Signals & Systems - Laplace - Oscillatory Component

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the presence of oscillatory components in the output of a first-order system described by a transfer function in the Laplace domain. Participants explore the conditions under which the output signal exhibits oscillatory behavior, particularly focusing on the relationship between resistance (R) and inductance (L).

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the output y(t) contains an oscillatory component based on the condition R > 1/L.
  • Another participant introduces Euler's identity as a potentially relevant equation for understanding oscillatory behavior.
  • A different participant expresses uncertainty about how to incorporate complex numbers into their calculations, suggesting a substitution involving imaginary units.
  • It is proposed that for a first-order system to exhibit oscillatory behavior, the denominator of the transfer function must include a complex number.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of transforming the Laplace domain representation into the time domain and whether the absence of a complex component in the denominator indicates a lack of oscillatory behavior.
  • One participant references a textbook extract discussing the transformation of terms involving complex numbers and their relation to oscillatory functions.
  • Another participant raises a question about the implications of assuming R can be imaginary while L remains real, and whether this affects the condition R > 1/L.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions necessary for oscillatory components to exist in the output signal. There is no consensus on whether the current understanding of the system's behavior is correct, and multiple competing perspectives are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential complexity introduced by imaginary numbers in the context of resistance and the implications for oscillatory behavior, but do not resolve these complexities or assumptions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in electrical engineering, control systems, and signal processing who are exploring the behavior of first-order systems and the conditions for oscillatory responses.

Angello90
Messages
65
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


What is that oscillatory component? And is my answer for the following correct?

[tex]x(t) = u(t)[/tex]
[tex]H(s) = \frac{R}{R + sL}[/tex]

[tex]y(t)[/tex] will contain oscillatory component if
[tex]R > \frac{1}{L}[/tex]
True or False?

Homework Equations


Basic Laplace Transform:
[tex]u(t) \longrightarrow \frac{1}{s}[/tex]
[tex]e^{-at}u(t) \longrightarrow \frac{1}{s+a}[/tex]


The Attempt at a Solution


[tex]H(s) = \frac{\frac{R}{L}}{s + \frac{R}{L}}[/tex]
[tex]X(s) = \frac{1}{s}[/tex]
[tex]Y(s) = \frac{1}{s} * \frac{\frac{R}{L}}{s + \frac{R}{L}}[/tex]
where [tex]*[/tex] donates multiplication not convolution.

Doing partial fraction expansion I got:
[tex]Y(s) = \frac{1}{s} - \frac{1}{s + \frac{R}{L}}[/tex]
which in time domain is:
[tex]y(t) = u(t) - e^{\frac{-Rt}{L}}u(t)[/tex]

Now, clearly, if:
[tex]R > \frac{1}{L}[/tex]
that exponential e will converge to 0, and signal would eventually be a DC signal - 1 which is donated by u(t) right? So output y(t) doesn't have an oscillatory component?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Euler's identity is [tex]e^{ix} = \cos(x) + i\sin(x)[/tex] Add this to your list of relevant equations and the answer should be clear.
 
viscousflow I don't really see how I could use this. I assume I need to change
[tex]e^{\frac{-Rt}{L}}u(t)[/tex]
But I don't know how, cause I don't have i. Should I take one i outside?
[tex]e^{\frac{i.i.Rt}{L}}u(t)[/tex]
Than I would end up with:
[tex]e^{\frac{i.i.Rt}{L}}u(t) = (Cosh(\frac{Rt}{L}) - Sinh(\frac{Rt}{L}))u(t)[/tex]
Am I going in right direction?
 
What it boils down to is, for any first order system to be oscillatory, your denominator needs to have a complex number. Therefore, it needs to be of the form [tex]s + (a+bi)[/tex]
 
Ok, so should I do the partial fraction expansion as I did and work on:
[tex]Y(s) = \frac{1}{s} - \frac{1}{s + \frac{R}{L}}[/tex]
or start over? Or... there is no complex component in dominator, therefore there is no oscillatory component?

Sorry for being annoying.
 
No, all you need to do is perform the substitution in your second equation under "Relevant equations"

[tex] e^{-at}u(t) \longrightarrow \frac{1}{s+a}[/tex]

where [tex]a = b+ci[/tex]

You need to divide top and bottom by R
 
But isn't this rather wierd? I would get
[tex]Y(s) = \frac{1}{s} - \frac{\frac{1}{R}}{\frac{s}{R} + \frac{1}{L}}[/tex]
and than I should transform from Laplace to time domain?
 
Seems as though you made it a bit complicated. Let me help you out a bit.

[tex] H(s) = \frac{R}{R + sL}[/tex]

Divide by R

[tex]Y(s) = \frac{1}{ s(\frac{L}{R}s + 1)}[/tex] or [tex]Y(s) =\frac{1}{ s(s + \frac{R}{L})}[/tex]

your roots are
[tex]s=0; s= -\frac{R}{L}[/tex]

Thus, R can be complex and L can be real.
 
Ok I found this extract in the book that my department is using for signals and systems, saying that,
Assuming that we have:
[tex]\frac{A_{1}}{s-\alpha - j\omega_{0}} + \frac{A_{2}}{s-\alpha + j\omega_{0}}[/tex]
can be replaces by:
[tex]\frac{B_{1}s + B_{2}}{(s-\alpha - j\omega_{0})((s-\alpha + j\omega_{0})}[/tex]
and simplifying:
[tex]\frac{B_{1}s + B_{2}}{(s-\alpha)^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2}}[/tex]

And there is a transition one can use:
[tex]e^{at}cos(\omega_{0}t) \longleftrightarrow \frac{(s-\alpha)}{(s-\alpha)^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2}}[/tex]
and
[tex]e^{at}sin(\omega_{0}t) \longleftrightarrow \frac{\omega_{0}}{(s-\alpha)^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2}}[/tex]

can these transitions be used?
 
  • #10
Hold on, so by saying that s=0, s=-R/L, and assuming that R is and imaginary number and L is real, that eqn has a oscillatory component? My lecture never covered that part of the course, yet he examines on this .

Will this hold the fact that R>1/L? Can imaginary number be greater than rational number?
 

Similar threads

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