Penile Volume & Area Calculator

As I’m gearing up for a return to PE (hopefully), I decided to update my penile volume console app. About 6 years ago, I originally wrote it in C just for my own use to track my PE progress.

This time around, I wanted to include Area, in addition to Volume. I also thought about incorporating Weight - but this was not practical. For one, there’s limited medical data on penile weight (most of the weight data regards ligaments or testicles, etc.). Second, I don’t think there’s a “standard” density of penile tissue from one guy to the next.

I theorize that a “show-er” has a greater penile density (more meat, tissue) than a “grower”, who probably has a greater vascular capacity. Consider the greatest differences in penile size between men is with flaccid size. One guy could have a 2.5” flaccid; another could have a 4.5” flaccid; yet, they both might be exactly 6 x 5 erect. The guy with the smaller flaccid has more elastic tissues (which allow them to expand, and to contract, more dramatically) than the guy with the larger flaccid.

The greater density of the “show-er” (as compared to the “grower”) would probably account for greater penile Weight. In other words, more tissue but not quite as much pooled blood as the “grower.” However, such differences would not be “felt” by anyone since the tunicas of both men would be under load, thereby producing rock hard erections.

* - Consider the parallel disparaties within hypertrophy of striated skeletal muscle: myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. The former is common with strength athletes; the latter, with bodybuilders. It's not the “size” of the muscles that's the determining factor, but the composition. Myofibrillar is more dense, more tissue - heavier; and is produced by heavier, low-rep training. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy composition has a higher ratio of fluid (both blood & cellular fluid) and is produced by relatively lighter, high-rep volume training.

To use the terms loosely (quite loosely), I see “growers” as having “sarcoplasmic erections”; while “show-ers” have “myofibrillar erections.” The size might be equal, but the density & weight are not.

As I didn’t want to simply concoct some arbitrary Weight result, I found the inclusion of that aspect of size to be too problematic.

>> using “wads-sausage-summary.exe”….
==================================================

(1) Take a mid-shaft erect girth measurement (preferably with tape measure)
(2) Take an erect length measurement (preferable with a ruler)

Enter figures when prompted (using “Enter/Return” function).

If utilizing with PE, be sure to employ uniformity of measuring - regardless
of your preferred technique. This will enable you to accurately track your
progress or lack thereof.

AREA…think of it, from a tactile perspectve, as the total contact surface area

==================================================

Wad,

I’m relatively new here, and I don’t think I’ve posted your direction. Hello. What is your opinion on volume when one has a large fat pad? I believe the penis has the same volume, but how does displacement work here? I am at a good size, but I’m curious how this plays in “useable” volume.

(I couldn’t open your zip because I don’t have a password etc.

Acid, that .zip should not require a password. Hmm….

Regarding the fat pad and volume, its the same as the fat pad & useable length (sort of like the BPEL vs. NBPEL debate). While an excessive fat pad can “steal” some length, the fat pad is rather pliable. During thrusting, most of us can “countersink” a bit.

This rather leads me into something that’s been on my mind since I started this thread: all of these calculations are off - especially the Area calculation.

Consider, the “volume” formula we use here is for a geometrically-true cylinder (π * r² * h). While the cylinder is much closer to the shape of our wangs than a cone or a cube or a sphere, nobody has a “true cylinder” cock - i.e., exactly uniform shape from base to top, including a flat, blunt top.

With Area, I realized that not only did I overlook the above, but an additional factor: the base. In doing the total surface area, that would also include the bottom; yet, the bottom is truly unuseable because….its attached to our pubis.

So, to make the calculator “less inaccurate” I’d have to modify the TSA formula - 2πr(r+h) - to also subtract the circle area of the “base” (π * r²).

Yawn…….

P.S., I hate it when I think of shit later……..after the fact.

I fixed the TSA (Total Surface Area) measurement - now it’s no more inaccurate a tool than is the standard cylinder volume. :)

I added these 2 variables:

float circArea = 0.0f;
float modTSA = 0.0f;

…and these 2 functions:

circArea = pi * rad * rad;
modTSA = area - circArea;

Here’s the difference…

original “wads-sausage-summary.exe”:

a 6 x 5 = 11.94 in³ / TSA = 33.98 in²

“wads-sausage-summary2.exe”:

a 6 x 5 = 11.94 in³ / TSA = 31.99 in²

You can see the TSA is now 1.99 in² less (now that the surface area of the submerged base is not included).

PS, Could one of the mods dump the original .zip & replace it with this one? Thanks.

Hehe, I like the surface area idea.

Wad,

I checked this out, and it works great. I have a large “k’yack”, whatever that is. ;)

Great program, simple and accurate. I have one question though. Should the erect measurement be BPEL?

For purposes of tracking progress, I would recommend it; that way, fluctuations in bodyweight/water retention won’t give you false readings.