Broadback wrote:
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
will see is the lawn space around it.

From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.

The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best

pk

On 30/6/06 11:30, in article , "p.k."
wrote:

Broadback wrote:
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
will see is the lawn space around it.

From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.

The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best

I don't wish to be the doomer and gloomer here but I don't know where the OP
is thinking of siting this bed. If it's visible from e.g. his living room
windows, they're going to be looking at a lot of naked sticks for much of
the year, until the roses come into leaf and then flower. Therefore, I'd
suggest that whatever shape is chosen, a lowish evergreen hedge is planted
which will give some colour to the eye and draw it away from the nakedness
going on in the centre of the bed.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Sacha wrote:
On 30/6/06 11:30, in article , "p.k."
wrote:

Broadback wrote:
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?
Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
will see is the lawn space around it.

From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.

The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best

I don't wish to be the doomer and gloomer here but I don't know where the OP
is thinking of siting this bed. If it's visible from e.g. his living room
windows, they're going to be looking at a lot of naked sticks for much of
the year, until the roses come into leaf and then flower. Therefore, I'd
suggest that whatever shape is chosen, a lowish evergreen hedge is planted
which will give some colour to the eye and draw it away from the nakedness
going on in the centre of the bed.
I'm always torn between trying to be short or possibly giving too much
information. It will be seen from the house, the "lawn" is not very good
as there is no topsoil. The total area is large so I thought a bed of
roses, I will have to dig, well pickaxe actually out and import top
soil. As the house looks down on the area I thought that the shape
would be seen. I take on board the "dead" Winter, so perhaps I will
plant a very low box hedge around the perimeter and not patio roses as I
first thought. though nakedness going on in the centre of the bed
sounds interesting! ;-)

Mike Lyle wrote:
why wasn't I taught real maths as a kid?

I don't understand that either. I bet loads of 7-year olds would be
turned on by the idea of old Euler teaching himself by chalking on
gravestones, or the discovies of Srinivasa Ramanujan in basic
arithmetic. I suspect that the problem is that people are taught by
teachers, not mathematicians.

I had a similar experience with Chemistry. they spent 3 years teaching
me random reactions, then suddenly told us of old Dmitri Mendeleev and
his periodic table, which let you work out in advance how things might
react from other things you knew. Then when I thought I'd peeped
behind the curtain at last, it was 2 years before I found out about the
physics of electron orbitals, which was a closer look at why it worked.

It was as though I had to repeat, in my own lifetime, all the stumbling
through fog that mankind had done, before discovering the wonderful
inner secrets. Just telling us the underlying mechanism first was
somehow cheating.

So we are taught long division, or methods of multiplying fractions
parrot fashion, by people who learned them parrot fashion. Any kid
that gets a clue as to /why/ the method works, and adapts it for
themselves is not regarded as clever, but as wrong. "That's not the
way it is done", they are told. Never "This is how it works".

I was lucky. My father taught me to multiply by legitimate discard, I
met a student teacher when I was 8 who bothered to explain some of the
properties of 9, including why the digits of multiples of 9 add up to
9. But for the vast majority of people they never, ever, get to hear
any real maths at school - except Pythagoras' theorem. I can tell
tales based around that bit of maths that will keep you enthralled for
hours, and have seen people use it in the most extraordinary places.
But our kids plod through it without enthusiasm, becuse no-one ever
shows any enthusiasm when they are presenting it.

It's not just sad, it's a form of child abuse in my opinion. Failing
to tell them one of the most wonderful stories we have ever learned.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Lyle wrote:
why wasn't I taught real maths as a kid?

I don't understand that either. I bet loads of 7-year olds would be
turned on by the idea of old Euler teaching himself by chalking on
gravestones, or the discovies of Srinivasa Ramanujan in basic
arithmetic. I suspect that the problem is that people are taught by
teachers, not mathematicians.

Indeed and mine had very bad breath..............I never asked questions
when i didn't understand to avoid him leaning over me !

So we are taught long division, or methods of multiplying fractions
parrot fashion, by people who learned them parrot fashion. Any kid
that gets a clue as to /why/ the method works, and adapts it for
themselves is not regarded as clever, but as wrong. "That's not the
way it is done", they are told. Never "This is how it works".

Then my father would ry to help me with my homework.......he'd learnt a
totally differnt system for doing things and we would have huge fights about
it..........stopped asking j=him in the end too.

It's not just sad, it's a form of child abuse in my opinion. Failing
to tell them one of the most wonderful stories we have ever learned.

True, but I still have a career in computers :~))))
Jenny

Broadback wrote:
. As the house looks down on the area I thought that
the shape would be seen.

That is then a valid reason for having a "shape", but still think about the
spaces around the bed and how they work when you are in them.

pk

wrote in message
ups.com...
K wrote:
So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?

Nothing so simple. There is a formula by Jacques Binet which lets you
calculate the n-th Fibonacci number directly rather than by itteration,
based on raising the golden ratio to the power of n. In its own way it
is nearly as remarkable as the Euler identity we started with, as there
is no obvious reason why the two are related. They appear to share
some hidden scaffolding round the back of the universe, one of the best
reasons for stydying maths.


Binet is another of those imortals produced by the Ecole Polytechnique
in Paris. The whole history of 20th century technology appears to
depend on that group of mathematicians (Fourier, Dirac, etc) from the
E-P, of whome Binet is just another.

A friend of mine describes theoretical mathematicians as "mad
toolmakers". They produce shelf after shelf of bizzare contraptions,
with jaws and teeth and ratchets and clamps and wheels in seemingly
pointles juxtaposition. Then, usually a couple of hundred years later,
someone comes into the the shop looking for something to "hold this
just here and twist it like that", and on the shelf somewhere is a
dusty old thing that will do it perfectly.


I know some of them "mad toolmakers" they are called theoretical chemists.
When you track down their background you find they were mathematicians or
physicists who suddenly saw the light and decided Chemistry is fun.

"K" wrote in message
...

So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?

For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up
all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
so:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....

and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction
then counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you
two successive terms of the Fibonacci series.

e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
God:-)



--
Kay



The number of petals found on most flowers are Fabonacci numbers.
Douady and Couder produced an explanation for such botanical
arrangements - specifically in terms of phyllotaxy - in the 1990's.

http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/comment.htm

5th paragraph down starting with "Apparently".

What it probably boils down to is that 3D geometry means these
are the most efficient packing arrangements and so plants exhibiting
these traits will have a selective advantage. Or that surviving
plant species will exhibit the most efficient arrangement of
parts.




michael adams

....