Re: What's a transient?

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:20:43 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
<IanIveson.home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris wrote

You seem to be attempting to redefine a commonly
accepted engineering term for some nebulously related
purpose.

Moi? Just the reverse. Check it out.

The accepted engineering collective noun is "singularity", I believe. That
leaves the word "transient", which is not after all happy as a noun, free for
use in the term "transient response".

Utter bull***, the term singularity is almost exclusively used by
astronomers, not engineers. Transient is perfectly useable as a noun.

Here is an accepted definition of transient response:

"The transient response is that part of the total system response which
approaches zero as time approaches infinity." (Feedback and Control Systems, Di
Steffano et al, McGraw Hill, 1976)

Note that it is the response that is transient, not the input signal. If I mean
that the response is transient, I say it is a transient response. What could be
more simple, or more elegant, than that?

Nothing, and that's a perfectly good definition. You could no doubt
also find a definition of 'transient' as a noun in the same text.

It's a course that can go exactly nowhere,
Mon; make a new word.

It's a course that takes competent systems to their targets.
I don't need to make a new word. I'm an engineer, and "singularity" suits me
fine.

If you were an astronomer, you'd be talking about a Black Hole.

"Transient", as a noun, is sloppy and misleading.

No, it isn't, since every electronics engineer knows what it is - a
changing signal, often a step function, spike, or square wave. To
pretend otherwise is simply ingenuous.

Maybe the confusion already evident in this thread's
posts to the difference between small-signal and
large-signal response and the various meanings of
the word "distortion" might be a better place to start.
Basics first; everybody on the same griddle; like that.

I was not prompted by a desire to progress the thoughts of others, I'm afraid.
I'm an amateur enthusiast not a prophet. I have not considered a strategy for
general education. But I have seen confusing use of the word "transient" and I
know from experience that this is a symptom of a particular misunderstanding
about the nature of transient response. I must admit in passing that I am guilty
myself of confusing "free" and "forced" responses, on occasion, with "transient"
and "steady state". Because I still need to learn, and because knowledge is a
social phenomenon, I engage in technical banter.

Thoe only time it is confusing is when people conflate risetime and
slew rate when discussing transient response, i.e. the response of a
system to transient signals, otherwise I've never seen any confusion
over the use of the term transient.

Neither do I believe there are many things more basic about systems than the
distinction between steady state and transient responses. I would expect to find
it by about page 10 in any undergraduate book on control systems.

I take "distortion" to be any departure from the original signal other than a
constant time shift or a constant and proportional change in amplitude.

Actually, those are also distortions, but they are generally referred
to as linear distortions, as opposed to the less desirable nonlinear
distortions.

Perhaps
I am wrong. I think I got it from Arnie or Stewart...people who care about
distortion. Happy to change if you want. It's not in any of the engineering
books I have to hand.

However, the use of transient as a noun certainly should be.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
.

Quantcast