Process Control (transfer function) problem

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a transfer function problem for a series RL circuit with an input signal x(t) = u(t) V. The user is uncertain about the correct form of the transfer function, initially associating it with e^(-at) but questioning if it should be a/s+a instead, where a = R/L. Respondents suggest clarifying the notation by using parentheses and defining u(t) to avoid confusion. They also recommend comparing the output y(t) values at t=0 and t=∞ with expected results from a first-order lag transformation to eliminate incorrect options. This approach aims to provide a clearer path to the correct answer.
guiromero
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary: transfer function

Hello,

I have a doubt on this exercise from my post graduation course:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The transfer funtion of a series RL circuit is given by:

1706903438830.png

Determine the answer y(t) for an entry signal given by x(t) = u(t) V:

1706903562428.png

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the Laplace table, I find the closest association would be e-at, for F(s) = 1/s+a. Then the answer would be "d", but I'm not sure if this association is correct, because F(s) is not exactly 1/s+a, it's more likely a/s+a, where a = R/L.

Could someone give me a clear answer?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) Use parentheses. If you mean 1/(s+a), then write 1/(s+a), not 1/s + a. Correct all those errors.
2) Define u(t).
3) Compare the y(t) values at ##t=0## and ##t=\infty## of the optional answers with what you would expect from a first order lag transformation, H(s). That should rule out practically all the wrong answers.
 
Thread 'Why wasn’t gravity included in the potential energy for this problem?'
I’m looking at the attached vibration problem. The solution in the manual includes the spring potential energy but does NOT include the gravitational potential energy of the hanging mass. Can someone explain why gravitational potential energy is not included when deriving the equation of motion? I tried asking ChatGPT but kept going in circles and couldn't figure out. Thanks!

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K