How to evaluate stability of a non-causal System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rudra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stability System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on evaluating the stability of a non-causal system using the one-sided Laplace transform. The key point is that for the system to be stable, the parameter α must be negative, while the behavior of the term exp(βt)u(-t) raises questions since it evaluates to zero for t ≥ 0. Participants suggest that as t approaches -∞, the behavior of exp(βt) depends on the sign of β, indicating that β should be positive for stability. There is also a suggestion to consult a professor regarding the physical relevance of the problem, as it may not have practical implications. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the implications of non-causal systems in stability analysis.
rudra
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Imp.jpg




For this problem I have taken laplace(one-sided) transform of h(t) which gives me
H(s)=1/(s-α). From this I can state that α must be -ve for G(s) to be stable.
But my problem is while taking one-sided Laplace Transform the exp(βt)u(-t) part gives 0.
So in H(s) according to my calculation, β doesn't appear. I don't know what I am doing wrong. Please help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rudra said:
Imp.jpg




For this problem I have taken laplace(one-sided) transform of h(t) which gives me
H(s)=1/(s-α). From this I can state that α must be -ve for G(s) to be stable.
But my problem is while taking one-sided Laplace Transform the exp(βt)u(-t) part gives 0.
So in H(s) according to my calculation, β doesn't appear. I don't know what I am doing wrong. Please help

As I said, this problem deals with a nonexistent situation (anyone diosagree?).

But: the u(t) part is easy: what does exp(αt) do as t → ∞?

Now for the noncausal part: u(-t) = 1 for t < 0 and = 0 for t => 0. So for any negative value of t, what does exp(βt) do as t gets more and more negative, approaching t → -∞, with β positive or negative?
 
@rude man,

I think your approach gives the proper soln. α should -ve and β by your logic should be positive.
 
rudra said:
@rude man,

I think your approach gives the proper soln. α should -ve and β by your logic should be positive.

That's where I would put my chips. t → -t in the u(-t) term.

I still think you should ask your prof if that problem has any physical meaning. Unless you're a math purist I see no reason to worry about it.
 
Back
Top