RE: K formula?

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Peter,

On 29 Jul 2003, at 17:16, Peter Lawrence wrote:

 > Malcom,
 >        something does not seem quite right here
 >
 > if as K -> 1 we get Fu -> inf, and Fl -> 1.414 * Fres
 >
 > then you've got Fl going to a value larger than Fres, but Fu and Fl should
 > be on opposite sides of Fres...?

Sorry. The lower one should have been F/SQRT(2).

Regards,
Malcolm


 > -Pete Lawrence.
 >
 > ----------
 > The other one is correct. The one you've used is an approximation
 > whose answers get more inaccurate as k increases. The reason this is
 > so is the built-in assumption that F2 and F1 are equidistant from Fo
 > which they are not. In fact, as k -> 1, the upper frequency ->
 > infinity and the lower to SQRT(2)xFr.
 >
 > Malcolm
 >
 >