Laplace Transform, what am I doing wrong?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves solving a differential equation using Laplace Transforms, specifically focusing on the equation f '(t) + ∫2f(u) du = 2 + 3f(t). The original poster expresses uncertainty about their application of Laplace transforms and the restrictions on using partial fractions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Laplace transforms to both sides of the equation but struggles with the term s/((s-2)(s-1)). They question their understanding of the transformations and whether they have made an error in their calculations. Other participants suggest alternative methods and clarify the use of partial fractions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the original poster's approach, with some providing guidance on how to handle the term in question. There is a recognition of the restrictions on using certain transforms and the need for proof, leading to suggestions for alternative methods of verification.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is constrained by homework rules that prohibit the use of partial fractions without proof, which adds complexity to their attempts to solve the problem. The discussion reflects a mix of confusion and exploration of different mathematical techniques.

raytrace
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Solve using the Laplace Transforms (can not use partial fractions)

f '(t) + [tex]\int2f(u) du[/tex] = 2 + 3f(t)

Homework Equations



Using Laplace

f '(t) gets replaced with sF(s) -f(0)

[tex]\int2f(u) du[/tex] gets replaced with [tex]\frac{2F(s)}{s}[/tex]

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the replacements here.

The Attempt at a Solution



After using Laplace on both sides I get

[tex]sF(s)-f(0)+\frac{2F(s)}{s} = \frac{2}{s} + 3F(s)[\tex]<br /> <br /> [tex]sF(s)-3F(s)+\frac{2F(s)}{s} = \frac{2}{s} + f(0)[\tex]<br /> <br /> [tex]F(S)(s-3+\frac{2}{s}) = \frac{2}{s} + f(0)[\tex]<br /> <br /> Divide through and manipulate a little to get:<br /> <br /> [tex]F(S) = \frac{2}{(s-2)(s-1)} + f(0)\frac{s}{(s-2)(s-1)}[\tex]<br /> <br /> OK, here is where I get stuck. The first half I can figure out, it's the s/((s-2)(s-1)) that I can't figure out. I did find a transform in the Laplace tables in the back of the book but this particular transform was not on the list of approved transforms we could use freely (without proving).<br /> <br /> So, I've either screwed up in my math here somewhere's or I have to prove the Inverse Laplace Transform of s/((s-2)(s-1)). Now someone mentioned using the l'hospital's rule on it but I don't see how.<br /> <br /> I'm completely at a loss. Please help.[/tex][/tex][/tex][/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fixed your tex tags. You have the closing tex tag wrong -- [ \tex] instead of [ /tex]
raytrace said:

Homework Statement



Solve using the Laplace Transforms (can not use partial fractions)

f '(t) + [tex]\int2f(u) du[/tex] = 2 + 3f(t)

Homework Equations



Using Laplace

f '(t) gets replaced with sF(s) -f(0)

[tex]\int2f(u) du[/tex] gets replaced with [tex]\frac{2F(s)}{s}[/tex]

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the replacements here.

The Attempt at a Solution



After using Laplace on both sides I get

[tex]sF(s)-f(0)+\frac{2F(s)}{s} = \frac{2}{s} + 3F(s)[/tex]

[tex]sF(s)-3F(s)+\frac{2F(s)}{s} = \frac{2}{s} + f(0)[/tex]

[tex]F(S)(s-3+\frac{2}{s}) = \frac{2}{s} + f(0)[/tex]

Divide through and manipulate a little to get:

[tex]F(S) = \frac{2}{(s-2)(s-1)} + f(0)\frac{s}{(s-2)(s-1)}[/tex]

OK, here is where I get stuck. The first half I can figure out, it's the s/((s-2)(s-1)) that I can't figure out. I did find a transform in the Laplace tables in the back of the book but this particular transform was not on the list of approved transforms we could use freely (without proving).

So, I've either screwed up in my math here somewhere's or I have to prove the Inverse Laplace Transform of s/((s-2)(s-1)). Now someone mentioned using the l'hospital's rule on it but I don't see how.

I'm completely at a loss. Please help.

Your work looks fine. I don't get why you can't use partial fractions, and it sounds like maybe you can use this technique. The restriction was to not use "nonapproved" transforms unless you can prove them. For this problem you would be evaluating L-1 {2/((s - 2)(s - 1))} which is exactly the same as evaluating L-1{2/(s -2) + -2/(s -1)}. If you have to prove that 2/((s-2)(s -1)) is identically equal to 2/(s -2) + -2/(s - 1), that's very easy and is a very small price to pay.
 
Mark44 said:
Fixed your tex tags. You have the closing tex tag wrong -- [ \tex] instead of [ /tex]

Your work looks fine. I don't get why you can't use partial fractions, and it sounds like maybe you can use this technique. The restriction was to not use "nonapproved" transforms unless you can prove them. For this problem you would be evaluating L-1 {2/((s - 2)(s - 1))} which is exactly the same as evaluating L-1{2/(s -2) + -2/(s -1)}. If you have to prove that 2/((s-2)(s -1)) is identically equal to 2/(s -2) + -2/(s - 1), that's very easy and is a very small price to pay.

Sorry for the confusion there.

It's the [tex]L^{-1}\frac{s}{(s-2)(s-1)}[/tex] that I can't figure out.

From the transform table at the back of the book I know it turns into [tex]\frac{ae^{at}-be^{bt}}{a-b}[/tex]

However, I am forbidden to use partial fractions for this part and I can only use the transform in the back if, and only if, I can prove it... which means I have to know how to do the proof from the first to the second... and this is where I'm completely lost.
 
raytrace said:
Sorry for the confusion there.

It's the [tex]L^{-1}\frac{s}{(s-2)(s-1)}[/tex] that I can't figure out.

From the transform table at the back of the book I know it turns into [tex]\frac{ae^{at}-be^{bt}}{a-b}[/tex]

However, I am forbidden to use partial fractions for this part and I can only use the transform in the back if, and only if, I can prove it... which means I have to know how to do the proof from the first to the second... and this is where I'm completely lost.

Well, unreasonable demands call for unreasonable solutions. You can just compute the Laplace transform of the answer and then show that it yields the correct formula.
 
Count Iblis said:
Well, unreasonable demands call for unreasonable solutions.
I like your thinking!
 
You could also multiply by est and sum the residues at s=1 and s=2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K