How Does Substituting t=∞ Affect the Fourier Transform of g(t)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frenzal_dude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the Fourier Transform of the function g(t) = (e^-t)Sin(Wct)u(t), where Wc is defined as 2πFc and u(t) is the unit step function. Participants are exploring the implications of substituting t=∞ in the context of the Fourier Transform and the behavior of exponential terms in the limit.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the behavior of the exponential function as t approaches infinity, questioning the conditions under which it approaches zero. There are inquiries about the integration limits and the implications of the step function on the Fourier Transform. Some participants also explore the nature of the variable Wc and its implications on the calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the behavior of exponential functions and clarifying integration limits. There is a mix of attempts to derive the Fourier Transform and questions regarding the assumptions made in the original poster's approach. Some participants have offered guidance on specific mathematical properties, but no consensus has been reached on the final form of the solution.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of potential confusion regarding the limits of integration and the treatment of the step function. Participants are also considering the implications of having a zero real part in the variable z when evaluating limits, indicating a need for further clarification on these points.

frenzal_dude
Messages
76
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi, I need to find the Fourier Transform of:

g(t) = (e^-t)Sin(Wct)u(t)

where Wc=2πFc
and u(t) is the step function which is equal to 1 if time is +ve and 0 otherwise.

Homework Equations


I know that g(t) = (e^-t)[e^jWct - e^-jWct]/2j = [e^-t(1+jWc) - e^t(-1-jWc)]/(2j)
(0<=t<=∞, because of step function u(t))

The Attempt at a Solution


Therefore the Fourier Transform would be:
[1/(2j)]*∫([e^-t(1+jWc) - e^t(-1-jWc)])(e^-jWt)dt

= [1/(2j)]*∫([e^-t(1-jWc+jW) - e^t(-1-jWc-jW)])dt (limits: t=∞ to t=0)

= [1/(2j)][(e^-t(1-jWc+jW))/(-(1-jWc+jW)) - (e^t(-1-jWc-jW))/(-1-jWc-jW)] (sub in: t=∞ to t=0)

If you sub t=+/-∞, the exponential could be 0 or it could be infinite depending on whether 1-jWc+jW and -1-jWc-jW are -ve or +ve.
How can we know if they are positive or negative?

Hope you guys can help!
David.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd assume that Wc ([itex]\omega_c[/itex]?) is real-valued.

[tex]\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-zt}=0[/itex]<br /> <br /> So long as the real part of [itex]z[/itex] is positive.<br /> <br /> Also, if [itex]g(t)[/itex] is zero for negative [itex]t[/itex], why is one of your integration limits [itex]-\infty[/itex]?[/tex]
 
gabbagabbahey said:
I'd assume that Wc ([itex]\omega_c[/itex]?) is real-valued.

[tex]\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-zt}=0[/itex]<br /> <br /> So long as the real part of [itex]z[/itex] is positive.<br /> <br /> Also, if [itex]g(t)[/itex] is zero for negative [itex]t[/itex], why is one of your integration limits [itex]-\infty[/itex]?[/tex]
[tex] <br /> so is it also true to say: [tex]\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{zt}=0[/itex] so long as the real part of [itex]z[/itex] is negative?<br /> <br /> If that's true that helps me out A LOT! This is something not even my Signal Processing lecturer could explain to me, he told me 'he'd get back to me' and he never did.<br /> <br /> Thankyou so much for your help!<br /> <br /> Btw I fixed up the limits, you're right it's from t=infinity to t=0[/tex][/tex]
 
btw this is the answer I got:
[tex]\frac{\omega + j}{(\omega_c-w)^2+1}[/tex]
 
frenzal_dude said:
so is it also true to say: [tex]\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{zt}=0[/itex] so long as the real part of [itex]z[/itex] is negative?[/tex]
[tex] <br /> Yes, it's fairly easy to show simply by splitting [itex]z[/itex] into real and imaginary parts. Say [itex]z=x+jy[/itex], where [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]y[/itex] are real-valued. Euler's formula then tells you[tex]e^{zt}=e^{(x+jy)t}=e^{jyt}e^{xt}=\cos(yt)e^{xt}+j\sin(yt)e^{xt}[/tex]<br /> <br /> As [itex]t\to\infty[/itex], both [itex]\sin(yt)[/itex] and [itex]\cos(yt)[/itex] oscillate between [itex]0[/itex] and [itex]1[/itex] more and more rapidly, and hence are bounded. Meanwhile, [itex]e^{xt}[/itex] goes rapidly to zero if [itex]x<0[/itex] and so its product with any bounded function will also approach zero.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="frenzal_dude" data-source="post: 2694486" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> frenzal_dude said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> btw this is the answer I got:<br /> [tex]\frac{\omega + j}{(\omega_c-w)^2+1}[/tex] </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> That doesn't look quite right, you'd better show your calculations.[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Here's my working out:

[tex]g(t)=e^{-t}sin(\omega _ct)u(t)=<br /> e^{-t}(\frac{1}{2j}e^{j\omega _ct}-\frac{1}{2j}e^{-j\omega _ct})u(t)[/tex]
 
Last edited:
[tex]\therefore G(f)<br /> =\frac{1}{2j}\int_{0}^{\infty }(e^{j\omega _ct-t}-e^{-j\omega _ct-t})e^{-j\omega t}dt=\frac{1}{2j}\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{j\omega_ct-t-j\omega t}-e^{-j\omega_ct-t-j\omega t}dt[/tex]
 
[tex]\frac{1}{2j}\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{j\omega_ct-t-j\omega t}-e^{-j\omega_ct-t-j\omega t}dt=\frac{1}{2j}[\frac{e^{t(j(\omega_c-w)-1)}}{j\omega_c-1-j\omega}-\frac{e^{-t(j(\omega_c+w)+1)}}{-j\omega_c-1-j\omega}]t=\infty ,t=0[/tex]
 
[tex]=-\frac{1}{2j}[\frac{1}{j(\omega_c-\omega)-1}+\frac{1}{j(\omega_c+\omega)+1}]=\frac{\omega_c+\omega+j}{2(\omega_c+\omega)^2+2}+\frac{\omega_c-\omega-j}{2(\omega_c-\omega)^2+2}[/tex]
 
  • #10
frenzal_dude said:
Here's my working out:

[tex]g(t)=e^{-t}sin(\omega _ct)u(t)=<br /> e^{-t}(\frac{1}{2j}e^{j\omega _ct}-\frac{1}{2j}e^{-j\omega _ct})[/tex]

Ermm... you mean [itex]g(t)=e^{-t}\left(\frac{1}{2j}e^{j\omega _ct}-\frac{1}{2j}e^{-j\omega _ct}\right)u(t)[/itex], right? You can't get rid of the [itex]u(t)[/itex] until you put it into the integral and use the fact that [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(t)u(t)dt=\int_{0}^{\infty}f(t)dt[/itex]

frenzal_dude said:
[tex]=-\frac{1}{2j}[\frac{1}{j(\omega_c-\omega)-1}+\frac{1}{j(\omega_c+\omega)+1}]=\frac{\omega_c+\omega+j}{2(\omega_c+\omega)^2+2}+\frac{\omega_c-\omega-j}{2(\omega_c-\omega)^2+2}[/tex]

This looks fine, but it doesn't simplify to what you wrote originally.
 
  • #11
do you mean what I wrote originally by this: [tex] \frac{\omega + j}{(\omega_c-w)^2+1}[/tex]

I realized where I went wrong and tried it again.

With my final answer, which I hope is now correct, I tried getting a common denominator to make it into one fraction but the fraction ended up being even more complicated, so I thought I'd just leave the answer as how I gave it before

(btw here was the fraction I got when I simplified it: [tex]\frac{\omega_c(\omega_c^2+\omega^2+1)-2\omega^2-2\omega j}{(\omega_c^2+\omega^2+1)-4\omega^2}[/tex])
 
  • #12
Your answer from post#9 is correct.

Personally, I wouldn't worry so much about making the denominator real and instead concentrate on putting it over a common denominator:

[tex]\begin{aligned}-\frac{1}{2j}\left[\frac{1}{j(\omega_c-\omega)-1}+\frac{1}{j(\omega_c+\omega)+1}\right] &= -\frac{1}{2j}\left[\frac{j(\omega_c+\omega)+1+j(\omega_c-\omega)-1}{\left(j(\omega_c-\omega)-1\right)\left(j(\omega_c+\omega)+1\right)}\right] \\ &= -\frac{1}{2j}\left[\frac{2j\omega_c}{j^2(\omega_c^2-\omega^2)-2j\omega-1}\right] \\ &= \frac{\omega_c}{\omega_c^2-\omega^2+2j\omega+1} \end{aligned}[/tex]
 
  • #13
Thanks for the help.

Quick question in regards to [tex] \lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-zt}=0[/tex]

What if z is only imaginary? ie. the real part is 0.

How would you sub t=∞ into this: [tex]e^{j(\omega_1 t+\Theta_1)-jwt}[/tex]
 
  • #14
If the real part is zero, then the limit won't exist. You can use Euler's formula to show this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K