- Max,
Uros use an orchidometer, whcih is really just a set of wooden egg shaped (testis shaped 
) balls against which a man's or more likely a boy's testes are compared. The measure the volume, and seem mostly to be used to track normal deveopment, or lack of it, in teenage boys.
This has been raised before, see
http://www.lpsg.org/cgi-bin/YaBB.cgi?board=health;action=display;num=1056172778;start=15
The trouble is, the range stops at a normal adult size, so they are no use for measuring supersized ones. In my own case I have measured the things in different dimensions by holding a ruler against them when they are relaxed, eg just after a bath, ie length (front to back), depth (up/down) width (side to side), and calculated a rough volume figure for each of them from there.
This is where obsession gets a bit sad, maybe.
) balls against which a man's or more likely a boy's testes are compared. The measure the volume, and seem mostly to be used to track normal deveopment, or lack of it, in teenage boys. This has been raised before, see
http://www.lpsg.org/cgi-bin/YaBB.cgi?board=health;action=display;num=1056172778;start=15
The trouble is, the range stops at a normal adult size, so they are no use for measuring supersized ones. In my own case I have measured the things in different dimensions by holding a ruler against them when they are relaxed, eg just after a bath, ie length (front to back), depth (up/down) width (side to side), and calculated a rough volume figure for each of them from there.
This is where obsession gets a bit sad, maybe.
- Max,
[quote author=prepky link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#2 date=08/23/03 at 05:13:40]so max what was your volume?[/quote]
I did this about 5 or 6 years ago and the result was 175 or 180 cc, if I remember. Which is odd, because remeasuring today it comes out at 240cc plus. Maybe this is part of the aging process
Or maybe I just measured the other one this time.
I did this about 5 or 6 years ago and the result was 175 or 180 cc, if I remember. Which is odd, because remeasuring today it comes out at 240cc plus. Maybe this is part of the aging process
Or maybe I just measured the other one this time.
[quote author=Max link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#3 date=08/23/03 at 11:16:57]
I did this about 5 or 6 years ago and the result was 175 or 180 cc, if I remember. Which is odd, because remeasuring today it comes out at 240cc plus. Maybe this is part of the aging process
Or maybe I just measured the other one this time.[/quote]
I just spent a few minutes with google ... it looks like normal
testicals are between 15 to 30 cc, and the avererage is
around 20. Which makes you roughly 12 times average
size. So ... by volume you have more balls than
a typical baseball team! Or about the same as 3
boy bands.
Pretty amazing to think about.
-- Erik
I did this about 5 or 6 years ago and the result was 175 or 180 cc, if I remember. Which is odd, because remeasuring today it comes out at 240cc plus. Maybe this is part of the aging process
Or maybe I just measured the other one this time.[/quote]
I just spent a few minutes with google ... it looks like normal
testicals are between 15 to 30 cc, and the avererage is
around 20. Which makes you roughly 12 times average
size. So ... by volume you have more balls than
a typical baseball team! Or about the same as 3
boy bands.
Pretty amazing to think about.
-- Erik
- Max,
Erik,
Hadn't thought of the boy bands .. but maybe if that is the comparison I might do even a bit better than that! LOL.
I had always thought, on the basis of an earlier calculation, that I was bigger than average by a factor of about 7 or 8. I was maybe assuming the mean was a bit more than you have said. But if you think about it, volume calculations are bound to be like that ... all you need is to be about twice the length and breadth and depth and you will be 8 times bigger in volume. So doubtless there will be others here far bigger than me.
But ... I have to say, this may explain why I could never understand why some men call them "nuts" ... though I do know that mine often drive me NUTS.
Hadn't thought of the boy bands .. but maybe if that is the comparison I might do even a bit better than that! LOL.
I had always thought, on the basis of an earlier calculation, that I was bigger than average by a factor of about 7 or 8. I was maybe assuming the mean was a bit more than you have said. But if you think about it, volume calculations are bound to be like that ... all you need is to be about twice the length and breadth and depth and you will be 8 times bigger in volume. So doubtless there will be others here far bigger than me.
But ... I have to say, this may explain why I could never understand why some men call them "nuts" ... though I do know that mine often drive me NUTS.
throb919: Max--There are always coconuts, y'know...!
(More balls than a baseball team is an impressive image. Hey, batter-batter! An entirely American reference, Max...sorry.)
(More balls than a baseball team is an impressive image. Hey, batter-batter! An entirely American reference, Max...sorry.)
[quote author=Max link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#5 date=08/24/03 at 09:29:59]Erik,
Hadn't thought of the boy bands .. but maybe if that is the comparison I might do even a bit better than that! LOL.
I had always thought, on the basis of an earlier calculation, that I was bigger than average by a factor of about 7 or 8. I was maybe assuming the mean was a bit more than you have said. But if you think about it, volume calculations are bound to be like that ... all you need is to be about twice the length and breadth and depth and you will be 8 times bigger in volume. So doubtless there will be others here far bigger than me.
But ... I have to say, this may explain why I could never understand why some men call them "nuts" ... though I do know that mine often drive me NUTS.[/quote]
I'm not really sure about the numbers ... I saw the 15 to 30
range for normal in several places, but the 20 for average
was just from one. It makes sense that the real average is
somewhere in the normal range but exactly where I can't
really say for sure. If I ever need to see a urologist sometime
I'll ask him about it.
But if you just being conservitive and use the high end
of normal as "average" it does work out to 8 large men,
just like you calculated. Now wonder they get in the way!
I remember reading somewhere about how some kinds
of fish will routinely grow giant testicals. It's an evolutionary
thing ... all they get to do is swim past the eggs and make
a cloud of sperm. And if several males go past the same
eggs, the one with the biggest balls have the most offspring.
If you don't mind me asking, how's your sperm count?
I know it's none of my business ... but it's interesting to
talk about if you feel like it.
-- Erik
Hadn't thought of the boy bands .. but maybe if that is the comparison I might do even a bit better than that! LOL.
I had always thought, on the basis of an earlier calculation, that I was bigger than average by a factor of about 7 or 8. I was maybe assuming the mean was a bit more than you have said. But if you think about it, volume calculations are bound to be like that ... all you need is to be about twice the length and breadth and depth and you will be 8 times bigger in volume. So doubtless there will be others here far bigger than me.
But ... I have to say, this may explain why I could never understand why some men call them "nuts" ... though I do know that mine often drive me NUTS.
[/quote]I'm not really sure about the numbers ... I saw the 15 to 30
range for normal in several places, but the 20 for average
was just from one. It makes sense that the real average is
somewhere in the normal range but exactly where I can't
really say for sure. If I ever need to see a urologist sometime
I'll ask him about it.
But if you just being conservitive and use the high end
of normal as "average" it does work out to 8 large men,
just like you calculated. Now wonder they get in the way!
I remember reading somewhere about how some kinds
of fish will routinely grow giant testicals. It's an evolutionary
thing ... all they get to do is swim past the eggs and make
a cloud of sperm. And if several males go past the same
eggs, the one with the biggest balls have the most offspring.
If you don't mind me asking, how's your sperm count?
I know it's none of my business ... but it's interesting to
talk about if you feel like it.
-- Erik
SimplyHung: Is that each or both together? I checked and mine come to 50-55 cc. each (so 100-110 cc. for both together). Either way, that still places me well above average for those, too!
[quote author=SimplyHung link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#8 date=08/24/03 at 17:18:10]Is that each or both together? I checked and mine come to 50-55 cc. each (so 100-110 cc. for both together). Either way, that still places me well above average for those, too![/quote]
It's just for one. But even so, you are more than double
normal size ... nearly three. Do a google search on
"orchidometer" and you should find some drawings.
I got the 20 cc figure here:
http://www.ivf.com/shaban.html
I also found another site that gives an average
of 18.6 cc.
http://www.knighthoodofbuh.org/piggylovin/pl5/meas.html
Isn't google useful ...
-- Erik
It's just for one. But even so, you are more than double
normal size ... nearly three. Do a google search on
"orchidometer" and you should find some drawings.
I got the 20 cc figure here:
http://www.ivf.com/shaban.html
I also found another site that gives an average
of 18.6 cc.
http://www.knighthoodofbuh.org/piggylovin/pl5/meas.html
Isn't google useful ...
-- Erik
- Max,
[quote author=Zot57 link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#7 date=08/24/03 at 12:27:39]
If you don't mind me asking, how's your sperm count?
I know it's none of my business ... but it's interesting to
talk about if you feel like it.
But
-- Erik
[/quote]
I don't mind talking about it at all, Erik, but since after our third child I had the snip, the answer must be zero.
I often wondered both about that and about my testosterone level ... some how or other I suspect that they are/were very much normal.
Why I happen to have what turns out to be such excessive size in that department, I couldn't say.
If you don't mind me asking, how's your sperm count?
I know it's none of my business ... but it's interesting to
talk about if you feel like it.
But
-- Erik
[/quote]
I don't mind talking about it at all, Erik, but since after our third child I had the snip, the answer must be zero.
I often wondered both about that and about my testosterone level ... some how or other I suspect that they are/were very much normal.
Why I happen to have what turns out to be such excessive size in that department, I couldn't say.
prepky: so you guys, one you get the figures of l x w x d do you add those numbers or multiply them ?? just courious
- Max,
[quote author=prepky link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#12 date=08/28/03 at 04:46:47]so you guys, one you get the figures of l x w x d do you add those numbers or multiply them ?? just courious[/quote]
These days here on lpsg there is always someone who knows better, but until I am put right, here is my very rough method:
Add l + d + w, in cms (in my case 10 + 7.5 + 6.5)
Divide by 3 to get the average diameter (this rough working assumes a sphere)
Divide by 2 to get radius. (r)
Then I use the formula embedded in my brain (rightly or wrongly) from school for the volume of a sphere ... 4/3 pi r cubed.
If anyone knows any better, and can give a method which doesn't assume a perfect sphere (which mine most certainly are not) I'd be glad to hear!
These days here on lpsg there is always someone who knows better
, but until I am put right, here is my very rough method:Add l + d + w, in cms (in my case 10 + 7.5 + 6.5)
Divide by 3 to get the average diameter (this rough working assumes a sphere)
Divide by 2 to get radius. (r)
Then I use the formula embedded in my brain (rightly or wrongly) from school for the volume of a sphere ... 4/3 pi r cubed.
If anyone knows any better, and can give a method which doesn't assume a perfect sphere (which mine most certainly are not) I'd be glad to hear!
[quote author=Max link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#13 date=08/29/03 at 14:02:36]
These days here on lpsg there is always someone who knows better, but until I am put right, here is my very rough method:
Add l + d + w, in cms (in my case 10 + 7.5 + 6.5)
Divide by 3 to get the average diameter (this rough working assumes a sphere)
Divide by 2 to get radius. (r)
Then I use the formula embedded in my brain (rightly or wrongly) from school for the volume of a sphere ... 4/3 pi r cubed.
If anyone knows any better, and can give a method which doesn't assume a perfect sphere (which mine most certainly are not) I'd be glad to hear!
[/quote]
Sometimes direct measures work best. Here's an idea ...
I haven't tried this yet, but it will probably work.
1. get a large glass completely full glass of warmish
water and a bucket.
2. take of your clothes and hop in the shower, taking
said glass of water and bucket with you.
3. here's the hard part. Lower your balls into the
water, catching the overflow into the bucket.
4. measure the volume of water displaced, perhaps
subtracting a few cc to compensate for spills.
I'll give it a try over the weekend, and let you know how
it works.
-- Erik
p.s. If you have someone willing to help, you could have
them slowly raise the glass while you stand still. This method
of measuring volume by water displacement is very old,
but there's no reason it wouldn't still work today, if
carefully done.
These days here on lpsg there is always someone who knows better
, but until I am put right, here is my very rough method:Add l + d + w, in cms (in my case 10 + 7.5 + 6.5)
Divide by 3 to get the average diameter (this rough working assumes a sphere)
Divide by 2 to get radius. (r)
Then I use the formula embedded in my brain (rightly or wrongly) from school for the volume of a sphere ... 4/3 pi r cubed.
If anyone knows any better, and can give a method which doesn't assume a perfect sphere (which mine most certainly are not) I'd be glad to hear!
[/quote]
Sometimes direct measures work best. Here's an idea ...
I haven't tried this yet, but it will probably work.
1. get a large glass completely full glass of warmish
water and a bucket.
2. take of your clothes and hop in the shower, taking
said glass of water and bucket with you.
3. here's the hard part. Lower your balls into the
water, catching the overflow into the bucket.
4. measure the volume of water displaced, perhaps
subtracting a few cc to compensate for spills.
I'll give it a try over the weekend, and let you know how
it works.
-- Erik
p.s. If you have someone willing to help, you could have
them slowly raise the glass while you stand still. This method
of measuring volume by water displacement is very old,
but there's no reason it wouldn't still work today, if
carefully done.
[quote author=Pecker link=board=sex;num=1061589610;start=0#15 date=08/29/03 at 18:06:17]Erik, that would account for 2 balls of disparate size plus the thickness of the scrotum.
Mayhaps somebody out there can find out how to measure the volume of an egg? That would be more accurate than spherical or cylindrical formulae.
Pecker
(I Keep Forgettin' I Forgot About You)
[/quote]
Yes, of course you are right, it does give you the volume of
both together, you still need to divide by two to get an
average for both of them.
And yes, it does include the skin as well, but for most
men I don't think that would amount to much. However
I still think it would yeild a more accurate result than
Max's "average radius" method.
Another idea along the same line would be to calculate
the volume for three spheres (l,d,w) and then average
the volumes.
If someone has a volume of egg formula that would
be even better still. However, I don't have such a
formula.
-- Erik
Mayhaps somebody out there can find out how to measure the volume of an egg? That would be more accurate than spherical or cylindrical formulae.
Pecker
(I Keep Forgettin' I Forgot About You)
[/quote]
Yes, of course you are right, it does give you the volume of
both together, you still need to divide by two to get an
average for both of them.
And yes, it does include the skin as well, but for most
men I don't think that would amount to much. However
I still think it would yeild a more accurate result than
Max's "average radius" method.
Another idea along the same line would be to calculate
the volume for three spheres (l,d,w) and then average
the volumes.
If someone has a volume of egg formula that would
be even better still. However, I don't have such a
formula.
-- Erik
The big problem with the average radius method is that when
you double the radius, the volume is 8 times larger, not
twice as large.
So ... averaging the volumes might help.
Another idea ... you could just weigh them. A gram of
water is a cubic centimeter, and testicles are probably
close to water in density.
I guess if you have a food scale you can wrap it
in plastic wrap first.
-- Erik
you double the radius, the volume is 8 times larger, not
twice as large.
So ... averaging the volumes might help.
Another idea ... you could just weigh them. A gram of
water is a cubic centimeter, and testicles are probably
close to water in density.
I guess if you have a food scale you can wrap it
in plastic wrap first.
-- Erik
- Max,
I still want to defend my method ... especially because in most cases I would think that measuring the volume of the whole sac will not give you an indication of the volume of your balls. Some have tight sacs, others very loose.
At least with my method you are dealing with the actual dimensions of one of the testes.
The question of what you do with the figures is a simple matter of maths. Let's hope that a mathematician comes forward. Meanwhile the obvious way to check that my calcs are in the right neck of the woods is to multiply all three figures to get a cubic rectangular figure, and check my result as a reasonable fraction (ie round about 65%?) of that. Just to think of the shape of an egg and how it would relate to a rectangualr shape that just contained it confirms that this must be so.
The stuff we find ourselves debating here!
At least with my method you are dealing with the actual dimensions of one of the testes.
The question of what you do with the figures is a simple matter of maths. Let's hope that a mathematician comes forward. Meanwhile the obvious way to check that my calcs are in the right neck of the woods is to multiply all three figures to get a cubic rectangular figure, and check my result as a reasonable fraction (ie round about 65%?) of that. Just to think of the shape of an egg and how it would relate to a rectangualr shape that just contained it confirms that this must be so.
The stuff we find ourselves debating here!
Finnmark: I've been reading through these posts and my head's spinning. Maths was never my strong point at school and it hasn't improved with age. As a matter of mild interest, I've done a 'ball check' which comes out, as accurately as I can make it, as 6.8 x 4.7 x 4.5cm. Can someone with a better brain than mine tell me what volume this comprises, and whether this is average or above or below ?
I honestly have no idea.
I honestly have no idea.
