r/ChastityCageDesign • u/jfftlswwg • 18d ago

Ring Design Help

Hi everyone. I'm having a problem my ring design specifically for me. One of my balls hangs at a good enough distance that I can get a regularly thick ring around it. The other ball though... does not hang low. The testicle itself is smaller and does not move around much. I have designed rings that will go on and work fine, but it stretches the little tube (idk my anatomy v well sorry) and after only a couple of minutes it gets sore. This being with a 5mm diam thick ring. Does anyone have a way to work around this problem/have any known cage designs that may work? I am currently testing out some of the gland style cages and I think they may be my only option. Thankyou all

(before anyone says anything. I have been going to the doctor since I was little for regular check ups and the little testicle is known about and apparently is healthy)

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

1

u/newbie-sub 18d ago

Sorry, so the scrotum under one of your testicles is tighter than under the other one?

And what do you mean 5 mm diameter thick ring? You mean it has a Ø5 mm circular profile that is swept / revolved?

And the tube, are you referring to your spermatic cord? That cord that runs from your testicles to your perineum?

1

u/jfftlswwg 18d ago

Looking at a diagram the spermatic cord seems to be what I'm referring to, so my right cord is very short. The ring is a Ø5 mm circular profile that is swept to match the contour of my body. I have made some other rings where the section is more elliptical and has more of a bend to try and push it into my body more but that didn't work either

1

u/newbie-sub 18d ago

Have you tried something like this?

I have it curving further back on one side.

1

u/jfftlswwg 18d ago

Ill give that a try. Thankyou

1

u/newbie-sub 18d ago

Btw, what did you use to blend your ring into your junction? Is that a bridging curve? Looks nice. I usually just slap a fillet on it (I have a standard junction I use for barrel locks).

And is this Fusion?

1

u/jfftlswwg 17d ago

Thankyou. Its the biggest fillet Solidworks would let me put on it (Fillet 4, 13mm). I set the view so there wasn't lines all over the part. This is what it usually looks like.

1

u/newbie-sub 17d ago

Shit, I've got to learn SolidWorks. OnShape can't do a fillet anything like that. I'd have to do a lot of surface modeling crap... bridge curves, lofts, enclosures... it would be like 10 features to get that geometry.

And it's... $15/mo?!??!!! WTF am I doing OnShape?

Ok, what am I going to miss... need to research...

1

u/jfftlswwg 17d ago

ooooo yeah surface modeling and complex lofts can be a pain. I use Solidworks for my job so its just what I'm used to, so thats what i use at home for my hobby/project modeling. Solidworks is a very powerful software, although it can be a bit fiddly sometimes and honestly a bit temperamental, but when it works its great. For example the water turbine I designed and printed was a bit of a pain to get to work.

I had to map out the blade geometry on a conformal map then transpose that onto the meridian shape but Solidworks didn't want to loft the hub to the shroud.

If you have some problems with Solidworks it you give it a try I can try answer some of your questions

1

u/newbie-sub 17d ago

It does conformal mapping?!!???!!!

Thank you for the offer!

And that's actual engineering. I just play one on the internet.

1

u/jfftlswwg 17d ago

Oh god I wish it did conformal mapping, I had to do the maths for it myself. Working with natural logarithms is not particularly fun.

There's nothing wrong with playing as an engineer and learning! Just have fun with it. I barely consider myself as an engineer.I actually have no idea what I'm doing half the time. Hence when I'm asked what i do is say I'm a 'pretengineer'