Gaining volume with Kyrpa

Additional notes:

Actually we would need more info , additional sets with increased load to judge what I just told.
The passage of the transitional region or the transformation from visco-elasticity to elatsicity has therefor not been confirmed yet.
Without furter loading stages and load - strain graphs we cannot comment anything like I imprudently went to say.

Here is a chart of the first 2 treatment sessions.

Notes:
The length is not really BPFSL. It is measured with a ring pressed against the pubic bone and to a fixed measurement spot on the glans that provides for the most consistent and repeatable measurement.
You’ll notice that there are two data points with 1kg load. The first is with the penis cold after a 1kg load for 10 min. The second is with the penis warmed by FIR above and below for 10 min with the same 1kg load.
Then the 1.5kg and 2.0kg and 2.5kg loads were all with FIR and US.

How this relates to the absolute elongation on BPFSL ? Did you take pre- and post-measurements? Have you considered the cold 1kg 10min point being the baseline, and to what certainty do you think it represents the pre-BPFSL.

Would you consider swapping the axis. Being it length measurements you are presenting, yet It is rather un-orthodox to present load strain curves that way.
The stressors should be in the vertical axis and the length, strain or incremental increases in the horizontal.
That would not only represent continuity for the previous work done here, but also the visco-elastic nature of the soft-tissue would be better demonstrated that way.

Less confusion we produce with different basics and demonstration methods the easier this all sinks in for the non-expert reader.
After all we are fully committed on looking for the behaviour of the tissue not application showcases in here.

Sorry Kyrpa, I just hurriedly threw that chart together to give you something to look at. I’ll flip the axes to fit with convention.

So far I’ve been using the cold 1kg 10min mark as a baseline that represents the normally elongated penis prior to any induced strain. This measurement is not what most here would call BPFSL because they are typically pulling quite hard. As you know, 1kg is enough to extend the natural range of the tissues after a short bit of relaxation, but not so much that you risk prematurely inducing any remodeling of the tissues. It is repeatable and reliable as a baseline without affecting subsequent measurements later in the session. Also, the measurements within my device are more reliable because there isn’t any way to cheat the ruler, stretch the glans, etc. and the measurement load is defined.

After these preliminary tests and taking some time to get the process together, I think we would be best served with me altering the process as you say to focus on the tissues rather than the application. I would propose that I stick with the original schedule, but each session would be reconstructed as follows;
Step 1… cold 1kg load for 10 min to establish baseline.
Step 2… continuous heat via US and FIR above and below.
Step 3… a series of load-deload cycles with full heat and 2kg peak load attempting to complete 5 load cycles with stress relaxation at each peak strain.
Step 4… cooldown 10 min at full strain from last load cycle.

The intent would be to chart the continuous load-strain functiin across the 5 cycles. Research supports 6 cycles minimum, but I’m trying to limit the time under stress to less than 60 min.

Thoughts welcome.

@Kyrpa How Tutt’s results from that graphic compares to some of your first results with your approach?

I understand that we must have a wide range of possible readings here and that is why it would be awesome to have a large group of people performing the same exercises. But still, curious if the two methods co-relate in any way.

Thank you,

Sorry to be interrupting your reporting. As you know I have put tremendous efforts to this case at this point already,so it is crucially important that the further development has to be controlled.

If anyone joining in and taking part in the on-going process with alternative methods , these variations should be pointed out loud and clear.

It is true what you say about the repetitiveness and reliability of the measurements taken in the protocol you are running.
There is a very small ladder for me to change the monitoring of the process to be carried as such as well.

The choice of principle have to be taken though, as the resulting indications does not represent elongation on BPFSL.

What comes out of the monitoring the process in such way is incremental strain relative to the chosen baseline.
If we were to present elongation on BPFSL the the absolute measurements of pre-BPFSL and post -BPFSL should be used as a determiner values for the strain.
Which in layman’s terms is measuring the maximal BPFSL at the beginning and after every step with as much as force it demands to be pointed out.

The equipment used is secondary, otherwise we all should need to use the extender setup you have. That kind of development can be and should be handled separately.
I can easily build one if I decide so and join in developing the equipment.

The premise of the next test you are intending to run sounds valuable in advance .
As you said already 6 times minimum, and certainly after 10 cycles the visco-elastic behaviour should setlle down and the stress-relaxation induced residual strain should indicate repetative results.

Only thing changing the scenario is the factthis has been only proved in steady normalized temperature maximum of 37C.
With the heat altering and amplifying the stress relaxation behaviour you should find the limit much sooner.

The 60 minutes time under high temperatures is maximum for the tissue at such strain percentages. We should avoid exceeding that by maximizing the effectiveness under that time window.

For the beaviour of the tissue there is no question , we already know how the tissue behaves. And in that region his results are further confirming earlier findings.
For the actual measured results , they are poorly comparable with mine.

All he is now doing should be indicative for how far the low load & heat & stress-relaxation application can push the tissue elongation. Which is very important knowledge to find out.

Unfortunately without me or someone else replicating the estabhlished protocol with similar setup using the 10 min 1 kg value as a baseline we are not able to do any comparison between the protocols.

And, if we were to ever run controlled group test the standardized stress for the baseline zero should be determined.
And to be even more controlled we need to step out of using load as a determiner, we heve to use stress value. Which is load divided by smallest cross-sectional area of the shaft.
In that respect the way Tutt is doing the tests should be controlled in higher certainty.

We are in luck, because I did in fact take traditional measurements before and after both sessions. I would note that I’m not measuring to the full tip of the glans as I have found that pinching and squeezing the glans distorts the results and makes them less repeatable. I’m measuring from the pubic bone to a semi-permanent mark on the glans beyond the coronal ridge. The reason for this is that the mark is also easily visible through the vacuum cup on the extender whereas the retroglandular sulcus is not. In any case, the difference in total length from this mark to the tip of the glans should not disrupt our ability to interpret the results as it would only slightly affect the strain percentages. The measurement was taken cold with about 3-4kg load (estimated by feel as it was performed manually in a very uncontrolled fashion) and results are as follows;
5/27/20….. preBPFSL = 165mm ….. postBPFSL = 177mm
6/1/20…. preBPFSL = 170mm ….. postBPFSL = 181mm

I did not take a BPFSL after each set in the treatment because that would’ve required removing the device and it has been my experience so far that the results are nearly identical to the strain measured in the device during the set. Also note that the preBPFSL is without any tissue conditioning. Just grab, pull firmly, and measure. If I were to subject the tissue to a cold conditioning period of 20-30 minutes at some modest load, it would’ve been detrimental to what I was trying to see in subsequent sets by increasing from low loads under heat.

Yes, after these first sessions and some other side tests I’ve run, and also pouring over past notes, I’m quite confident that cycling under relatively constant heat through a series of fixed peak load and stress relaxation phases should be far more valuable than quantifying the heated low-load progressive strain. Those sessions were helpful in confirming that your general target heated load around 2kg is roughly ideal as I now know that even by slowly loading and cycling my way into it, loads above 2.0kg will likely push beyond where I want to be for my tests.

I understand the previous tests indicating 6 cycle minimum were at lower temps, but I have no grounding to theorize what a minimum number of cycles would be at 41C. I’ll be sticking with 6 if possible in the allotted time. I need to see how quickly the tissue stress relaxes during the earliest phases. I still would like to increase the strain quite slowly to prevent a stiffening response in the tissue resulting from rapid strain, which is what my earlier protocol was designed around. But it isn’t just the heat that I’m cognizant of with regard to the 60 min time frame. Other studies on cell viability and apoptosis have concluded that typically a cell will remain viable under tension for about 60 minutes, and generally you begin to see elevated levels of apoptosis after that point. We are trying to avoid accelerated apoptosis. Also, the chemical environment theoretically most beneficial to our goals has been shown to peak at about 30 minutes of applied stress, ultimately creating a somewhat toxic environment around 60 minutes. So I will need to increase the strain rate to fit within that window and still allow for stress relaxation and achieve a minimum of 6 cycles.

I agree on the standardized baseline. I’m just not convinced that the baseline should be the traditional “pull hard” BPFSL or a very extended cold conditioning stretch. I think both of those risk subjecting the tissues to stress beyond what would be considered baseline. IMO, the baseline should be a fully relaxed tissue achieved with a very modest load over a short period that will ensure all interfering tissues like pelvic floor musculature and other smooth muscle fibers are fully extended, but that we aren’t at a point of risking altering of any molecular bonds, causing any supposed microtrauma, or any other such side effects.

I don’t disagree that stress values would be more useful, but are we certain that cross-sectional area is reliably correlated? I suspect that the TA wall thickness including septum thickness and bucks fascia are the main limiters, accounting for in excess of 75-80%. It seems highly probable that even with identical shaft diameter, each person would have varying wall/fascia thickness which could yield highly variable results without a large sample set. The literature supports this, showing that some men have more layers of collagen than others. But in that respect, I suppose it wouldn’t be any more variable than using the load values without consideration of tissue thickness.

In any case, under load my smallest cross-sectional area is 707mm^2 and you are welcome to apply it to my results.

I would propose that the ideal baseline would be determined something like this…

Take a break from PE for a month. During that month perform a series of 4 tests. Each day perform the test 1 time without any additional PE for about a week. Do this test at comfortably warm ambient temperature so there is no tendency for the penis to try to turtle.

Test 1… hang 0.5kg for 10 minutes
Test 2… hang 1kg for 30 minutes
Test 3… hang 0.5kg for 30 minutes
Test 4… hang 1kg for 10 minutes

The idea is that if a reliable baseline can be found with test 1 conditions, it is preferred to test 2 conditions because it allows for the broadest latitude of future testing.

I followed the step by step of the kyrpa protocol with 2 months on and 1 off. When I returned from the decon I was unable to obtain the tensions of the past. I recently stopped PE for lack of time and privacy and I’m looking for knowledge until I get back to normal. I think my decon will last for about 2 months. I have been using the ibramed Sonopulse III device. I think someone there asked about him a few topics ago. It works at 1mhz and 3mhz. I did not make any scientific measurement of the temperatures, but I feel an intense heat already in the first minutes of use.

Tutt didn’t understand how you divide the time on each step.

Would it be 10 minutes each step?

Do you increase and reduce weight between steps?

English is not my native language and your language is also very technical. I am having difficulties understanding. When I come back from the decon I will try some modifications in the training guided by US.

I took the liberty of performing a quick load/strain test so that I could have a look at how the tissues behave in my particular case. The test was performed at room temperature without any conditioning treatment other than the time it takes to get the device situated and the camera started. To avoid the influence of any excessive creep, the test was performed over a period of about 2.5 minutes, with each data point in the chart below corresponding with a 2 second interval and a 0.025” strain increase. I converted the strain to millimetres.

Observations… For the bulk of the test there was no apparent slippage of the vacuum cup. This changed once I exceeded 5kg load, and between that point and the peak at 6.25kg there was about 1mm of slip inside the cup. I believe that I can prevent this next time by securing a rubber band around the vacuum sleeve at the retroglandular sulcus to both avoid any small air intrusion as well as provide a better mechanical bond. It is imperative that the glans fill the entire vacuum cup with the tip holding the protective silicon cap against the vacuum port. At higher loads, any gap there leave the user prone to blistering and might affect the measurement accuracy. I would note that during this test, the progression of the micrometer exactly matched the strain on a ruler mounted atop the device, but the former was much more granular while the latter is not affected by slippage.

The most unfortunate thing about this test was that the wire securing the cup to the scale snapped on a weakened crimp point after 6.0kg. I will admit that I’m not sure how much further I could’ve gone. Things were beginning to get uncomfortable and as you can see from the curve, each revolution of the micrometer (0.025”) was introducing significantly higher incremental load. I might’ve been ok with about 4 more revolutions before protecting my safety. I also get nervous when a space opens up at the tip of the vacuum cup, because blisters are very annoying.

Having now looked at the data, I’m a bit disappointed that I couldn’t go further because the latter section of the curve had begun to linear and I now don’t know if that was real or just noise. In any case, at first glance the curve appears to be a typical exponential curve, but upon closer inspection and curve fitting, it is actually linear until almost exactly 2kg load. There is a noticeable point there where a log scale function transitions to a linear slope, indicating that this is the beginning of the transition from a linear curve to an exponential. The log scale function remains linear until just under 5kg load and then seems to indicate another transition into proportional strain. Because of the device malfunction, I don’t think that I can trust this, so until I can repeat with stronger wire, I will continue to assume that the load/strain relationship would’ve remained exponential. Given that there was no indication of device malfunction preceding the catastrophic failure, and the last 5 measurements indicated proportionality, I will remain suspicious until I can perform the test again. But it will have to wait until next Wednesday.

Overall, I’m more in favor of doing a continuous cyclical load-deload protocol with ultrasound heat. My posted protocol was meant to discover something, but I don’t think it’ll produce optimal results, which is likely what you’re after. Until I’ve demonstrated my results, I think you’d be better served by following Kyrpa’s protocol.

I have shortly commented and continue to comment some of these findings privately with Tutt.
Too busy at the moment, but I will condence some views on these in this thread as well.

For the 2kg transitional point , it seems to indicate that using loads under 2kg it is almost purely proportional to the time under tension if we can get the strain reaching the transitional region. After that it will became crucial how the further loadings will be applied. There can be significant differences for the outcome depending on what rate the further loads are introduced , both in relation to timeline and the actual force level as well.