.1" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 6.9" EG 5.8" Feb 2006 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.6" EG 5.85" Feb 2007 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.5" EG 5.9"

Now that I think of it, the condom reservoir shape would be too drastic, that is the reduction of the small or narrow tip in respect to the broad base of the glands cap. The Darth Vader helmet shape would work better in distributing the pressure more onto the ridges of the glands rather than putting it all on the tip.

As far as skin pull, think back to what Bigger always said about mounting the Bib. Pulling skin on the base shaft accomplishes nothing but skin stretch. He always emphasized mounting the Bib on the upper third of the shaft, 1/2 to 1” back from the glands. The closer to the head the more the Bib worked the inner structures rather than just skin, although mounting it closer to the base was more comfortable. I think those same principals apply to vacuum. If any skin is to be pulled the skin closest to the head will present a more efficient attachment. To me the breakthrough in hanging will be to efficiently pull the inner structures from as close to the tip as possible while grabbing as little skin as possible, and whatever design accomplishes this will be the best hanger.


2003: 6X5 2010: 7X7

No Nukes

The problem is, that the very same area we should be pulling from is the most susceptible to fluid build up. The lower you attach pressure to the shaft, the looser and tougher the skin is. Like MM said in the “confusion thread”, Discussed in this link:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Content…epartmentid=371

is the place where the upper shaft attaches to the glands is the place the inner structures of the tunica are the strongest, or toughest, thus to keep the glands from being pulled loose from the tunica. Unfortunately it is also the place along the shaft where the Skin is the tenderest and most likely to doughnut. Applying more of the tension point at the Coronal Seleucus, will lessen the pressure on the meatus, which is where the water blisters are a problem.


2003: 6X5 2010: 7X7

No Nukes


Last edited by Big Girtha : 04-08-2006 at .

Edit:

Sulcus, not Seleucus (spell check) which is I believe a term in astronomy :rolleyes:

I think this link shows more what we are concerned with than Sky and Telescope;)

http://www3.dermis.net/dermisroot/en/26679/diagnose.htm


2003: 6X5 2010: 7X7

No Nukes

Originally Posted by mbuc
Hobby, unless I am misunderstanding you, the idea of having a flange doesn’t make any difference to the force exerted on the penis by the vacuum in the cup. The only thing that ultimately bares the weight is the penis. Whether you have a big flange or no flange doesn’t alter the weight baring capacity at any particular pressure.

Yes, ultimately the shaft behind the device supports all the load. How the load is distributed at the attachment point(s) or areas can vary.

With more area, less vacuum is required to support a given weight. To hold 10 lbs. using 1 square inch -10 psi of vacuum is required. Increase the area to 2 square inches and you only need -5 psi. And so on. The idea was to reduce the vacuum placed on the head and foreshaft (because the “hanger” is handling some of the weight) while still allowing a lower, more reasonable vacuum to be applied to the head.

The red vertical line in the attached image shows the “area of effective suck” of the hanger assuming the hanger is firmly attached to the shaft. Force applied to the flange is transmitted to the hanging portion of this setup. The green line indicates the “area of effective suck” in a typical vacuum hanger.

I haven’t tried a vacuum hanger or even kept up to date with what people are saying about them. It seems to me the main issue/problem is the level of vacuum required. BG, that’s what those head blisters are from. Too hard of a suck for too long.

I’m just throwing out ideas as they occur to me with little consideration behind them. Brainstorming is fun. Frankly, I think this vacuum business is only useful for lighter weights no matter what you do.

Attached Images
Vac1b.jpg
(12.2 KB, 94 views)

Originally Posted by mbuc

Hobby, unless I am misunderstanding you, the idea of having a flange doesn’t make any difference to the force exerted on the penis by the vacuum in the cup. The only thing that ultimately bares the weight is the penis. Whether you have a big flange or no flange doesn’t alter the weight baring capacity at any particular pressure.

What about the idea of the silicone sleeve pulling on the shaft skin? I can’t tell whether you’ve considered that in assessing the total force that the hanger applies to the shaft.

My thoughts, if you read my posts above, are that, under vacuum, the sleeve pulls on the shaft skin around the neck of the penis. The force is proportional to (but I think less than) the force induced on the “membrane” covering the back of the glans cap.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

I think this thread is getting a little confusing. I may need to split it into two. Two different ideas have been proposed here:

1) combining a vacuum hanging device with a clamping hanging device, and

2) increasing the area of the glans cap of a vacuum hanging device to channel some force to the shaft skin around the neck of the penis.

A possible third idea is some combination of 1 and 2 above.

I’d prefer to keep the thread together. If possible, when you post here, please try to be clear about which of the 2 (or 3) ideas you are referring to.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

>What about the idea of the silicone sleeve pulling on the shaft skin? I can’t tell whether you’ve considered that in assessing the total force that the hanger applies to the shaft.

My $02:

Whatever occurs friction-wise between the sleeve and skin around that tiny curve isn’t enough to worry about. Forget it. Even if it were to grasp the skin ever so slightly better it wouldn’t be of any practical use. We don’t want hangers tugging on skin.

Mbuc is right that in current devices the vacuum required to support a given weight depends entirely on the cross sectional area of the shaft where it enters the sleeve. Guys with thicker shafts will need less vacuum for a given weight than those with thinner shafts. All this assumes skin isn’t supporting any of the load.

Thanks Thunder! I found the link.:)

Originally Posted by hobby

Whatever occurs friction-wise between the sleeve and skin around that tiny curve isn’t enough to worry about. Forget it. Even if it were to grasp the skin ever so slightly better it wouldn’t be of any practical use. We don’t want hangers tugging on skin.

I’m slowly coming to the same conclusion. I’m not sure the force is insignificant, however. It might amount to 20 or 30% (WAG) of the total hanging force.

It’s just not an optimal way of applying force to a penis for our purposes.

Originally Posted by hobby

Mbuc is right that in current devices the vacuum required to support a given weight depends entirely on the cross sectional area of the shaft where it enters the sleeve. Guys with thicker shafts will need less vacuum for a given weight than those with thinner shafts. All this assumes skin isn’t supporting any of the load.

Well, the whole idea behind using an enlarged glans cap is that the skin supports the extra load. I disagree with mbuc in this regard. The sleeve does pull on the penis, and the total force on the penis does exceed the pressure times the cross-sectional area of the penis. It’s just that the force attributable to the oversized glans cap pulls only on skin, which probably isn’t optimal.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Using today’s typical vacuum hanger, how much load is on the skin? Can you reduce it to nothing with some adjustment as can be done with a clamp-style hanger? If these things pull mostly skin they aren’t much good. You’d be back to Tom’s swim cap hanger.

I think I must have fumbled something and managed to convey the wrong impression. Vacuum hangers that fit the glans tightly pull practically zero skin. It’s not exactly zero, for the reasons I’ve stated above: the silicone collar tends to be pulled back into the glans cap, carrying some skin along with it. But I think that vacuum hangers as a general rule entail very little skin stretch.

I’m intrigued by your statement that skin stretch on clamp-style hangers can be reduced practically to zero. I’ve always had to stretch a fair amount of skin. How do you do it?


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 PM.