Talk:Transient response: Difference between revisions
Note about adding diagram |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Which does this contradiction mean, my books are wrong or this article is not clear enough? |
Which does this contradiction mean, my books are wrong or this article is not clear enough? |
||
I believe it should be as follow: |
|||
natural = steady-state response |
|||
forced = transient response |
|||
[[User:114.37.105.64|114.37.105.64]]23:34, 4 June 2009 (GMT+8) |
[[User:114.37.105.64|114.37.105.64]]23:34, 4 June 2009 (GMT+8) |
||
Revision as of 10:46, 7 March 2010
Diagram request
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
I added pre-existing damping oscillation diagram. Might still need one more specific to transient response. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Rise Time
Under the Rise Time section, there is an error in the information. For an underdamped systems, a 0-100% is used, and for overdamped, 10-90% is used. J Wallace, 11 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.202.29 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
what the heck is the "fhdtusssst" which was introduced 07:49 20 Apr '06 ?
Incorrect?
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
I'm pretty sure the natural/transient response is NOT the same thing as the steady-state response (this is a reference to "also known as steady-state response"), unlike what the beginning of the article states. The transient response should be the source-free (no _applied_ or driving voltages) response, and the steady-state should be the driven (resulting from excitation) response. And, of course, complete response is the sum of transient and steady-state responses. So... they're almost definitely not even close to being the same. I think... 65.183.135.40 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am so confused by this article. From my textbookS, it seems that the Transient Response is NOT equal to the Natural Response!(though in the first sentance of this article it mentioned "In electrical engineering and Mechanical Engineering, a transient response or natural response is the response of a system to a change from equilibrium." which is highly confusiing!!!)
My books point out that Transient Response should be the part of response which refers to the complete response before it goes to steady-state while Natural Response merely refers to the part caused by the system itself (with initial condition) without any input.
That is, the Complete Response contains both Natural Resopnse and Forced Response, and it is called Transient Response before it enters Steady-State, which is defined to be the section when the response doesn't decay anymore(like the exponentials are all dead out remains only sinusoids or rational functions).
Which does this contradiction mean, my books are wrong or this article is not clear enough?
I believe it should be as follow: natural = steady-state response forced = transient response
114.37.105.6423:34, 4 June 2009 (GMT+8)
Accusation of copyvio
Some IP editor pasted a copyvio template onto the article. What the hell? The section of text that was supposedly stolen from Ogata's System Dynamics is so general and so short as to make me think that this accusation is from a driveby prankster.
Here is the bottom of the page which is now blanked, and I assume is identified as the section challenged as a violation: (blanked quoted section, as it does contain unsourced direct quotations against WP:NFC.) I hope that helps folks figure why the template was slapped down here. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's not enough creative text to constitute substantial taking from a book. However, since the material was added by an IP contributor some time ago and is unsourced, I'm going to revise the text with sourced information just to be clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Trawling through google books in search of sourced replacement confirms that at least some of the text was copied directly from the identified book without meeting the requirements of WP:NFC. Again, just to be on the safe side, I've revised the text with direct quotes and attribution. I do not know anywhere near enough about these subjects to attempt a valid paraphrase. :) But I'm off to mark this one resolved at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 8. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)