Finding the Numerator of a Transfer Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the numerator of a transfer function given specific poles and the context of a Laplace transform. Participants explore the implications of the absence of zeros and how that affects the numerator, as well as methods for performing the inverse Laplace transform.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant identifies the poles at -2 ± 3j and expresses the denominator in terms of s, seeking clarification on the numerator.
  • Another participant asserts that there are no zeros in the plot, suggesting that the numerator can only be a constant, which they propose could be 3.
  • It is noted that any real constant could serve as the numerator, as the inverse Laplace transform of a constant multiplied by a function yields a scaled version of that function.
  • A participant mentions a potential misunderstanding regarding the Laplace table and acknowledges an error in reading it.
  • Another participant suggests the possibility of using partial fraction expansion for the inverse Laplace transform, contingent on comfort with complex numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the numerator can be a constant, but there is no consensus on what that constant should be, as it cannot be definitively determined from the provided plot.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations in determining the numerator from the plot and the dependence on the interpretation of the Laplace transform table. There is also an acknowledgment of potential errors in reading the table.

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
3K
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K