Talk:S-plane

Integral limit
This is incorrect. It should integrate from zero to infinity. Look at wolfram.
 * Laplace Transform

Robin48gx (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Differentiation
The following spurious comment was removed today:
 * In the s-plane, multiplying by s has the effect of differentiating in the corresponding real time domain. Dividing by s integrates.

Students may compare with p in Operational calculus for clarity.Rgdboer (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not entirely spurious. It has bearing in the context of the Laplace transform, which is the context in which this is defined – see .  So much so that I would suggest that this article should be merged into that article.  The link Operational calculus given above has little relevance, as the multiplication is a true pointwise multiplication of functions in the s-domain, not the application of an operator.  —Quondum 04:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is about the range of the Laplace transform, that is, the complex plane. There seems to be no reason to maintain a stand-alone article under this title. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Frequency domain ?
The lede of Laplace transform mentions the s-plane as the frequency domain, but that article only mentions the Fourier transform and not Laplace transform. Further note that one of the redirects of this article is complex frequency, and it has several links in. Perhaps this article was motivated to complement the dominance of Fourier literature usage of "frequency domain" (?). To correct myself: "The s-plane is the domain of functions in the range of the Laplace transform." — Rgdboer (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the terminology "complex frequency" is not unusual, but perhaps sloppy. The term "complex frequency" should be clarified (being $s$), if this is sufficiently notable use. It should also not be used interchangeably with "frequency" as is done in Laplace transform.  One can understand people interchanging the two when incautious, since they essentially are related by a multiplier $i$.  I think you are right to have an issue with it.  —Quondum 03:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have changed the term for $s$ in Laplace transform to "complex angular frequency" (see this IEC definition). —Quondum 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)