Talk:Linear response function

In the example of the harmonic oscillator, it seems that the dimensions are not right in the Fourier transform of the linear response function... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurdenhaan (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No references cited so far; article just contains common knowledge.

Connections to susceptibility and impedance articles probably could be improved. Up to now I added links in the corresponding disambiguity pages.

--Benjamin.friedrich 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small detail, but I think the Fourier transform is wrong; the plus in front of the damping constant should be a minus. I've done the maths, but it's possible I'm wrong, so if someone could check it'd be good.

Fauxhemian (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the math. I got a "plus". Which definition of the Fourier transform do you use? The article assumes "Fourier transform non-unitary, angular frequency". --Benjamin.friedrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the second poster that there should probably be a plus symbol, the usual fourier transform has $-i\omega t$ as argument of the exponent. You get a minus from integration by parts and another one from the integrand of the exponent. However.. it doesn't make any difference: it's a frequency, both plus and minus are equally valid solutions, the difference is simply a phase shift. --128.178.157.155 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transducer?[edit]

Isn't a transducer something that changes one form of energy to another? Yet a linear response function applies even when the form of energy that carries the signal remains the same, such as in the transfer function of an electronic filter. I haven't changed it because I can't think of a different word at the moment. 84.227.225.36 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]