Finding the Numerator of a Transfer Function

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the numerator of a transfer function given its poles at -2 ± 3j, leading to a denominator of (s + 2)² + 3². The numerator is suggested to be a constant, with a common assumption of 3, as there are no zeros present in the plot. It is noted that any real constant could serve as the numerator, since the inverse Laplace transform of a constant times a function results in a scaled version of that function. Additionally, partial fraction expansion is mentioned as an alternative method for inversion if one is comfortable with complex numbers. The conversation emphasizes the flexibility in choosing the numerator while maintaining the integrity of the transfer function.
Steve Collins
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I am attempting the question shown in the attachment.

It can be seen that the poles are located at -2 ± 3j which expressed in terms of s is (s + 2)2 + 32.

This is the denominator, but how is the numerator of the transfer function found?

Edit:

Looking at the Laplace look-up table I would want the numerator to be 3 giving:

3/((s + 2)2 + 32) so that i could use e-atcosωt to perform the reverse Laplace transform in part b.

Is this correct?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are no zeros in your plot, ergo there is no numerator other than a constant. The constant cannot be determined from the plot (unless it's contained in those funny numbers within the white part of the plot. I have never seen a plot like that before.) You can assume it's 3 but any other real constant is OK also. That should be obvious since L-1{cF(s)} → cf(t), c a constant.

My table says L-1{1/[(s+a)2 + b2]} → (1/b)e-atsin(bt).
 
rude man said:
There are no zeros in your plot, ergo there is no numerator other than a constant. The constant cannot be determined from the plot (unless it's contained in those funny numbers within the white part of the plot. I have never seen a plot like that before.) You can assume it's 3 but any other real constant is OK also. That should be obvious since L-1{cF(s)} → cf(t), c a constant.

My table says L-1{1/[(s+a)2 + b2]} → (1/b)e-atsin(bt).

Yes you are correct, I have misread the table and copied the entry from the line above.
 
BTW you could also have done the inversion by partial fraction expansion, if you're comfy with manipulating complex numbers just a reminder probably ...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K