Underjams capacity and tips

[Millenniumfalsehood]

I would say that's a good assumption. Since the QC people assume (rightly) that only pre-teen through mid-teens will wear them, they probably don't test them on full-size dummies, thus leading them to conclude that they are within tolerances.

Also, I'd like to debunk the idea that stretching them does anything to prevent tearing. If anything, the molecular bonds are weakened, making it harder for them to do their job and *more* susceptible to tearing. The whole stretching idea was started because someone wanted the diaper to be more comfortable, like how if you stretch a balloon it's softer and easier to blow up. If you look closely at the sides, they are 'plated' with cotton threads. *Those* are whats holding the sides together, not the rubber(I know this because when mine tore, I looked and it turned out that the cotton lining was a lot more intact than the rubber and it was more resistant to further tearing than the rubber). The way to increase strength would be to add more substance to the cloth or rubber layer, which would cause the sides to be tougher and harder to stretch, thus taking away some of the comfort level, or to put some form of corrugation in the sides.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Millenniumfalsehood

I would say that's a good assumption. Since the QC people assume (rightly) that only pre-teen through mid-teens will wear them, they probably don't test them on full-size dummies, thus leading them to conclude that they are within tolerances.

Also, I'd like to debunk the idea that stretching them does anything to prevent tearing. If anything, the molecular bonds are weakened, making it harder for them to do their job and *more* susceptible to tearing. The whole stretching idea was started because someone wanted the diaper to be more comfortable, like how if you stretch a balloon it's softer and easier to blow up. If you look closely at the sides, they are 'plated' with cotton threads. *Those* are whats holding the sides together, not the rubber(I know this because when mine tore, I looked and it turned out that the cotton lining was a lot more intact than the rubber and it was more resistant to further tearing than the rubber). The way to increase strength would be to add more substance to the cloth or rubber layer, which would cause the sides to be tougher and harder to stretch, thus taking away some of the comfort level, or to put some form of corrugation in the sides.

Better idea... MAKE THEM BIGGER.

:p

[the-ownage]

Originally Posted by Millenniumfalsehood

I would say that's a good assumption. Since the QC people assume (rightly) that only pre-teen through mid-teens will wear them, they probably don't test them on full-size dummies, thus leading them to conclude that they are within tolerances.

Also, I'd like to debunk the idea that stretching them does anything to prevent tearing. If anything, the molecular bonds are weakened, making it harder for them to do their job and *more* susceptible to tearing. The whole stretching idea was started because someone wanted the diaper to be more comfortable, like how if you stretch a balloon it's softer and easier to blow up. If you look closely at the sides, they are 'plated' with cotton threads. *Those* are whats holding the sides together, not the rubber(I know this because when mine tore, I looked and it turned out that the cotton lining was a lot more intact than the rubber and it was more resistant to further tearing than the rubber). The way to increase strength would be to add more substance to the cloth or rubber layer, which would cause the sides to be tougher and harder to stretch, thus taking away some of the comfort level, or to put some form of corrugation in the sides.

QFT

I debunked that myself, and found negative differences when I stretched one of my pairs. It's good to just put it on from when it comes out of the package.

[monkster]

Originally Posted by the-ownage

QFT

I debunked that myself, and found negative differences when I stretched one of my pairs. It's good to just put it on from when it comes out of the package.

I just noticed this too, last night. Didn't stretch my pair, and magically it was intact when I woke up!

Then that is the problem, I assume, maybe also a mix of the QC factor.

[deependh200]

I wore these for a bit when they first came out. My first package was great as far as the sides not tearing. My second and third packages (which were bought at the same time) had issues with tearing. I think their capacity is better than GNs but the GNs are bigger and fit me a little better. Also I experianced chafing issues with the underjams if i did anything more active than just lay in bed with them.

[gman1225]

Originally Posted by dogboy

I have not worn Underjams, but I have worn Goodnites. I'm 150 lbs. with a waste of about 31. They say Goodnites hold more than Underjams, and I can overwhelm a pair of Goodnites in (ahem) one peeing. So I would imagine it would be the same for Underjams. But if you are will to pace how much you contribute, they should fit you, and you would get the whole little tyke feel, which is kind of nice

haha little tyke... that is funny

[Ultraman]

It's been awhile since I've worn Goodnites. Haven't tried the Underjams though, but they do seem interesting. I may have to go out and get some sometime just to see what the 'hype' is all about.

[garnetandblack2107]

I still really want to get some Underjams, but I think I am going to get something else tomorrow when I go.

[baseball4life]

Both GN's and UJ's will give you the feeling of being younger that so many of us *B's want, but just understand their limits as far as how much you can pee in them. Those of you that aren't IC or that have a relatively average size bladder have to make sure not to "flood" them, but rather to go a bit at a time. Otherwise, you most certainly won't get the result you're looking for!

[the-ownage]

They both absorb pretty slow too, so it might sound like you're pissing in a pond!