New advancement in canister tugging

[tony12345]

After seven months of using the film cannister method of tuggging, I am happy with the results, but as a creative person with an engineering background, I have identified several improvements to the basic cannister method.

Fortunately, I have access to a fully equipped toolroom machine shop, hence producing improved devices is only limited by my imagination.

I am excited to say I am currently field testing a prototype cannister device which is far superior to the common film cannister or pill tube.

The new design allows for:

1. Improved urination capability, removal of leg strap not required, no spraying, no dripping on the floor.
2. Tighter pucker, helps foreskin conform to glans.
3. Less tape usage (about 33% less than film cannister)
4. Elimination of the spring binder clips used with conventional cannister (that I occasionally have to chase down my pant leg.)
5. Allows leg strap to come to rest without twisting, and still tugs from the centerline.
6. Sturdy construction

And along with all the benefits the cannister tugging:

1. All day long comfort, apply device in morning and forget about it until nighttime. No pinching, no pain.
2. Never comes off until you want to take it off, avoids embarrassing situations.
3. Precise & repeatable placement of skin on device, consistent tugging
4. Handles light or heavy tension tugging
5. No need to remove & reapply the device to urinate. Important if you are going to wear it all day long.

I plan on testing this new device for one to two weeks. If all goes well, I may make a few samples available for those willing to give it a try.

More to come, stay tuned. Get the Rejueveness tape ready.

[pete-g]

Sounds great! Can you post some pictures of the device?

Thanks!

[tony12345]

I will post some pics after my prototype testing is done in about one week. I want to make sure the device is durable and won't need any re-working.

[Distalero]

I know that this isn't understood by most (all?), but no device will create a tight pucker. You are tugging on the circumferential covering of a cylinder. The "end" of a skin tube is not really an end at all. You can't influence something that isn't really there. Maybe I should emphasize that. You can't influence, or shape something that isn't there in reality.

Most people look at things on the surface, and accept the common misunderstanding, but if you think about it a bit, and use your engineering background, you will realize that no matter how long you grow your skin tube it will never have an ACTUAL "end".

This whole issue goes to the mistaken concept of tugging "wide" as well. Can't happen, won't happen, never will. Same for a device that somehow creates a taper. Can't happen, won't happen, never will.

You can't widen out, and you can't taper down. If you could (and you can't), then think about it, you would be always tugging to the least amount of volume. THAT's a hard concept to take in, too, but true nonetheless.


Otherwise, a new product is always welcome, especially when I get to hammer this issue again

[tony12345]

I disagree, I believe tissue can be made to conform to some extent.

If it's tugged with a pucker it will tend to go in that direction, if you tug with a Campbell soup can you will stretch it out like a trumpet.

If one took a plastic soda straw and heated it up, and pulled both ends the middle section would become narrowed, even though it started out a larger diameter. The new device uses tension working for you.

In either event, whether or not one agrees with the abilty to grow a conforming foreskin, the new device is superior to other cannister methods thus far.

[Distalero]

Absolutely wrong.

Think about it.


Here's a hint: you are pulling on a double fold of skin, roughly in a ring. Skin actually grows from the basal layer, up. To get more tube you have to stimulate more basal layer to form, but because it's a double fold of skin, you can pull forward, out at a 90, or back towards the belly, and get exactly the same effect.

And only that effect. Why?

Because there is no end in that tube, and there is no external end to the basal layer.

[1Taoist]

I've been around long enough to witness this debate repeatedly, and I have a few thoughts. This, it seems, is like the abortion debate- it just never ends.

There seems to always be people with "engineering backgrounds" who start applying this thinking. Maybe it just doesn't matter, one way or the other- some people believe, some people don't. The end result is the same. Regardless.

First off: the skin isn't gonna GO in a direction, it only GROWS. And where you go wrong is the skin isn't growing where you point it- it isn't a weed. Our foreskin isn't ivy. It grows according to it's blue-print. All we do is stimulate it to grow more, and the more is what ends up covering us.

For some reason, people think this is like stretching earlobes and whatnot, but it's not. If you use gravity- a weight -the skin will appear to be going down and growing in that direction. But guess what? It's not. The weight is.

The basal layer must thin and re-thicken. That's all this process is. That's why it takes so damn long. Stretch doesn't take that long. And doesn't last long, either.

It's great you're improving the cannister method. I think that's cool. You're talkin it up a bit before delivering, which makes me a little skeptical. And your misunderstanding of mitosis makes me think your idea may be a bit of over-thinking, and probably also misunderstood principle. But I'll wait to see. Maybe you've got something.

Until somebody with a tool machine shop sits down and approaches this thing with a mind to stimulate tissue growth based on the true understanding only- and then tailors that in a conforming way, nothing new is gonna happen. The cannister method may appear to work well because it DOESN'T taper, it Just fits the skin tube well. And probably because of this it nicely thins the basal layer in a conformed way cuz it's in the shape of how the skin already exists.

Many people think the taper training of the conical tuggers is the principle effect of the cone, but I do not. It is the trapping or gripping of the skin that is facilitated by this design, related to tapelessness. What somebody needs to do is design something that is actually penis-shaped. But wait a minute- that's manual tugging. Manual tugging uses your actual penis. And the skin simply grows around it. Which is what it's there to do.

I look forward to seeing this and would be happy to try it for you. Glad you're using your imagination.

[Distalero]

Here's another way of thinking about it. Shaft skin stops at the scar line distally. At the proximal end of the shaft it's actually continuous with the rest of the skin covering the body, but let's say it stops at the pubis. So, you have two anchor points, where the skin is fixed all the way around the shaft, forward and rearward.

As you pull on the skin covering of a cylinder, and it responds by growing more and more, where does this skin go if it's actually anchored at a forward and rearward point on the cylindrical shaft, or better asked, how does it lie on the shaft? Think about it. It begins to balloon out, lying looser and looser.

But here's the thing: it's anchored at the forward point. So (blair of trumpets), it will never go wider than that circumferential anchor point. As the skin grows, and as you roll that double fold of skin tube down towards the end, feeding it over the glans and past it, the tube that is formed will always be no wider than the shaft as long as you are forming that tube. See? No?

Think about it.

So, can any effort, namely a device with a taper, change the circumference of the forward anchor point? No. That's what you would have to do to effect this mythical taper. It is what it is. Do you see this? The anchor point, in relation to the shaft circumference and volume of skin present to form a tube, dictates the tube, but NOT A TAPER. Why? Because there is no place in that anchored, ballooning tube to influence a taper. It's 3-D, and a double fold of skin forming the tube.


The tube "end" (which is just the leading edge formed by a double fold of shaft skin which you rolled down) will always be what it is for any given circumference, putting aside the action of dartos muscle. Deflated shaft, more skin to roll distally, but same anchor point, results in a seemingly narrower tube if you pull it out, but it will not taper due to "shaping" (it will taper temporarily according the the stimulated dartos muscle, but not due to shaping), it will act only as the result of the forward anchor point.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Distalero

it will never go wider than that circumferential anchor point. As the skin grows, and as you roll that double fold of skin tube down towards the end, feeding it over the glans and past it, the tube that is formed will always be no wider than the shaft as long as you are forming that tube. See? No?

Originally Posted by Distalero

Can any effort, namely a device with a taper, change the circumference of the forward anchor point? No. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by Distalero

The tube "end" (which is just the leading edge formed by a double fold of shaft skin) will always be what it is for any given circumference, putting aside the action of dartos muscle.

Originally Posted by Distalero

it will not taper due to "shaping" (it will taper according the the stimulated dartos muscle, but not due to shaping).

I really appreciate the thought everyone is putting into this issue.

I'm 100% UNpersuaded by those who say there is nothing we can do to limit the diameter of the expanded skin.

Let me first say that if I wanted a very WIDE skin tube, I think there is definitely something I could do about that: stick something very wide in the skin tube and wait. So I think doing the opposite of that would have less of a widening effect.

I think the argument against the possibility of growing a tapered skin tube is ignoring the fact that the body is constantly rejuvenating itself. Even NON-restorers have cells in the skin, muscle, nerve, and vascular tissues that divide periodically. We are not inventing something biologically new in restoring, we are just harnessing an existing process, and tricking the cells into dividing faster than the rate of cell attrition, for a net gain of tissue.
- - - - -
I have a problem: I need to get shaved and showered and get some sleep (for once) to be fit to leave the house early Tuesday.

I'll be back to discuss this more tomorrow.

Cheers,
-Ron

[Distalero]

If you could use a soup can as a canister (and of course you can't unless you had WAY more skin than anyone would ever have in restoration), then you would be pulling "wide" in comparison to the anchor point and the shaft, but this wouldn't result in a wider tube. Again, the anchor point (and the intrinsic orientation of the shaft skin), dictates how that skin will roll out. Pulling wider just pulls at the anchor point at a broader angle.

You would be in effect pulling longer, as we do everyday. Here's why:

You are pulling on a double fold of skin. In cross section it's a circumferential triangle; kind of like a wave shape all around the circumference of the shaft. You can't pull "wide" on a triangle. It's a closed arrangement. Does anyone see this?

You are pulling on both sides of that triangle which is fixed by tape, compression, whatever. When you unfold the triangle, as we do everyday, you get NOT a wider tube, you get a LONGER section of tube when you roll it out. The triangle's legs return to a rough alignment with the shaft.

Thing is, we see this everyday. No one sees a growing taper.

No one has EVER reported a growing taper, if this is what would convince you of my observation. Actually, my observation comes from observing
and from just visualizing the model.

Taper: if you can see that we are pulling on that triangle (pretty simple concept), where in that triangle can you influence a diminishing force? You are pulling on the triangle. Where do you STOP pulling on the triangle?

You can't, of course, but it's the pivotal question. Where, if you are pulling at a triangle anywhere along the shaft, do you STOP pulling in that triangle, so that less stimulus is applied, resulting in less growth, resulting in a taper? A rhetorical question, of course, because you can't. And, you can't because the triangle is CLOSED. It wouldn't be a triangle if it was anything else. This is such a simple minded statement, but you can't really say it any other way.

I like this discussion, partly because it address another of the myths of restoration, and it hits home for those able to see the actual model, but the bottom line is that nobody has to worry about taper, or growing a "wide" tube. It won't happen. Just tug in whatever way suits you, and you will get something eventually that will be better than what exists now.

Guaranteed.