Fourier Transform

Discussion in 'Math' started by arman19940326, Dec 3, 2014.

  1. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0
    Can you help me continue the solution?
     
  2. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,736
    4,789
    Look at a table of Fourier transforms and you will see that what your prof told you is wrong (or, more likely, that you have made an error in transcribing from the slides to your post).

    What limits of integration are you using? It looks like you have a "1R" at the bottom of the integral sign. If you mean to say that you are integrating over the reals, then expressing it this way isn't really good enough. Integrating from +∞ to -∞ would also qualify as integrating over the reals but would not yield the same answer.
     
    arman19940326 likes this.
  3. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    What happened to the u(t) in line 4 of your working?

    Also surely the FT is X(w) not X(jw) in your notation?

    Unless I'm misreading your script.
     
    arman19940326 likes this.
  4. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0
    Just look at this picture.the solution seems right to me.As you can see the inverse Fourier transform of the signal (1/(jw+2j)) yields to (e^(-2jt) u(t)) in time domain. here my problem begins...
     
  5. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0

    Because u(t) is zero for t<0 and equals to 1 in t>0 then the integral in line 3 can be written as the integral in line 4.
    I don't understand your second question but my Profs here uses various notation to show the Fourier transform of a signal.some use X(w) and some use X(jw).
     
  6. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,736
    4,789
    I think I misread your original problem. I thought you were taking the Fourier transform of a decaying exponential. Sorry.
     
    arman19940326 likes this.
  7. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,736
    4,789
    You generally see the Fourier transform written as a function of just ω while you see the steady-state system transfer function written as a function of jω.
     
    arman19940326 likes this.
  8. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0

    Yes,I understand what you meant.but for convenience I assume the integration over "1R" is identical to integration from -∞ to +∞. Excuse me if I didn't mention my assumptions.
     
  9. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    arman19940326 likes this.
  10. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0

    Yeah,I have seen this notation before but for the course I have this semester, we do not use this alternative definition.
    Well in your worked example the function is real valued in time domain but what I want is the Fourier transform of a complex valued function in time domain as I wrote in my starting question.
    The main question is this:What is the Fourier transform of the signal (e^(-2jt) u(t))? it definitely can't be obtained from the usual definition of the Fourier transform (as I showed it in post #1)....I think maybe there is an alternative way to define it as we define the Fourier transform of periodic signals.
     
  11. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0
    Check this up please.
     
  12. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Does your line 4 conform to this

    The product of the transforms equals the transform of the convolution

    Or should it be the inverse transform in line 4?
     
  13. arman19940326

    Thread Starter Member

    Jul 31, 2014
    37
    0
    The Fourier transform of the product of the signals in time domain equals to the convolution of the Fourier transforms of those signals (with a coefficient as you can see in the picture I've posted)
     
  14. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Here is a part table of Fourier Transforms, including the complex exponential transform you seek.

    FT3.jpg
     
    arman19940326 likes this.
Loading...