Transfer function=Laplace of the impulse response?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the transfer function H(s) is the Laplace transform of the impulse response for continuous-time systems. It begins with the relationship Y(s)/X(s) = H(s), where Y(s) is the Laplace of the output and X(s) is the Laplace of the input. The Dirac delta function is used to represent the impulse input, leading to the conclusion that the Laplace transform of the impulse response directly gives the transfer function. Additionally, the convolution theorem is referenced, reinforcing the connection between the Laplace transforms of the input and impulse response. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in understanding these fundamental concepts in system analysis.
xorg
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I saw in some books, that:
Y(s)/X(s) = H(s)
where,
Y(s) is the laplace of the output
X(s) is the laplace of the input
H(s) is the laplace of impulse response.

How to prove it? In the book Benjamin Kuo, he only mentions it without proof, and did not find it in the book of Oppennheim.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
For continuous-time systems, you can represent the impulse input using the Dirac delta function:
$$
x(t) = \delta(t)
$$
Since:
$$
X(s) = \mathcal{L}\{x(t)\}(s) = \mathcal{L}\{\delta(t)\}(s) = 1
$$
It follows that the Laplace transform of its impulse response ##Y(s)## gives its transfer function:
$$
Y(s) = H(s)X(s) = H(s)
$$
 
  • Like
Likes xorg
milesyoung said:
For continuous-time systems, you can represent the impulse input using the Dirac delta function:
$$
x(t) = \delta(t)
$$
Since:
$$
X(s) = \mathcal{L}\{x(t)\}(s) = \mathcal{L}\{\delta(t)\}(s) = 1
$$
It follows that the Laplace transform of its impulse response ##Y(s)## gives its transfer function:
$$
Y(s) = H(s)X(s) = H(s)
$$

Thanks, helped me.
 
Another way:
$$ y(t) = x(t) \ast h(t) $$
$$ \mathcal{L}\{y(t)\} = \mathcal{L}\{x(t) \ast h(t)\} $$
$$ \mathcal{L}\{y(t)\} = \mathcal{L}\{x(t)\}\mathcal{L}\{h(t)\} $$
$$ Y(s) = H(s)X(s) $$
 
Last edited:
xorg said:
Another way:
$$ y(t) = x(t) \ast h(t) $$
$$ \mathcal{L}\{y(t)\} = \mathcal{L}\{x(t) \ast h(t)\} $$
$$ \mathcal{L}\{y(t)\} = \mathcal{L}\{x(t)\}\mathcal{L}\{h(t)\} $$
$$ Y(s) = H(s)X(s) $$
Not sure I understand. Are you looking for a proof of the convolution theorem?
 
  • Like
Likes xorg
First I tried to find a way to understand why H (s) is the Laplace of impulse response.
The first thing I thought was that I should start by the convolution of x and h.
Then you answered me in a way, and a few hours later I saw this on a website:
$$ \mathcal {L} \{x (t) \ast h (t) \} = \mathcal {L} \{x (t) \} \mathcal {L} \{h (t) \} $$
 
I am trying to understand how transferring electric from the powerplant to my house is more effective using high voltage. The suggested explanation that the current is equal to the power supply divided by the voltage, and hence higher voltage leads to lower current and as a result to a lower power loss on the conductives is very confusing me. I know that the current is determined by the voltage and the resistance, and not by a power capability - which defines a limit to the allowable...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K