Surface area vs. Penis Volume?

Guys: I introduced the idea of calculating Penis Volume over at the PE Forum a few years back, and was glad to see someone had done the same thing here, since it is a true indicator of real overall size growth as represented by a percentage.

HOWEVER - I was wondering if what REALLY matters is increased SURFACE AREA. After all, that is what a woman feels. I was an English major, however, and for all I know, the percentage increase in surface area would be the same as the percentage increase in volume as the penis grows. All that really matters is the percentage increase, not the number itself (I mean, who really knows what a certain number of cubic inches looks like anyway; it’s the % change from what you were packing before that matters).

One of you math-heads, please weigh in on surface area vs. volume.

Volume and surface area are directly correlated I would imagine.

Suface Area(SA) and Volume(V) are not necessarily linearly correlated.

Take a sphere for example:

V = 4/3πr^3
SA = 4πr^2

V/SA = 1/3r

This means that a large sphere has proportionally greater volume to surface area than a small sphere does. The mass of a sphere with a given density is directly proportional to its volume.

Ever wondered how little water droplets can stick to the ceiling, but big ones cannot. The surface area of the small droplet is large in comparison to its mass and the force preventing it from falling is more or less proportional to its surface area.

Stick to volume.

Ah…your using the Ferguson Theorem but you forgot to implement the reverse trans-universal in relation to the Flux Capacitor Correlation. And carry the 1. ;)

While directly correlated doesn’t imply linear, for practical purposes (EG pussy pounding) of a proportionally “normal” penis I imagine it’s close enough.

Interesting discussion! Surface area of a cylinder goes up as the first power of the radius, whereas volume increases as the square of the radius. Both increase linearly as the length of the cylinder increases.

So what you want is a penis lenght of 9 inches and a radius of 1.25 inches.

That would pack a large volume of, 44 cubic inches, with a good surface area of 70.7 square inches, and a great girth of 7.8 inches! ENOUGH to please anyone including the owner!!

Hahahhahaha. Teh funny is present with this one.

Late night Alrdy? :chuckle:

What the hell are you talking about? (:

lol, I’m saying his quote was funny as hell.

You guys are too f-ing smart for me. Just want to know — should we be calculating growth based on surface area of a cylinder rather than volume? It would be just as easy, right, and maybe a bit more related to what we are trying to achieve?

Either measure should be fine, really. I would stick with volume just because it seems slightly more popular.

What if your dick got squished infinitely flat? Wouldn’t your surface area become infinite?

You could have stumbled on a major advance in PE theory here. Infinite pan squeezes.

Use one of those towel wringer outers at the carwash. That will give you more surface area.

An ordinary wooden mallet should do in a pinch.

I thought I’d use my first post in a 2-year on/off lurking habit to chime in.. Maybe now that I’m part of the community, I’ll actually start a PE exercise routine.

First off, penflex’s sphere analogy is a good start, but let’s assume we call the penis a cylinder, as that’s closer to what we’re discussing. “Surface area” (of the sides in contact with the vaginal wall, I.e. The important part) and “volume” are directly correlated, although not linearly.

SA = girth*length = 2*pi*R*L
V = pi*(R^2)*L

An algebra student will see that increasing the radius, thereby increasing girth, volume would be increased at a much faster rate than would surface area. The first-year calculus student will see that surface area is equal to the derivative of the volume with respect to the radius, and that volume is the anti-derivative, or indefinite integral, of surface area with respect to radius. I don’t know if that helps much! (SA = dV/dR, V = Int[SA,R])

Second: I’ll say that surface area (girth*length) would be a better way to look at gains. Although it proportionally doesn’t increase as quickly as volume does, it’s more important. Here’s why (Now, I have no sexual experience, except with one girl I made out with over-the-clothes over three years ago, so don’t take me too seriously!)

Clitoral stimulation aside, let’s say that female sexual pleasure is directly (linearly or better) proportional to the number of intra-vaginal nerve endings significantly close to your moving member. When the vaginal walls aren’t stretched out to a very high degree, it would make sense (to me anyway) to assume that some of the nerve endings are not as close to the vaginal surface as they would be when stretched out (at least to a point before vaginal tearing decreases sexual pleasure). Think of a balloon, and think of the “rubber molecules” as nerve endings. When not inflated (occupied by a penis), the walls of the balloon are fairly thick, thick enough as to make the balloon opaque! When filled to the point just before bursting (just before vaginal wall tearing), the balloon is very thin, thin enough to easily see through to the inside.

What I’m thinking is that the greater girth is on the involved penis, the more the walls will be stretched out, and thus more nerves will be as close as possible to it while it moves to and fro. Result: increased pleasure on each stroke. Increased length allows this to happen to the walls along a greater length of the vagina, and thus it would make sense that pleasure would increase through length gains.

Given that more lateral stretching would increase the surface-nerve quantity in proportion to the square of the radius, I assume it would increase Pleasure in proportion to the square of the radius (dPleasure = R^2 dR). Volume is the only of the two measurement methods that involves the square of the radius, so volume is clearly important. Length gains will only increase surface nerve quantity directly in proportion to the length (dPleasure = dL), and the length is involved equally in both surface area and volume formulae

To conclude, since the volume is the only formula that takes into account the surface-nerve quantity increases occurring with increased girth, volume is the better way to go, even if the reasoning is indirect.

I hope you enjoyed this dissertation =]. I don’t plan on receiving any Nobel Prizes or Field’s Medals, and you probably shouldn’t take it too seriously given that I have no empirical basis for justification, and I’m really tired (it’s 3:20 in the morning) but it’s worth thinking about.

P.S. It just occurred to me (mind delay) that this reasoning also applies to the pleasure of the male party in this theory in exactly the same way it applies to the female.