Design and proportion

[James White]

I am in the process of improving my design skills. However I am stuck on an aspect of proportion and design. If I am using a Fibonacci sequence as an aid to proportion. Can I skip a number in the series and still be proportional? I am designing a stand for our bread machine. The top is 23.875"x14.755". That gives me the following sequence.

23.875
14.755
9.119
5.636
3.48
2.15
1.33
.822

If I have leg material that is 1.33" in thickness. Then the next # in the series would be 2.15". However If the stand is about 37" tall. Then legs that are 1.33"x2.15" would look a bit undernourished or spindly. So should I/could I go to the next # in the series? Then the legs would be 1.33"x3.48". Would that still be considered to be proportional? Would it be better to go with multiples. In other words. 1.33x2=2.66"

The stand will have just two legs at the back. With the feet and the table supports being cantilevered. Think of those tables that they have in the hospitals that cantilever out over the bed with the feet going under the bed. Sorry I don't have an image to post. But I hope my description will yield the idea.

James

[Mel Fulks]

Sounds complicated ,think that is holding down replies. Don't think I would use proportion rules on different type parts. If the piece will have drawers ,then that is the best place to apply some math. Different time periods and styles inherently require different proportions and some of them must depend on individual human judgement. Some want a look of strength and others are looking for a design that looks too weak but stubornly endures. And sometimes "mistakes were made" ....like when Falling Water ,acknowledged by many to be a work of genius, was built in a way that might let it fall in the water.

[Prashun Patel]

You can use multiples too (1x, 2x, 3x...)

Personally 1.3" legs on a 37" tall stand are going to be spindly regardless of how thick you make them.

You could laminate and do 2.15 x 2.15, or even just 2x2.

[William Adams]

I suspect that leaving out an instance of the proportion will provide a bit of space to the design, and make it appear light and elegant.

The only way to be certain is to draw it up both ways and see, but this will come down to one’s tastes and preferences and perceptions.

Remember, the full quote is, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind.” If there’s a reason for it, which makes sense in context, rules are made to be broken.

[John Sanford]

Here ya go:

http://www.byhandandeye.com/

[James White]

Ask four different woodworkers and get four different answers?
I thank you all. I have had the Tolpin/Walker books on my radar for some time now. However I have been indecisive about which one to get. I suppose I will toss a coin.
My initial reaction to Williams suggestion was that I am trying to learn and understand the rules before I go breaking them. But in this application I may not have a choice. Here is why. This stand will straddle the our kitchens garbage can. It sits near our sliding door and I don't want it to overlap the door. Therefore I want to make it as narrow and "invisible" as possible. Hence the desire to make the legs narrow from the front view. But yet hefty enough from the side view to look sufficient. I have decided to go ahead and mill up some stock at 1.3" x (1.3x2)". So far the blanks look pleasing. I am thinking something like a flamingos legs. I have always had trouble with envisioning how something will look without a full size mock up. In this case the lumber is of lower value and taking up valuable real estate. Did I mention I am a wood hoarder.

With that said. My original question remains. Can I skip a number in a Fibonacci sequence and still be proportional? My example was 1.33"x3.48".

James

[William Adams]

Yes, you can leave out a number --- the problem is it comes off like a minor scale in music, which sometimes can be pleasing, but other times is dissonant --- it depends on the context, hence my suggestion to draw it up at full size and see.

Like music, it can also be a matter of taste / culture. In matters of taste there can be no absolute right/wrong, just matters of preference, save in a defined context.

As I noted, I think it will look light and airy from the one side, and am looking forward to seeing a photo.

[Brian Holcombe]

James,

Look up Le Corbusier proportions as well, his layout makes it very intuitive. I use it all the time for tables cabinetry, but I break into practical measurements for many things such as stiles/rails/table legs, ect.

[James White]

James,

Look up Le Corbusier proportions as well, his layout makes it very intuitive. I use it all the time for tables cabinetry, but I break into practical measurements for many things such as stiles/rails/table legs, ect.

Brain,

Do you have a link?

James

[glenn bradley]

Brain,

Do you have a link?

James

LMGTFY ;-)

Golden ration, Hambridge proportioning, etc. is all well and good. I use these as tie breakers when I am having an argument with myself over proportions. They are meant to be a tool, not a master.

[James White]

LMGTFY ;-)

Golden ration, Hambridge proportioning, etc. is all well and good. I use these as tie breakers when I am having an argument with myself over proportions. They are meant to be a tool, not a master.

Yah. I got the same information overload as you did.

James

[James White]

I figured out how I could post my initial drawings. They are to scale. However the stand is no longer so deep. The top is only 14" deep. I am also shortening it so that it will be level with the counter height.

James

[Brian Holcombe]

I wouldn't completely cantilever the legs, but simply offset from center which will give them a larger mechanical advantage but still appear cantilevered. First person who leans against that stand, as it sits, will likely break your joinery.

The overall design is appealing looking, but too flimsy in my opinion. I tend to lean on golden ratio/Corbu, etc for the overall proportions, but default to practical proportions for structural pieces. I'd like to avoid a falling water situation .

The joinery needs to come into play at this point as it will have an overall effect on the design. As it stands if you attempt to modify the joinery to accommodate this design I think you'll be increasing your chances that it will not be strong enough.

I try and plan around extremes (of use) because some seriously goofy stuff happens at times and you, as the designer, are always to blame if it fails due to misuse. For instance, I designed a table for my study, leather top, thin integral skirt. The weakest point is the center above the drawers.....one of my friends comes over and admires my table...where does he sit? Right in center above the drawers but the table held up fine, because it's overbuilt. In my personal/family use that sort of thing would absolutely never happen, but then my friend arrives and thats the first thing he does.

[James White]

Brian,

Thank you for your thoughts. You have some very valid point. Ones that I had never had to consider in the past. I like overbuilt stuff myself. Arts and Crafts and just things that say I am hear to stay. This is a project of need and learning.

Since I have the blanks milled. I think I will do a mock up with them. This will be my first piece using a Festool Domino. That is why your point regarding joinery is a very sobering one. A proper mortise and tenon may have given things a chance. But at just 1 3/8" thick there is not much room for domino placement.

I am already lusting for the Domino 700 and I have not even used the 500 yet.

[Wayne Lomman]

James, if in doubt, get some packaging grade 3/16" ply or similar and cut out 2 full size profiles - one front and one side view and look at them in the final context. Its easy to trim of bits you don't like or tape extra bits on until you are happy. Cheers