Indyman's Journey

Been a lurker here for quite some time, and decided for the new year to finally open a progress log.

A bit of background. I started at the beginning of September 2020 at 14x11.3 cm and concurrently was curing phimosis. Nothing too fancy, basic static manual stretches under an IR lamp. Around 7 months later I had managed to cure my phimosis via stretching and silicone rings, which then allowed me to proceed to use an vac extender and air pump; focusing on both length and girth simultaneously. Fast forward to today, I am currently I am 16.9x12.1 cm and have decided on a change of direction. Note that I have included my historical stats on the site (though I am not sure how to share the link).

After reading posts by a fair few members: kypra, manko007, cbateman, tutt, igigi, and more, I decided to try focus solely on length whilst applying the more formulaic approach championed by these members. The only draw back is that I will be using an IR lamp rather than the suggested US. Last night was my first vac hanging session, tracking pre-BPFSL and post-BPFSL. With a flaccid girth of 103 mm, Kyrpa’s calculator suggests an initial load of 1.6 kg and a end of heating load of 2.8 kg. However I decided to start things light and slow:

15mins (cold): 0.82kg
15mins (heat): 1.32kg
15mins (cool): 1.82kg
Strain: 12.2 cm to 13.2cm => 8.20%

Given the somewhat large strain, I will likely stick with these weights until the strain begins to reduce. Even then, I will increase time under heat before upping the weight. Though if anyone more seasoned in this approach has a better idea, I’m all for it! Note that I measure BPFSL from base to nearest edge of vac cup, since I find it more reliable.

Anyhow I will keep updating this log, though not as frequently as daily. Nice to meet you all.

Shower thought for the week: I know there have been experiments by tutt on the efficacy of IR lamps using a thermocouple (in the attempt to reach >40C). Given that the tissue penetration depth of light at 1000nm is around 6-7mm, I wonder if the reduction in girth during a hanging session is enough to alter those original results?

Hi IndyMan, welcome to membership! Might check out the "how to measure" post. I wish you the best with your routine.

How to Measure Your Penis

To add color, when you do the strain calculation, you’ll get a higher strain percentage compared to using BPFSL.

Repeated the exact same vac hanging session last night, and had the exact same measurements, and thus strain. I think I will keep this routine as is for the time being.

Thanks Wanting10, it’s always good to revisit the basics. The main reason I chose to measure the way I did was that I found the vac cup made my glans bigger, therefore throwing off my strain measurement.

Failure is also part of progress.

Last night instead of following my predetermined cycle protocol, I decided it wiser to measure data and plot my own stress/strain curve before continuing this journey. It was my measurement technique in the end that was the weak link - it appears that the vac cup is not always applied identically, throwing off Pre-BPFSL measurements. While I still think that measuring the shaft without including the glans is the optimal way to measure strain, I will need to alter something going forward.

Small imaginary demonstration of my meaning. Imagining flaccid glans length to be 2cm:
Strain wo. Glans: (13-12)/12 = 7.69%
Strain w. Glans: (15-14)/14 = 7.14%

That’s a difference of around 0.55%. However I do realise that this is a length-dependent factor, since someone with a Pre-BPFSL of 25cm (assuming 2cm glans again) will experience reduced issues:
Strain wo. Glans: (23-22)/22 = 4.54%
Strain w. Glans: (25-24)/24 = 4.16%

That’s a difference of 0.37%. While this might not seem such a problem to many, I feel that since we are applying a more rigorous and scientific approach why should this not apply to measurement? Reducing as much error as possible in our measurements should have high priority. That said, I am working on the assumption that glans is unaffected during these exercises. If this is not the case, then does it not make more sense to include them?

Either way I will think on another measurement method and attempt to plot my stress/strain curve again tonight. If possible, I’d like to avoid having to add/remove the vac cup multiple times in a single session.

In my search for an answer, I had a browse through some of the older posts on Thunder’s Place relating to stress and strain. It was here I have found an old thread by mbuc: Penile stress/strain relationship

His measurement technique was a simple one: "I measured by drawing a horizontal line across my dick about an inch from the base and using that as the reference point for measuring to the tip. As I hang weight my hanger sucks on the glans and the skin on the shaft is not stretched so my base reference line remained pretty static." I will give a modified version of this method a try tonight. It has the added benefit that it will allow me the benefit of measurement without unloading the weight - so instead of measuring strain at load points only, I can also measure between.

I also find it interesting that consideration of the stress/strain approach has been on Thunder’s Place as early as 2005.

So last night saw some success using mbuc’s measurement technique. Drawing a dot about 1cm away from where the shaft meets the body after attaching a very light load of 0.32kg. This I used as my pre-BPFSL (it’s not technically a true BPFSL and will throw off true strain values, but it is sufficient for the purpose of obtaining a general stress/strain relationship).

Attached is the plot of results, also showing the predicted values of 0.1 MPa (1.6kg) and 0.17 MPa (2.8 kg) from Kyrpa’s stress/load calculator. A brief analysis indicates that the 0.1 MPa is immediately after the transition region while the 0.17 MPa is nearing the beginning of the linear region. So this would seem to indicate the predicted weights are spot on? If anyone with more experience on this would care to share their opinion, it is much appreciated. Will give some more though before proceeding tonight - though it is the last of a 3 day cycle anyway.

Also interesting to note that the strain values I have obtained, while significantly higher than those commonly reported (2-5%) due to measurement technique differences, is similar to those obtained by mbuc.

Given the time of year, the question becomes: is it better to get in any exercises possible or to have a decon break and resume after new years?

As can be imagined, any exercise I am getting is a bit sporadic. So, in the name of consistency, I will pause exercises and updates until after new years.

Personally, I am taking a decon break until January as I cannot commit to a structured routine over the coming weeks.

Yesterday, I did an accelerated version of my routine just to do something rather than nothing. However, this gave me really bad PIs so I would say that taking the break is best and doing a poor job is worse than no job at all.

Thoughts on improving the efficiency of near-infrared lamps when hanging straight down.

I recently was unable to sleep and decided to consider how to improve my heating setup. In terms of Kyrpa’s protocol, IR has been dismissed almost entirely in favour of US. I decided to see if there was a way to bring IR back, as an alternative to US for those unable to obtain one.

First, consider the mechanism of heating. Infrared is the spectral range of light from 700nm to 1mm (the short wavelength edge of microwaves). However for therapeutic heat we generally consider the subrange of near infrared (NIR); 700nm to around 3000nm. Light not scattered penetrates into our tissues and is eventually absorbed, resulting in an increase in temperature in the local region. However, the depth of this penetration is dependent on the wavelength (see figure 0) - therefore if penetration depth is important to us, selecting the correct wavelength may be crucial. Attached in figure 1 is an example of the spectral power distribution of my NIR lamp. There have been various studies which indicate that 1060nm is a wavelength which can penetrate between 3-9mm (depending on which studies you are reading). The power distribution of my lamp clearly shows a peak in this range, therefore obviously tailored for this purpose.

Let us consider the cross-sectional area of the penis as a circle (it’s not truly this shape, but for my simple analysis it is close enough to demonstrate my idea). The lamp and penis cross-section are shown in figure 2. The parabola overlaying the circle shows the approximate penetration depth, and arrows are to indicate heat transfer from this area to colder surrounding tissues by conduction. It is clear that the lamp being a point source presents a problem if the penetration depth is less the than the thickness - only one side of the penis is heated by radiation!

Right, to my idea. I remembered when I used to do A stretches that the flaccid penis used to flatten and widen quite substantially (as seen in this demonstration: Inverted V A-Stretch Video). If a fulcrum is introduced when hanging straight down (say the cylinder of a pump or a can of Pringles), we can obtain the same effect and reduce the overall thickness. A simplified version of this has can be seen in figure 3 (note I tried to keep the volume constant, but it is difficult to do by eye). It is clear that while the absolute penetration depth remains the same, as an overall ratio to total tissue depth, it penetrates deeper (e.g. It is much close to the “core”).

This simple example shows that introducing a fulcrum and forcing a “squash” may offer a simple way to increase the effectiveness of a simple NIR lamp. If there is interest, I can investigate further and make some measurements/tests to confirm my assumptions. Note that I am trying to find more reliable information for wavelength-dependent tissue penetration depth.

Wishing all a happy new year. May 2022 bring you renewed spirit in chasing down your goals, and hopefully surpassing them.

Tonight I will resume my hanging with NIR, using Kyrpa’s stress/strain method. I will also introduce a fulcrum, in the form of a Pringles can, to see if NIR heating efficiency is improved. Even if I do not notice any immediate differences, I will continue to use a fulcrum for some time. I have also decided that while I prefer strain measurement of the shaft only, I will start tracking strain as others do on this forum; measuring from base to tip. This will allow better/direct comparison to others in the future.

I will likely wait a few sessions before reporting back to my log.

Decided it best to document my findings after this initial session.

Firstly, a Pringles can is too large a fulcrum for me. I found my pump cylinder far better sized (1.75”). I suppose at some point more research is needed to determine if there is an ideal size? But it did the job of “squashing”. Thickness reduced to roughly 1cm at point of minimum.

Second, the effect on heating was confusing. I found that I could be closer to the lamp and with less intense heat on the skin, when compared to the case without the fulcrum. This should not be the case unless there are other mechanics I am not taking into account.. I will continue this exercise and try observe more closely.

Last are my measurements:
0.32kg cold for 10 mins
0.82kg heat for 15 mins
1.32kg heat for 15 mins
1.82kg cool for 10 mins

Pre-BPFSL: 16.2cm
Post-BPFSL: 16.6cm
Strain: 2.47%

This figure seems to be within the range expected, which is encouraging. Note that the Post-BPFSL (and hence strain) includes edema from the vac cup. I will need to find a way to account for this in future measurements as I don’t like introducing errors into measurements (likely will apply the vac cup without hanging, then measure BPFSL, then simply take the difference).

Brief update, and introduction of measurement error.

Second session of the year performed last night. Exact same weights and durations:
0.32kg cold for 10 mins
0.82kg heat for 15 mins
1.32kg heat for 15 mins
1.82kg cool for 10 mins

Post-BPFSL increased by 1mm, however this could be down to measurement error. Note that, again, it also includes edema from the vac cap:

Pre-BPFSL: 16.2cm ± 1mm
Post-BPFSL: 16.6cm ± 1mm
Strain: 3.09% ± 1.25%

When an error of ±1mm is introduced for both BPFSL measurements (reasonable given the nature of it), there is a comparatively large uncertainty. Also note the uncertainty also depends on absolute length measured. For example, those with a BPFSL of 25cm and ±1mm measurement error, the uncertainty reduces to ± 0.8%. A simple way of reducing this error is by taking multiple measurements, though this may be time-constrained for post-BPFSL.

All this said, the all important number at the end of the day is Pre-BPFSL. I just thought it interesting to discuss errors in measurement and their effect.

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

So Wednesday I decided was a rest day, which I feel was good timing. I believe the my schedule will now be 2on/1off/2on/2off to make for a nice round week. Last night I resumed the usual routine and weights:
0.32kg cold for 10 mins
0.82kg heat for 15 mins
1.32kg heat for 15 mins
1.82kg cool for 10 mins

The surprise comes from both the pre and post BPFSL measurements!
Pre-BPFSL: 16.4cm ± 1mm
Post-BPFSL: 17.1cm ± 1mm
Strain: 4.27% ± 0.86%

This is quite the jump for the pre measurement. I measured a few times to ensure it wasn’t 16.3 cm, or even 16.2 cm, but it appears to be accurate. I guess the real test will be when measuring for tonight’s exercise. Additionally my post-BPFSL increased from 16.6 cm to 17.1 cm, which I will attribute to reacquired newbie gains? Either way I am happy with the result! That said, I remember reading on here somewhere that we should avoid exceeding 5% strain. So I should find that post again and read up on it.

For this exercise I measured both manual BPFSL and with the vac cup on. Both pre measurements were similar (16.2 cm ± 1mm for cup) however post was significantly different (17.5 cm ± 1mm for cup, resulting in a strain of 8.02% ± 0.87%). What does this mean? Does maximal post length begin reducing immediately after stopping exercise (since vac measurements were done first)? Or is it simply a grip issue (far easier to apply similar tension with the cup)? I will continue to make both measurements until I understand a little more.

Note, to my great shame, that my previous error propagation calculations for completely wrong and naïve. I have now corrected and updated to standard deviations calculations.

First week, complete.

Today marks the last exercise day of the week. I have kept the identical routine to previous entries (one which is unlikely to change for a while):
0.32kg cold for 10 mins
0.82kg heat for 15 mins
1.32kg heat for 15 mins
1.82kg cool for 10 mins

I managed to gain yet another millimetre on the pre-BPFSL, which feels unreal.. Hopefully not, but daily gains will soon be a thing of the past, so I must enjoy them in the present.
Pre-BPFSL: 16.5cm ± 1mm
Post-BPFSL: 17.1cm ± 1mm
Strain: 3.64% ± 0.86%

While it’s still early days, I am thinking on how long my cycle should be. A) Do I stop when strain results drop below 1% consistently? B) Instead of stopping, do I increase the weights?

There is also the question of the deconditioning break itself, and converting any gained BPFSL to BPEL. I was thinking of introducing a pumping cycle. Or is this done before the true deconditioning break (as in a 3 stage process; hang/pump/decon).