How to calculate this inverse Fourier Transform?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the inverse Fourier Transform of a given expression involving Dirac delta functions and a complex fraction. The problem is situated within the context of signal processing and Fourier analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the Dirac delta sampling property in the context of the inverse Fourier Transform. There are attempts to clarify the integral setup and the appropriate substitutions for variables. Some participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their approaches and the simplification of complex numbers.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing hints and suggestions for further simplification. There is a recognition of the need to convert complex numbers to polar form and to clarify the use of the Dirac delta function in the integral. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, and productive guidance has been offered without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the amount of direct assistance they can provide. There is an emphasis on understanding the properties of the Fourier Transform and the Dirac delta function.

Nat3
Messages
69
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Take the inverse Fourier Transform of

5[\delta(f+100)+\delta(f-100)]\bigg(\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg)

Homework Equations



g(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} G(f)e^{j2\pi ft}dt

The Attempt at a Solution



g(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 5[\delta(f+100)+\delta(f-100)]\bigg(\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft}dt

My professor gave the hint that the dirac delta sampling property can be used, but I don't see how since I'm taking the inverse Fourier Transform and not just a regular integral.

I've been reading about the different properties of the FT and dirac delta function, but simply can't figure out how to proceed. Any suggestions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
?? The inverse Fourier Transform is a "regular integral"! And the "Dirac delta sampling property" is that \int_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x- a)f(x)dx= f(a). That should make this problem easy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ah.. I'm not sure what I was thinking, lol :-)

OK, so having this equation:

g(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 5[\delta(f+100)+\delta(f-100)]\bigg(\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft}dt

When using the sifting/sampling property of the Dirac Delta function:

\int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi (t) \delta(t - T)dt = \phi (T)

Should I replace f or t in the above equation with \pm 100? It seems like I should replace the f:

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft} \bigg |_{f=100}+5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft} \bigg |_{f=-100}

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi *1.35}{1680+j2\pi *1.35}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180-j2\pi *1.35}{1680-j2\pi *1.35}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

But I'm not sure if that's correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know if what I did is correct? Operating under that assumption, I tried converting the rectangular coordinate complex numbers to polar form:

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle -2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle -0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle -2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle -0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5(0.11\angle 2.41^\circ) e^{j200\pi t}+5(0.11\angle -2.41^\circ) e^{-j200\pi t}

I think I might be doing something wrong though, because I think the answer is supposed to work out to be:

1.1\cos(2\pi (100)t+2.41^\circ)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nat3 said:
Ah.. I'm not sure what I was thinking, lol :-)

OK, so having this equation:

g(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 5[\delta(f+100)+\delta(f-100)]\bigg(\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft}dt
The integral should be with respect to ##f##, not ##t##.

When using the sifting/sampling property of the Dirac Delta function:

\int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi (t) \delta(t - T)dt = \phi (T)

Should I replace f or t in the above equation with \pm 100? It seems like I should replace the f:

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft} \bigg |_{f=100}+5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi f*0.0135}{1680+j2\pi f*0.0135}\bigg) e^{j2\pi ft} \bigg |_{f=-100}

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180+j2\pi *1.35}{1680+j2\pi *1.35}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180-j2\pi *1.35}{1680-j2\pi *1.35}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

But I'm not sure if that's correct?
That's right.
 
Nat3 said:
Does anyone know if what I did is correct? Operating under that assumption, I tried converting the rectangular coordinate complex numbers to polar form:

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle -2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle -0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle -2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle -0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5(0.11\angle 2.41^\circ) e^{j200\pi t}+5(0.11\angle -2.41^\circ) e^{-j200\pi t}

I think I might be doing something wrong though, because I think the answer is supposed to work out to be:

1.1\cos(2\pi (100)t+2.41^\circ)
You're right so far. You just have to keep going with the simplification.

It might be simpler if you note at the start that the two terms are conjugates and use the fact that ##z+\bar{z} = 2\text{Re}(z)##.
 
Hmm... I've been trying to simplify it and am not sure how to proceed. I tried changing the polar portion to ##\cos## and using Euler's identity to change the exponentials to ##\cos## and ##\sin##, which gives:

##g(t) = 5[0.11\cos(\omega t + 2.41^\circ)[\cos(200\pi t) + j\sin(200\pi t)] + 0.11\cos(\omega t - 2.41^\circ)[\cos(200\pi t) - j\sin(200\pi t)]]##

But I feel like I'm on the wrong track here. If I multiply that out then it becomes a mess. Did I go in the wrong direction with this?

Really appreciate your help :)
 
Hint: ##0.11\angle 2.41^\circ = 0.11 e^{j 2.41^\circ}##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
vela said:
Hint: ##0.11\angle 2.41^\circ = 0.11 e^{j 2.41^\circ}##

Did you by any chance mean:

##0.11\angle 2.41^\circ = Re(0.11 e^{j 2.41^\circ})##? Otherwise, I'm really confused :smile:

Because:

##0.11\angle 2.41^\circ = 0.11\cos(\omega t + 2.41^\circ)##

And:

##0.11 e^{j 2.41^\circ} = 0.11\cos(\omega t + 2.41^\circ) + j0.11\sin(\omega t + 2.41^\circ)##
 
  • #10
Nat3 said:
$$g(t)=5 \left( \frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\right) e^{j200\pi t} + 5 \left( \frac{180.2\angle {-2.70}^\circ}{1680.02\angle {-0.29}^\circ}\right) e^{-j200\pi t}$$
What I mean is express the fractions in polar form, i.e. ##re^{j\theta}##.
 
  • #11
vela said:
What I mean is express the fractions in polar form, i.e. ##re^{j\theta}##.

Like this?

g(t)=5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle 2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle 0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{j200\pi t}+5\bigg (\frac{180.2\angle -2.70^\circ}{1680.02\angle -0.29^\circ}\bigg) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5(0.11\angle 2.41^\circ) e^{j200\pi t}+5(0.11\angle -2.41^\circ) e^{-j200\pi t}

g(t)=5Re(0.11e^{j2.41^\circ})e^{j200\pi t} + 5Re(0.11e^{-j2.41^\circ})e^{-j200\pi t}

I can't combine the exponentials being multiplied together (because one is only the real part), can I?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Nat3 said:
$$g(t)=5 \left( \frac{180+j2\pi *1.35}{1680+j2\pi *1.35} \right) e^{j200\pi t} + 5 \left(\frac{180-j2\pi *1.35}{1680-j2\pi *1.35}\right) e^{-j200\pi t}$$
OK, let's back up one more step. Convert the complex numbers from rectangular to polar form then simplify.
 
  • #13
Nat3, I admire that you write all these equations in LaTeX. But one hint: if you want your formula to have its own line, then you should use tex, and not itex. I have changed this for you in your posts. The result really is a lot easier on the eyes. Check the difference between post 4 and the quoted part in post 5, for example.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K