Laplace Transform: Get the Answers You Need

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Laplace transform, specifically focusing on the inverse Laplace transform and methods for simplifying expressions related to it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various methods for tackling the inverse Laplace transform, including direct substitution into the integral formula, using Laplace transform tables, and considering partial fraction expansions. There are questions about the necessity of certain methods, such as whether partial fraction decomposition is required.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided hints and suggestions for approaches, while others have shared their experiences with the problem. There is a mix of exploration and attempts to clarify the best method to use, with no explicit consensus reached on a single approach.

Contextual Notes

There are indications that the problem may be simpler than initially presented, with some participants suggesting that the terms in the fraction are intentionally chosen to facilitate easier manipulation.

kukumaluboy
Messages
61
Reaction score
1
1zdozkp.jpg


Gimme CLue
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kukumaluboy said:
Gimme CLue

You can stick that function directly into the integral formula which defines the inverse Laplace transform and try to calculate it out.

You can use a Laplace transform table. This approach starts by doing a partial fraction expansion of your function. Then the resulting sum of terms can be inverse transformed by matching with transforms in a table. Remember that a Laplace transform is a linear operator.
 
Here's a big hint. What do you get if you differentiate the following with respect to s:

[tex]\frac s {s^2+4}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Investigate factoring/expanding some terms, and see what you get. In the end, I do not even think you are going to have to use a partial fraction decomposition to do the problem. The terms in the fraction are chosen with reason in this problem, i.e. it is much simpler than is written.

What have you attempted?
 
Ok Solved! LawlQuals you were rite. I did not use partial fractions. Just simplify and the formulae can be used.
 
LawlQuals said:
Investigate factoring/expanding some terms, and see what you get. In the end, I do not even think you are going to have to use a partial fraction decomposition to do the problem. The terms in the fraction are chosen with reason in this problem, i.e. it is much simpler than is written.

What have you attempted?

I thought he asked for a clue, not a solution. :frown:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K