SketchUp & the Golden Section

[Jeff]

What is this about and what's it got to do with woodworking design?

We started looking at new TV consoles at "Consumer Reports" and they're rectangles but not any old rectangle. The Golden Ratio/Section is length/width = 1.6 (it's been around since the ancient Egyptians and Greeks).

Does it apply to modern TVs? SketchUp rectangle tool to draw a golden section for a 48" diagonal TV.

​

It works nicely and the ratio is 1.6:1 for a 48" diagonal TV screen.

​

So how about the real world? Here it is for a Samsung TV using their overall dimensions (model UN48H8000). The ratio is 1.6:1.

​

 

[Hmerkle]

Jeff,
Is there a question in there somewhere?

I will use my standard line- Go read by hand and eye - By George R. Walker & Jim Tolpin
http://lostartpress.com/products/by-hand-eye-1

 

[Jeff]

Sorry, I don't intend to be flippant. Yes there are 3 questions if you'll digest the individual points instead of a quick once-over and asking a question.

1. What is this about and what's it got to do with woodworking design?

2. Does it apply to modern TVs?

3. So how about the real world?

...and...

View attachment Guide to Good Design.pdf

 

[Hmerkle]

Sorry, I don't intend to be flippant. Yes there are 3 questions if you'll digest the individual points instead of a quick once-over and asking a question.

1. What is this about and what's it got to do with woodworking design?

2. Does it apply to modern TVs?

3. So how about the real world?

...and...

View attachment 14448

I didn't take it as flippant - I just wasn't going to try to answer a question you weren't asking.
there is more to it than the golden rectangle

And I have to repeat -
Go read by hand and eye - By George R. Walker & Jim Tolpin
http://lostartpress.com/products/by-hand-eye-1

Give me until the morning - (gotta go to bed) but I want to quote something specifically from the book and it is upstairs, and when I go up there, I will NOT come back to my office until tomorrow morning!

 

[Jeff]

Hank,

Some parts of my post are rhetorical questions.

Thanks. I've heard of the book but haven't purchased it yet. It sounds like an interesting read and I think Mike Davis speaks highly of its methods.

 

[Hmerkle]

:embaresseWell, I have to be forthright and honest.

By Hand and eye is one of the books I wanted for Christmas and didn't get and Mr. Davis was kind enough to lend me his copy. (Thank you Mike!)

You see, I believe in what I call "progressive learning." I wanted to start with this book, then move on the "The Essential Woodworker" which is a literal "bench textbook." teaching lessons that build on each other, then onto ??? (whatever is the next logical step in learning. With an eye toward developing my ability to practice and teach others what I have learned!

BH&E starts theoretical (the whys and hows) and quickly moves in the the practical... (literally doing) so your "hand and eye" is "awakened."

George Walker and Jim Tolpin talk first about visual scale (why does 1:6 "look good?") then on to the classic orders (doric columns and their variations) then onto proportions slowly bringing the reader to a point of "How to apply what you have learned" in a projects section.

I also consider one little bonus where Jim talks about a "module" and using this to design or "debunk a design" that you are considering...
i.e. (Jim) "I chose my hand span (approximately 9") as the height for the (step) stool because a person's hand-span is typically equal to their normal (i.e. comfortable) stepping height."
"This serves as the "base-one" module for all the other ratios that form this step stool"
So the length of the stool is "Module X 2" while the width is "Module +1/7" these proportions are pleasing to the human eye and for use in "Real life" since two hand spans happen to be the width of our shoulders!
The other pieces that make-up the stool are also portions and proportions of the module and Jim goes on to explain "parallax" what you see in 2-D is not what you see in 3-D because of perspective and your "visual" position in relation to an object.

While my "review" may make it sound like a boring textbook, I assure you it is not, they way they write is VERY engaging, encourages you to learn and challenges you put the ideas into action. And after all, the question is;

"What is this about and what's it got to do with woodworking design?"

 

[Jeremy Scuteri]

Hank,

Some parts of my post are rhetorical questions.

Thanks. I've heard of the book but haven't purchased it yet. It sounds like an interesting read and I think Mike Davis speaks highly of its methods.

My impression was that *all* (not some) of your questions were rhetorical.

 

[Jeremy Scuteri]

I just measured my TV for fun. It was 51 5/16 by 31 5/16. This works out to a ratio of about 1.65 which isn't too far from the golden ratio (~1.618). It makes we wonder about these design guidelines such as using the golden ratio and small integer ratios to relate the sizes of different elements. I am not sure it matters whether your ratio is something like 2:1 or 2.1:1

 

[Hmerkle]

I just measured my TV for fun. It was 51 5/16 by 31 5/16. This works out to a ratio of about 1.65 which isn't too far from the golden ratio (~1.618). It makes we wonder about these design guidelines such as using the golden ratio and small integer ratios to relate the sizes of different elements. I am not sure it matters whether your ratio is something like 2:1 or 2.1:1

From my learning so far -
Yes, Jeremy, a 2:1 ratio is good, but a 1:6 or 1:7 tends to be more pleasing to the "eye!"

 

[Jeremy Scuteri]

From my learning so far -
Yes, Jeremy, a 2:1 ratio is good, but a 1:6 or 1:7 tends to be more pleasing to the "eye!"

I know that conventional knowledge is that the golden ratio tends to be very pleasing. My issue comes with the idea that if you don't relate your parts to small integer ratios (or the special case of the golden ratio which happens to be an irrational number) then your piece won't look quite right.


When I measure things that are supposed to be based on the golden ratio they tend to be a bit off, yet they look perfectly fine. I argue that the same thing applies to all proportions. There doesn't seem to be a real need to get our your dividers and step off to get the ratios dead on. As long as it is reasonably close, then it seems to be ok.

Really extreme cases where proportions are really bad can stand out. Think of a little tiny box made to hold a deck of cards, but the sides of the box are 3/4" thick. That would look bad. As long as you can avoid these really bad proportions, I am not so sure the rest really makes a difference.


Many years ago, I went on a quest to find out what "harmony" is (relating to music). A quick search will return definitions such as "notes that sound good together are said to be in harmony". My engineering background did not know how to handle this idea. My first thought was, "Who gets to decide what notes sound good together?". It seemed like personal preference like "I like coke better than pepsi". A bit more research shows that many cultures have independently came up with very similar ideas of "what notes sound good together" so there does appear to be something to it.

From a mathematical point of view (now the engineer in me gets happy), it turns out the notes that are in harmony have small integer relationships to each other. (An octave is 2:1 and is the most harmonious, so much so that two frequencies with this relationship are defined by the same letter for the note (440Hz = A and 880Hz = A as well) Different pitch, but we call them both "A".

In music, small errors in the relationships of notes can be detected quite easily because beat notes will be created. I am not so sure the same kind of indicator exists for proportions. Again, the really bad ones are obvious, but small "proportional errors" probably will not be noticed unless someone goes looking for them with a pair of dividers.

 

[Jeff]

When I measure things that are supposed to be based on the golden ratio they tend to be a bit off, yet they look perfectly fine. I argue that the same thing applies to all proportions. There doesn't seem to be a real need to get our your dividers and step off to get the ratios dead on. As long as it is reasonably close, then it seems to be ok.

Really extreme cases where proportions are really bad can stand out. Think of a little tiny box made to hold a deck of cards, but the sides of the box are 3/4" thick. That would look bad. As long as you can avoid these really bad proportions, I am not so sure the rest really makes a difference.

Good points Jeremy and the general guidelines are just that; they're not absolute as you point out.

I started a new thread for this discussion which is more general in it's intent.

http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54909

 

[Willemjm]

I use the golden ratio in everything I design. Sometimes it won't fit, then I wing it in sections. For instance if a drawer high to width does not work, I will jump from 0.618 to 0.309, or get the ratio of more than one drawer height to fit the width.

 

[jazzflute]

If you want to find out if something is cool or not, just search for the t-shirts:












And just for Jeremy...


K

 

[Hmerkle]

Kevin,
Do you have all those shirts, or do you have to print them?

 

[jazzflute]

Kevin,
Do you have all those shirts, or do you have to print them?

Google image search is my friend.

K

 

[Hmerkle]

Google image search is my friend.

K

I am thinking to take one of those and put it on my laptop... that will confuse the crowd I run with!