MHB Henry's question via email about an Inverse Laplace Transform

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving an Inverse Laplace Transform problem involving a complex denominator that does not easily factor. By recognizing a specific form, the expression is transformed through completing the square, allowing for partial fraction decomposition. The coefficients for the partial fractions are determined through a system of equations, leading to a simplified form. The final result of the Inverse Laplace Transform is expressed in terms of hyperbolic functions, specifically involving sine and hyperbolic cosine. The conversation also touches on the confusion regarding the identities of individuals involved in the discussion.
Prove It
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
20
View attachment 5832

It's not entirely obvious what to do with this question, as the denominator does not easily factorise. However, if we realize that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} s^4 + 40\,000 = \left( s^2 \right) ^2 + 200^2 \end{align*}$ it's possible to do a sneaky completion of the square...

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left( s^2 \right) ^2 + 200^2 &= \left( s^2 \right) ^2 + 400\,s^2 + 200^2 - 400\,s^2 \\ &= \left( s^2 + 200 \right) ^2 - 400\,s^2 \\ &= \left( s^2 + 200 \right) ^2 - \left( 20\,s \right) ^2 \\ &= \left( s^2 - 20\,s + 200 \right) \left( s^2 + 20\,s + 200 \right) \end{align*}$

and thus it's now possible to perform partial fractions

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{A\,s + B}{s^2 - 20\,s + 200 } + \frac{C\,s + D}{s^2 + 20\,s + 200} &\equiv \frac{s^2 + 200}{\left( s^2 - 20\,s + 200 \right) \left( s^2 + 20\,s + 200 \right) } \\ \left( A\,s + B \right) \left( s^2 + 20\,s + 200 \right) + \left( C\,s + D \right) \left( s^2 - 20\,s + 200 \right) &\equiv s^2 + 200 \\ \left( A + C \right) \,s ^3 + \left( 20\,A + B - 20\,C + D \right) \, s^2 + \left( 200\,A + 20\,B + 200\,C - 20\,D \right) \, s + 200\,\left( B + D \right) &\equiv s^2 + 200 \end{align*}$

so it can be seen that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} A + C = 0 , \, \, 20\,A + B - 20\,C + D = 1 , \, \, 200\,A + 20\,B + 200\,C - 20\,D = 0 \textrm{ and } B+ D = 1 \end{align*}$, so solving the system gives

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 & 0 \\ 20 & 1 & -20 & \phantom{-}1 & 1 \\ 200 & 20 & \phantom{-}200 & -20 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right] \end{align*}$

apply R2 - 20R1 to R2 and R3 - 200R1 to R3 and we have

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & -40 & \phantom{-}1 & 1 \\ 0 & 20 & \phantom{-}0 & -20 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right] \end{align*}$

apply R3 - 20R2 to R3 and R4 - R2 to R4 and we have

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 \\ 0 & 1 & -40 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 \\ 0 & 0 & 800 & -40 & -20 \\ 0 & 0 & \phantom{-}40 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 \end{matrix} \right] \end{align*}$

and thus

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} 40\,C = 0 \implies C = 0 \end{align*}$

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} 800\,C - 40\,D = -20 \implies D = \frac{1}{2} \end{align*}$

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} B - 40\,C + D = 1 \implies B = \frac{1}{2} \end{align*}$

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} A + C = 0 \implies A = 0 \end{align*}$

So the partial fraction decomposition is

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{1}{2\,\left( s^2 - 20\,s + 200 \right) } + \frac{1}{2\,\left( s^2 + 20\,s + 200 \right) } &\equiv \frac{s^2 + 200}{\left( s^2 - 20\,s + 200 \right) \left( s^2 + 20\,s + 200 \right) } \end{align*}$

So moving on to the Inverse Laplace Transform now...

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \mathcal{L}^{-1}\,\left\{ \frac{-3\,\left( s^2 + 200 \right) }{ s^2 + 40\,000 } \right\} &= -\frac{3}{2}\,\mathcal{L}^{-1} \,\left\{ \frac{1}{s^2 - 20\,s + 200 } + \frac{1}{s^2 + 20\,s + 200 } \right\} \\ &= -\frac{3}{2}\,\mathcal{L}^{-1}\,\left\{ \frac{1}{s^2 - 20\,s + \left( -10 \right) ^2 - \left( -10 \right) ^2 + 200 } + \frac{1}{s^2 + 20\,s + 10^2 - 10^2 + 200 } \right\} \\ &= -\frac{3}{2}\,\mathcal{L}^{-1} \, \left\{ \frac{1}{ \left( s - 10 \right) ^2 + 100 } + \frac{1}{ \left( s + 10 \right) ^2 + 100 } \right\} \\ &= -\frac{3}{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{10\,t}\,\mathcal{L}^{-1}\,\left\{ \frac{1}{s^2 + 10^2} \right\} - \frac{3}{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{-10\,t}\,\mathcal{L}^{-1}\,\left\{ \frac{1}{s^2 + 10^2} \right\} \\ &= -\frac{3}{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{-10\,t} \,\sin{ \left( 10\,t \right) } - \frac{3}{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{10\,t} \,\sin{ \left( 10\,t \right) } \\ &= -3\sin{ \left( 10\,t \right) } \left[ \frac{1}{2}\,\left( \mathrm{e}^{-10\,t} + \mathrm{e}^{10\,t} \right) \right] \\ &= -3\sin{ \left( 10\,t \right) } \cosh{ \left( 10\,t \right) } \end{align*}$
 

Attachments

  • inv laplace.png
    inv laplace.png
    5.1 KB · Views: 125
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm confused. Who is Collin's and Henry and all the others?
 
Joppy said:
I'm confused. Who is Collin's and Henry and all the others?

My students, they email me asking for help, and I direct them here...
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top