Recent content by indianaronald

yeah yeah. That's what I meant. Typo.

Hey yeah, figured that out. It's actually by this property: inverse( df/dt)= s F(s) where laplace(f) = F(s) laplace ( dirac delta )=1 ( known property ) laplace( d(diracdelta)/dt ) = s*(1) hence, inverse( s) = d(diracdelta)/dt

This is very tricky for me. How to find the inverse laplace of 1s. I haven't been taught the integral method of inverse. Only the formula based , splitting terms kind of thing. I used MATLAB and found it was dirac delta. But how do I get to it without using the integral for inverse?

classical mechanics by Goldstein. Google it. It's available on scribd.

Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for.

yeah..but I need to understand this fully and properly. I read the wiki page and like all wiki pages it's qualitative at best. I was hoping for some book or topic which covers this extensively. But why is a ball on a plane complex? I don't understand that all.

I keep coming across this term and I cannot understand what this means pertaining to a mechanical system. I'm working on spherical robots and their control and there is mention of nonholonomy in the control of spherical robots. I googled it but I couldn't find a clear starting point to start...

No, couldn't get it. It still says it takes longer to cook and the boiling temperature is lower. I don't understand why it would take longer.

Can a substance only evaporate at the T(sat) at that particular pressure and why not even at a higher temperature? Example of a refrigerant at room temperature, pressurized container. But when it's opened, the P falls and T(sat) falls, so it goes to that T(sat) temperature to evaporate. But...

The textbook says "It takes longer to cook at lower temperatures because the saturation temperature is lower". But if the T(sat) is lower then it should take less time to cook, shouldn't it? Since the stove can reach that temperature sooner and can hence cook faster.

What is the meaning of solution pair? Yes, it gives me a±bi. How do I interpret it? And I don't even have damping in my system.

I'm applying laplace transform to a spring-mass system, the most basic one. I write this code which takes initial values x(0) and v(0) as input and I'm computing x(t) in matlab. But for some values it gives me complex roots for x(t) which doesn't seem possible. If not for laplace I can solve the...

Damn. I understand. What is there to understand anyway? It is not really multiplication at all. The symbol stands for 'convolution'. I can't delete this thread. So umm...it's going to be my beacon of stupidity, I guess, thank you very much.

Okay, so this is the first time I'm encountering this theorem and I'm not very strong in calculus. But I tried to understand it myself but couldn't. Convolution theorem is the one in the attachment as give in the book ( couldn't find a way to type that out easily). My doubt is if laplace(f)...

Thanks a lot! That's a very detailed and explanatory answer. Helps a lot.