Talk:Transient response

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.

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

what the heck is the "fhdtusssst" which was introduced 07:49 20 Apr '06 ?

Incorrect?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]