Woodpecker's Fibonacci dividers

[Botch]

 

I didn't look up the price for these things, but it seems like an expensive way to avoid multiplying a dimension by 1.618 on a calculator.  

I've only used a Fibonacci, or "golden mean", on a hall table that I built years ago, the length is 1.618 times the height.  I thought about making that table's width the same ratio of the height, but (a) that would've taken up too much of the "walking path", and (b) my beautiful piece of 11" spalted maple wasn't that wide.  I don't think that design aesthetics should override practicality (lookin' at you, Apple Magic Mouse, with the charging port on the bottom!  ).  

[Beechwood Chip]

[fcschoenthal]

Woodpecker, being who they are, has a "great deal" on these currently on 3 sizes. A 12" for $80, 24" for $100 and a 48" for $130. You can also get all 3 for $300. Luckily, Fibonacci has been around for so long there are lots of free plans to make your own. In Wood Magazine #173 (11/06) there's a good one with explanation on how to use. Let me know if you want me to upload it.

Personally, I've never used it, preferring to just referencing by eye. As long as it's pleasing to my eye (and functional), I don't have to worry about calculators and strange fractional dimensions.

[Ron Swanson Jr.]

On 4/22/2026 at 5:44 AM, fcschoenthal said:

Personally, I've never used it, preferring to just referencing by eye. As long as it's pleasing to my eye (and functional), I don't have to worry about calculators and strange fractional dimensions.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think our eyes are a lot better gauge of dimension and proportion than we give them credit for. 

I guess I'm turning into a curmudgeon, because i find myself rolling my eyes at a fair amount of the gadgets and gizmos that are constantly being foisted onto us. Or, more specifically, at the price tags attached to them!

[gee-dub]

I often use the golden ratio as a starting point on things if I am struggling with proportions.  Like a lot of ergonomic standard heights and depths, there are things that have been with us for so long they just look or feel right.  I also use Hambridge proportioning for graduated drawers.  The human eye, mind and opinion get the final say though 

[Beechwood Chip]

Some YouTuber pointed me at Unlocking the Secrets of Traditional Design a long time ago, which recommended using integer ratios (3x5, 1x2, etc).  Unfortunately, it's out of print.  I found that that works better for me.

EDIT:  The YouTuber was, of course, @thewoodwhisperer.

https://thewoodwhisperer.com/articles/unlocking-the-secrets-of-traditional-design-dvd-review/

[wtnhighlander]

I like simple integer ratios also, just to keep the math simple. Usually, there is at least one dimension (often more!) dictated by the space a piece will live in, so fancy design ratios get chucked out the window, anyway.

[Botch]

On 4/22/2026 at 8:23 AM, Beechwood Chip said:

...Unlocking the Secrets of Traditional Design a long time ago, which recommended using integer ratios (3x5, 1x2, etc).  

 

I do a lot of photography, and that's interesting to me.  Photo and video formats have fluctuated too, and by integer ratios:

1x1 (Hasselblad), 4x5 (common portraiture), 3x5 (postcards!), 3x4 (OM Systems and early television), 2x3 (standard 35mm film), 16x9 (digital television, and early movies EDIT: and I just realized that’s a ratio of the squares of adjacent integers, like the 1x4x9 monolith In 2001: A Space Odyssey!), and various "panoramic" ratios (widescreen movies, computer monitors, and panoramic photos).  I have a book that explores the Fibonacci series in Nature; some, like the Nautilus shell, are stunningly accurate, while some, like a drawing of an ant, seemed to take rather arbitrary points of "intersection" (this happens in a painting in the OP video, where one line perfectly intersects the bottom of a nose, rather than the tip (which is correct?)).  The book also claimed it works for musical frequencies, but I had the ability to test that myself and it was BS.  I often thought, since a lens captures a circular image, film and digital sensors should capture that whole image, and let the Artist choose his own aspect ratio for the Final Piece during editing; it was kind of satisfying to me when the current crop of iPhones came with square sensors, that could be framed post-photo as a vertical (EweTube "Shorts") or a horizontal (like 95% of the pics in your photo album, as It Was Intended, as your stereoscopic eyeballs are arranged horizontally, not vertically!)  

TL/DR:  Make your design so it looks good to your eye, the theoretical bovine discharge is just that... 

Edited April 23 by Botch
A Fleeting flash of brilliance! :D.

[Beechwood Chip]

Golden Ratio is 0.618 x 1 = 6.18 x 10 =~ 6⅛ x 10 =~ 3 x 5

[Beechwood Chip]

The Unlocking the Secrets of Traditional Design DVD is out of print, but it's available via streaming from Lee-Nielsen.