Data req.: Clarifying discrepancy between cylinder size and circumference achieved.

When changing from a larger diameter tube to a smaller diameter tube, 2.25” to 2” my penis circumference (middle shaft erect girth: MSEG) decreased from ~6.25” to 5.8”. On that basis I think that a 2” tube can at max produce a 5.8” girth despite allowing for a max expansion in the tube of 6.28” circumference. The current recommendations used by various sites on pump tube sizing seem wrong.

I think it might be useful to see if we can establish a ratio for the max girth achieved using a given tube diameter, or establish how much extra tube diameter is necessary for a resulting non-pumped girth. Having this information could also clarify what amount of girth expansion is necessary for girth growth, a potentially very useful bit of info for clarifying the mechanisms of PE.

To calculate the max circumference possible for a given tube you multiply the diameter by pi. Pi is ~3.141592654.

I’d like to compare the max girth achieved by various people for a set tube diameter to see if a general rule can be established or the discrepancy is highly variable (which it might be).

I think the following format for info would be useful for quick reading.

Tube diameter: 2”

Max in tube circumference possible: 6.28”

Resulting non-pumped penis circumference MSEG achieved: 5.8”

Resulting circumference / max tube circumference possible: 5.8/6.28 = .92

If no pattern emerges, it might be interesting to ask further questions about penile cross sections (elliptical shape, triangular, or circular), though that might be beyond the scope of this site’s interests for now and I don’t see an immediate application of that information to PE.

I’m 6 mid shaft and 6 1/4 base when erect. I can’t fit into a 2” tube when erect.

2.125 I use for length and 2.25 to get a real fatty. I’m not sure I get any gains from pumping other than a 2hr post pump gain. Feels good tho and like a whole other dick when it comes out

That’s one of the complications of measurements and penis pump cylinders. Circumference doesn’t really tell you width. A penis can be smaller circumference than a tube, but also be wider in areas.

Gains from PE happen gradually and pumping is not the fastest method, though long term I think it will allow you to gain much more than clamping with much less hassle and injury.

I wish I knew who invented the penis pump. It’s a great invention.

I’ve used a bathmate x30 (not sure of internal circumference) mostly and only air pumped with a 1.5” tube (definitely smaller than the x30) when I didn’t want to deal with the water.

I always saw better post pump girth expansion with the bathmate so naturally I stuck to that. I was only ever able to pack my air cylinder for the first couple inches or so. The air pump always gave me more length and less girth vs. the bathmate. I always attributed that to water pumping vs air pumping as opposed to room between the cylinder walls.

I don’t really understand the in depth physics of water pumping vs. air pumping.

That being said, it’s obvious I’m no expert on the matter.

I have done alot of reading on pumping though and have read many positive reports from both sides and to me it seems the majority of veteran, girth oriented pumpers recommend sizing your tubes so you can pack the first one and move up a stage to a larger cylinder.

If you get enough reports to compile, I think the stats will come up highly variable for the most part but I’m also interested to see the stats on this

What makes water pumping better than air pumping (except the ease of pumping) is still a mystery to me too. I do prefer air pumping over water pumping, it’s just easier to do on a regular basis.

So, as a veteran pumper I’ll weigh in here.

The issue is it isn’t just flat geometry and forces. If it were, gains from pumping would be uniform per size cylinders used around penises of certain girth ranges.

You end up having the issue where some guys inflate more than others. Some get edema at a small threshold of (force x time) or a larger of that same equation if you change either or both factors.

I know I graduated out of my 2” for good at just over 6” MSEG. But I shoved my much larger BEG in that same tube for that progress for months.

So, while I applaud your thinking, you’d need a group of guys running a perscribed routine with cylinders a set amount larger than their MSEG similar enough to make apples to apples comparisons.

I agree with TG. Your sampling size of one is not enough to make a tube size factor for all.

I made our cylinder size table based on the fact the manufacturers tended to recommend tube sizes too small and that equated to them being able to quickly sell the next size up as guys quickly outgrew their cylinders thus increasing profits. At least that was my reasoning.

So the size table I created recommends a tube size that suits your goals and well as giving you the longest tube life before having to buy the next size up.

Selecting Your Cylinder Size

Do you think it’s necessary to buy incrementally larger tubes, or would it be better to just buy 1 tube that accommodates your goal size and another much thinner tube specifically for packing for length?

I’ve already bought a fair number of tubes, but in retrospect I think I could have just bought 2. My smallest diameter tube right now is 2" and I’m gaining girth right now to test a hypothesis about switching back to smaller diameter tubes for length gains, so I might be buying a 1.75" tube in the future.

Considering your current girth, you wouldn’t even fit into a 1.75” cylinder, so that would be a waste of money. Stick with your 2.0 and to focus on length, start slowly increasing your continuous time in the tube up to 25 to 30 minutes at pressure no greater than 5inhg.

I think if I entered flaccid I could fit into a 1.75” diameter cylinder, though I may have to switch back to coconut oil lube to reduce friction. I’m almost to my girth check point to test out my hypothesis about thinner diameter tubes. I’ve gone from 5.8” to 6 1/8th”, so I’m 2/3rds of the way done with preparations. My progress has been a little slower than my normal routine because of testing so many different things and I’m almost ready to go back to my normal routine. Despite the testing, I’m still making gains and I’m now confidently 9”. I don’t think the slightly slower progress was such a bad trade off since I was able to debunk a lot of my own hypotheses without injury and now have a better idea of the parameters that produce growth. But, I think after this last pump parameter test I’m going to stop experimenting with exercises until I reach the 10” range or plateau. Once I reach my goal size, I’ll probably shift my attention to penis shape, the final frontier of non-surgical penis modification.