[SI-LIST] Re: Even mode, common mode, and mode conversion

  • From: "Mary" <mary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:14:32 -0600


I agree that we should not complicate the discussion
by referring to non-homogeneous media, non-TEM propagation
or skin-effect losses. I also agree that the even and odd
modes can be viewed as eigenvectors of the system.

Perhaps you or someone else would like to address the point
that Mr. Haedge made. If a 1-volt excitation on trace 1 can
be viewed as a superposition of a pure 0.5 volt even-mode
excitation on both traces and a 1-volt odd-mode excitation
between traces, and if both of these modes propagate
independent of one another, the signal should reach
its termination unattenuated. If crosstalk occurs, then
don't we have to conclude that the modes do not propagate


-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Corey
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:23 AM
To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Even mode, common mode, and mode conversion

Mary -- you are correct in that the signals can be broken down according to
infinite number of orthogonal bases.  However, the significance of the even
odd modes is not that they are orthogonal.  Their significance is that they
the eigenvectors of the system (although they happen to be orthogonal in
case).  A non-degenerate system (i.e., all distinct eigenvalues) has only
eigenvector basis, so yes, they are special.  The modes do propagate
independently, but so does any excitation, due to linearity and
The significance is that the eigenvectors, applied as a similarity transform
the system matrix, diagonalize the matrix, which decouples all of its
eigenvalues, which correspond to the modes of the network.  The equations
then easily viewed as the superposition of each mode propagating
independently.  Transmission line theory and analysis has relied on this
powerful tool for many years.

Any signal can be decomposed into a weighted combination of the different
by doing an eigendecomposition.  Each mode can be analyzed independently
its characteristic propagation velocity and attenuation (which is the
associated eigenvalue, or propagation constant).  Finally, the responses can
recombined, by inverting the eigendecomposition, into a final result.  It is
this recombination (superposition) of modes, each often with its own
propagation velocity, attenuation, and characteristic impedance, that causes
the distortion to which Eric was referring.  Using some arbitrary set of
orthogonal or non-orthogonal vectors to decompose and recombine the system
not result in each component propagating independently with a characteristic
propagation constant and impedance, and will be of little analytical value.
And note that if you actually excite the system with one of its eigenmodes,
there is no need to decompose it before modal analysis or recombine it after
modal analysis -- one of the system's instrinsic modes is propagating with
associated propagation constant -- without distortion, as Eric has pointed
out.  This is what makes excitation using one of the eigenmodes different
using just any excitation vector, orthogonal or not.

You are correct in implying that in a lossless, homogeneous medium all modes
propagate with the same velocity and impedance.  However, I think many
designers on this list are operating in the presence of skin loss,
loss, and/or inhomogeneous media, and if any of these factors is present,
modes will split.  So I think varying propagation velocities of different
was a valid point for an earlier poster to bring up, and need not confuse
issue, even though it may lead to a more complicated analysis than the ideal
lossess, homogeneous case.

  -- Steve

Mary wrote:

> Don't confuse the issue by referring to what happens in an
> inhomogeneous medium. I believe Mr. Haedge's point is valid.
> After all, aren't there an infinite number of ways to divide
> a signal on three conductors into two complete-orthogonal modes?
> The even/odd mode description is convenient for many reasons.
> However, I don't think there's anything magical about these
> modes. They do not propagate down a transmission line
> independent of one another. It's true that if you launch an
> odd (or even) mode signal down a symmetric pair of traces you
> will theoretically get an odd (or even) mode signal at the
> termination. However, if you launch an odd and an even mode
> signal at the same time, you no longer have the symmetry that
> was responsible for the "single-mode" propagation.
> I don't believe it's proper to assume that the odd-mode
> propagation and even-mode propagation can be analyzed
> independently. Yet there is a tendency on this list to ignore
> what happens to the even mode component when the "intentional"
> signal is all odd mode.
> Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> Each propagates undistorted, but at different velocities?
> Timothy J. Christman
> Test Engineer
> Tel 651.582.3141  Fax 651.582.7599
> timothy.christman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Guidant Corporation
> 4100 Hamline Ave. N.
> St. Paul,  MN   55112  USA
> www.guidant.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David G Haedge [mailto:haedge@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:56 PM
> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Even mode, common mode, and mode conversion
> Eric and all,
> My understanding of a transmission line that has  +1 volt signal on one
> line and
> 0 volts on the other is actually the superposition of an even mode signal
> of +0.5 volt / +0.5volt and an odd mode signal of +0.5volt/-0.5volt,
> you
> the +1volt/0volt signal on the line, in which case each mode should
> propagate
> undistorted.  Is this not what in fact is occurring in a line excited in
> this nature?
> David Haedge
> Raytheon

To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field

List archives are viewable at:     
or at our remote archives:
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:

Other related posts: