Partial Fractions: Why is My Expansion Wrong?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of partial fraction expansion in the context of complex fractions involving the variable \( j\omega \). The original poster expresses confusion regarding the discrepancy between their result and that of a calculator when performing the expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to perform a partial fraction expansion but questions the validity of their approach, particularly regarding the assumption of simple poles. Other participants suggest alternative methods and clarify the conditions under which partial fractions should be applied.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different methods for simplifying the expression and discussing the prerequisites for applying partial fraction decomposition. There is an acknowledgment of the need for a "proper" fraction before applying the technique, and some participants are sharing insights on how to approach similar problems in the future.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of transform tables and the desire to express the original expression differently, indicating that the original poster is working within specific constraints related to their homework or study materials.

FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
I have: [tex]\frac{(1+j\omega)(3-j\omega)}{(3+j\omega)(3-j\omega)}[/tex]

When I perform the partial fraction expansion I get:

[tex]\frac{-2}{3+j\omega}[/tex]

Where my calculator gets:
[tex]1 - \frac{-2}{3+j\omega}[/tex].

Why am I wrong?

I am performing the expansion as follows:

[tex]\bar F(s) = \frac{(1+s)(3-s)}{(3+s)(3-s)}[/tex]

and,
[tex]K_i = (s+p_i)\bar F (s)[/tex] where: [itex]s = - p_i [/tex]<br /> <br /> note: [tex]p_i[/tex] corresponds to 3 and -3 respectively. I am getting:<br /> [tex]K_1 = -2[/tex]<br /> and [tex]K_2 = 0[/tex]<br /> (this does not match my calculator.<br /> <br /> <br /> I am assuming simple poles. Is this not proper?<br /> <br /> thanks in advance![/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't even need to partial fraction this expression

[tex]\frac{(1+j\omega)(3-j\omega)}{(3+j\omega)(3-j\omega)}[/tex]

The term [itex](3-j\omega)/(3-j\omega)=1[/itex], so you're left with

[tex]\frac{(1+j\omega)}{(3+j\omega)}[/tex]

Then rewrite this as

[tex]\frac{(1+j\omega)}{(3+j\omega)} = \frac{(3+j\omega - 2)}{(3+j\omega)} = 1 - \frac{2}{3+j\omega}[/tex]
 
Well I like what you did, that is nice way of doing it.

My original term was:
[tex]\frac{1+jw}{3+jw}[/tex]

I then multiplied by:
[tex]\frac{3-jw}{3-jw} = 1[/tex]

and was trying to expand it as such.

Is there a reason why this method does not work (in this case)?

I want to know how to generalize it. The original expression, written as: [tex]\frac{1+jw}{3+jw}[/tex] does not match my transform table, so I wanted to express it differently. I'll definitely remember the way you showed me for similar expressions, but in general I should be applying partial fractions... so why didn't it work here?

thanks man, I do appreciate it
 
??jpr0 did use "partial fractions", he just didn't make it overly complicated by introducing new factors into the numerator and denominator. The technique of "partial fractions" assumes you have already reduced the numerator and denominator as much as possible. For example, if you applied partial fractions to
[tex]\frac{x^2- 5x+3}{x-2}[/tex]
you would get similarly incorrect results- first do the division to to get a "proper" fraction.
 
HallsofIvy said:
??jpr0 did use "partial fractions", he just didn't make it overly complicated by introducing new factors into the numerator and denominator. The technique of "partial fractions" assumes you have already reduced the numerator and denominator as much as possible. For example, if you applied partial fractions to
[tex]\frac{x^2- 5x+3}{x-2}[/tex]
you would get similarly incorrect results- first do the division to to get a "proper" fraction.

Gotchya'. I wasn't trying to be overly complicated, I was just applying the technique (blindly in this case) that I remembered. I didn't know that it had to be a "proper" fraction first. Thanks halls! That clears it up.
 
I know you weren't trying to be- but sometimes it just happens!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K