find the inverse LaPlace transform of the following function: F(s) = (e^(-s) - e^(-4s))/ s^2
\[F(s) = (e ^{-s} - e ^{-4s})/ s ^{2}\]
F(s) = (e^(-s) - e^(-4s))/ s^2\[F(s)=e^{-s}/s^2-e^{-4s}/s^2\] we're going to do this as a heaviside function right? just thinking how
The Heaviside function/unit step function u(x) has Laplace transform 1/s. The function u(x-a) has Laplace transform e^(-as)/s So now you should have it.
Just be sure to simplify your answer. I.e., you can simplify and get rid of all the u(.) in the final answer; it is instructive if you do.
How do you get rid of the u in the final answer?
Oh sorry. You have 1/s^2. The Laplace transform of t is 1/s^2
Now the e^(-as) are shift functions
\[F(s)=e^{-s}(1/s^2)-e^{-4s}(1/s^2)\]yeah so we have do do it like e^(-s)G(s)
That is, if a function f(t) has Laplace transform F(s), then the function f(t-a) has Laplace transform e^(-as)F(s)
Hence, for example, the inverse transform of e^(-1s)/s^2 is (t-1)
so I would re write my equation as a step function and then take the LaPlace transform?
No -- now that realize we have 1/s^2 terms, we have no step functions involved.
Look at what I just did with e^(-1s)/s^2
sorry I meant to say shift function
the answer is just (t-1) - (t-4)
Now be careful about domains.
The inverse Laplace transform of e^(-s)/s^2 is t - 1, for t >= 1 and 0 elsewhere
therefore I need to include the Uc(t) function
Likewise the inverse Laplace transform of e^(-4s)/s^2 is t - 4, t >=4 0, t < 4 So when you add these two functions you get what?
or subtract them actually.
Ok thank you, I do want to use the Uc(t) expression then.
The final answer is f(t) = 0 , t < 1 = t - 1 , t in [1,4] = (t-1) - (t-4), t > 4 Now simplify this.
I understand my instructor wants us to use Uc(t) expression he taught us, which gives the domain. Thank you so much
ok
I have another question. Find the LaPlace transform of \[f(t) = 1/\sqrt{t}\]
I can't do that one, but it's number 4 on this chart: http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/pdf/Laplace_Table.pdf I'm not sure how to use that capital Gamma thing though. I'm sure JamesJ does. You may need to repost the question.
thank you
Just saw this. Look up the gamma function; you'll find that the Laplace (not LaPlace ;-) ) transform is just applying the definition of that function to 1/sqrt(t) and the fact of the matter is except for integral value of gamma function, it's not meaningfully reducible to elementary functions.
blech, sounds ugly. I've heard of the Gamma function. Better study up on it.
I'm sure we all thought sin and cos sounded a bit complicated at first, but we later figured out they're quite elegant. Something is true with the Gamme Function too. It's quite nice.
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!