Parameter desain satelit: Residual noise Ilmu iklim Stabilitas frekuensi Pemakain bandwidth

A figure of merit is a quantity used to characterize the performance of a device, system or method, relative to its alternatives. In engineering, figures of merit are often defined for particular materials or devices in order to determine their relative utility for an application. In commerce, such figures are often used as a marketing tool to convince consumers to choose a particular brand.

Examples

Clock rate of a CPU Calories per serving Contrast ratio of an LCD Frequency response of a speaker Fill factor of a solar cell Resolution of the image sensor in a digital camera Detection performance of a sonar system Noise figure of a radio receiver The thermoelectric figure of merit, Z, a material constant proportional to the efficiency of a thermoelectric couple made with the material The figure of merit of digital-to-analog converter (DAC) is calculated as (Power dissipation)/((2^ENOB) * Effective Bandwidth) [J/Hz]. Luminous efficacy of lighting Battery life of a laptop computer [1]

Benchmarks are synthetic figures of merit that summarize the speed of computers in performing various typical tasks. Benchmarks designed by a manufacturer generally rate the manufacturer's products more favorably than benchmarks designed by others or by independent benchmarkers.

Modulation Systems
In modulation systems for communication, figure of merit of a device means the ratio of output Signal to Noise Ratio to the input Signal to Noise Ratio.
Amplitude modulation

Figure of merit for Amplitude modulation is given by

Figure of merit for DSB-SC receiver or that of an SSB modulation is always unity. Therefore noise performance of AM receiver is inferior to that of a DSB-SC receiver or an SSB receiver.

Frequency modulation

Figure of merit for Frequency modulation is given by

Deception
The precision and verifiability of numbers sometimes make them a more effective sales tool than vague and non numeric descriptions such as "state of the art" or "leaves the others in the dust". When used in deceptive advertising, the deception lies more in the question of relevance rather than truth since the number quoted as a figure of merit may not be enough to determine performance when comparing products. For example, when purchasing a laptop a consumer could choose based on the capacity of its hard drive. The RPM, buffer, and seek times may not be noted, but significantly affect performance. Some figures such as Peak Music Power are used in selling consumer merchandise and have the principal merit of yielding high numbers that can impress people who don't know what the numbers mean. Other figures such as Specific Fuel Consumption are addressed to engineers and other studious buyers whom the sellers dare not mislead. Another example is the megapixel count of a digital camera. A consumer unaware that the number of pixels on a sensor is only one factor in the quality of the image that is captured may, for example, buy a camera with more pixels squeezed onto a small image sensor, thus losing quality to small pixels. Makers of cheap, consumer-market telescopes often tout the magnification power of their products, sidestepping the fact that aperture, optical quality, and the type and quality of the telescope's mount are of more importance in obtaining a quality image.

Engineering design requires effective decision making, and a good solution to a design problem typically involves choices among multiple solution candidates. A "figure of merit" is a number that expresses the "degree of goodness" and is one of the most concise yet most useful tools for engineering design. Figures of merit complement a suite of other useful tools such as weighted-sum criteria, "total design" [1], "house of quality" [2], "analytical hierarchy process" [3], etc. Defining useful figures of merit can be difficult, but doing so is extremely valuable to the design process because it forces the designer to think critically about what parameters are most meaningful to a successful design outcome. A designer typically faces several choices among objective parameters such as geometric dimensions, force, and time, as well as subjective opinions regarding factors such as aesthetics and ergonomics. Both objective and subjective considerations are equally important in design. Figures of merit, however, address objective parameters most straightforwardly, and the limited scope of this document will focus mainly on quantitative objective parameters. SELECTING USEFUL FIGURES OF MERIT A figure of merit is constructed by choosing the parameters that are most centrally vital to a design solution. Using a hypothetical beam design example, one might decide that the best solution is one that can bear the largest applied load "F" while exhibiting the smallest amount of deflection "y". So a preliminary figure of merit could be defined as "F/y", which essentially presents effective stiffness as the figure of merit. A solution that gives a larger value of this figure of merit is deemed superior to one that results in a lower value. A more useful figure of merit, however, involves competing factors for which the best solution is nonobvious. Returning to the beam example, an obvious solution would be to use an extremely thick and very short beam. However, this naive solution is clearly inadequate if the more comprehensive requirement is to design the frame of a sleek, ultra-slim notebook computer. A far more useful figure of merit would consider factors such as weight and aspect ratio. These added criteria make the solution non-obvious and address competing factors in design. An updated figure of merit would make effective stiffness a desirable attribute while simultaneously rejecting a heavy, bulky solution. Depending on design priorities, this example could continue to address more factors such as raw material cost, coefficient of thermal expansion, environmental impact, etc. The number of possible factors to include is essentially infinite, so it is up to the designer to communicate with other stakeholders (clients, manufacturers, product managers, customers, etc.) to determine what is indeed most fundamentally important to a successful design. An example of a seemingly arbitrary yet still purposeful figure of merit is the "quarterback rating" used in football (http://www.nfl.com/help/quarterbackratingformula). Most engineering figures of merit would be less elaborate, but still attentive to desirable and undesirable attributes, discussed next. COMBINING ATTRIBUTES There are no rigid rules governing the construction of a figure of merit, but in general it is useful to distinguish desirable attributes from undesirable attributes. It is often most intuitive and convenient to express as a ratio. Placing desirable attributes in the numerator and undesirable attributes in the denominator forms a figure of merit for which highest value is best (although a figure of merit may just as well be defined inversely in terms of lowest being best). Some attributes in the context of mechanical design are provided below, and have been worded such that larger numerical value expresses greater magnitude of desirability or undesirability for each case. Desirable Attributes Wide range of motion High velocity High acceleration High load capacity High output force or torque High output energy or power Wide bandwidth Undesirable Attributes Slow response time High cost Heavy weight Large volume / spatial envelope High input force or torque High input energy or power

After the most relevant attributes have been chosen, they can be combined into a figure of merit as quantitative variables. Variables can be combined by either adding or multiplying, as long as the numerator and denominator are kept distinctly separate. Furthermore, the relative importance of each variable can be independently magnified or demagnified by weighted coefficients and/or exponents, such

as (2x + y)/(z). In this hypothetical example, "x" and "y" are desirable attributes, "z" is an undesirable attribute, and "y" is the most important attribute. So the designer uses qualitative knowledge and input to define a meaningful figure of merit, then the figure of merit serves the role of providing a quantitative basis of comparing design alternatives. The units will often be inhomogeneous, so accordingly some attention should be given to choosing units that weigh numbers in sensible proportions (e.g. expressing distances as kilometers, meters, millimeters, or microns). BROADER PERSPECTIVES In some complex cases, it may be helpful to divide decisions into categories (e.g. kinematic design synthesis, failure analysis, dynamic response, etc.) and to define more than one figure of merit to evaluate each category separately, possibly with a grand aggregate thereafter. It is not unusual in design to override a candidate solution that has a higher computed figure of merit than another. This may very well be justified, for example, if subjective considerations such as ergonomics are deemed more important. Sometimes it turns out that the original figure of merit overlooked or underestimated a very important factor. So figures of merit should be considered dynamic tools subject to revision and iterative evaluation. Even with very well chosen parameters, figures of merit are not intended to dictate final decisions in an absolute sense. Rather, it is the very *process* of defining a good figure of merit that helps designers think more methodically and more comprehensively about what the design criteria truly are. An effective designer uses this deeper awareness of influential factors--in combination with subjective criteria and in communication with other stakeholders--to determine what is ultimately presented as the "best" solution.

[1] S. Pugh, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Essex, England: Addison-Wesley, 1991. [2] D. Clausing, Total Quality Development, New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994. [3] T.L. Saaty, "Decision making - the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP)," Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol. 13, pp. 1-35, 03. 2004.
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/sjlee/ | sang-joon.lee@sjsu.edu | 2011 Mar 04

Figure of Merit is a term that may be unfamiliar. Engineers use this term to describe a number based on a formula which is useful in comparing different items. An everyday figure of merit is MPG (miles per gallon) for automobile fuel efficiency. If you have bought a household appliance recently you may have noted an energy efficiency figure of merit on the label. That allows you to decide to pay more for a more efficient appliance, or conversely to decide that the increased efficiency is not worth the cost and go for cheaper model. A figure of merit is always a simplification and your real world results may vary. For example, on my two year old vehicle, I have yet to achieve the MPG average that the sticker said it would get. Maybe I just have a heavy foot, or something. But that rating allowed me to compare vehicles in a significant way before I made the decision to buy. A figure of merit may not in itself be the deciding factor. But having a figure of merit is good when making a comparison between options. There are many folks who wish that the world is different than it is. Science fiction movies in my childhood concentrated how the rocket worked in getting people to space rather than what they did when they got there. Nowadays, Han Solo jumps in the Millennium Falcon and instantaneously is in space making the calculations for hyperdrive. Kirk and Spock, if not using the transporter, ride a shuttlecraft effortlessly to the space dock where the new starship is ready for flight. Because Hollywood can do it with blue screens or computer animation, the popular imagination believes such things can be done in real life. Or should be able to do it. Or maybe just wish that we could do them. So we see some folks that talk a good talk about getting into earth orbit. Unfortunately the state of the art of technology doesnt quite match the state of the art of portrayed in some powerpoints. So I propose a figure of merit exercise to illustrate the difficulty of getting to earth orbit. My figure of merit based on the energy state. (Hold on, this takes just a little bit of physics and mathematics nothing that a high school graduate shouldnt be expected to know). So a High school physics refresher: total energy is the sum of kinetic and potential energy. E=PE+KE. Potential energy depends on how high up you are: height (or altitude) times gravity times mass: PE=h x g x m. For example, a commercial airliner cruises at roughly 35,000 ft. Lets call it 6 nautical miles high, just to use an antique measurement system (Im an old guy). A spacecraft in low earth orbit probably needs to be at about 120 miles altitude to have significant orbital lifetime before atmospheric drag causes decay. In simple math: PE orbit/PE airplane = 120 miles x g x mass/6 miles x g x mass So to stay in low earth orbit you need to be about 20 times higher than a commercial airliner. That means, you need 20 times the potential energy to get from an airliner altitude to an orbital spacecraft altitude. Wow. No wonder space travel is hard.

But wait, thats not all. What about the other part of the equation, kinetic energy. Kinetic energy increases as the square of velocity: KE = x m x v x v. A typical commercial airliner cruises at about 500 mph. To be in earth orbit requires a speed of 17,500 mph. KE orbit/KE airplane = x m x 17,500 mph x 17,500 mph / x m x 500 x 500 = 1250 ! So it takes more than a thousand times as much kinetic energy to be in earth orbit as it does to be at airliner cruise speed! It might be interesting to compare some other vehicles with orbital energy. For example, the SR-71 is the fastest military aircraft ever. It could go Mach 3 at an altitude of 80,000 ft. That is quite a bit more energy than a piddling commercial airliner. And the X-15 got to Mach 6.7 and an altitude of over 350,000 feet well, not simultaneously, but lets do that calculation just to make it easy. Here is a short table of some interesting vehicles: Commercial airliner energy state at cruise: SR-71 at max speed & max altitude: Space Ship 1 at max speed & max altitude: X-15 record altitude & record speed: Mercury-Redstone at max speed & max altitude: International Space Station (low earth orbit): 159 kjoule/kg 748 kjoule/kg 1,658 kjoule/kg 3,237 kjoule/kg 5,605 kjoule/kg 194,775 kjoule/kg

If you ever wonder why flying in space is not as simple or as easy as going to your local airport and getting on a scheduled commercial airliner, think physics. Going to orbit is not twice as hard or ten times as hard as an airliner; it is over a thousand times as hard.

Analytical figures of merit such as selectivity are performance characteristics of an analytical determination. They can be used to select between potentially useful methods and to evaluate or optimize a method that is already in use. The importance of analytical figures of merit is generally accepted. A case in point is how the premium journal of the field rightly describes itself: Analytical Chemistry is a peerreviewed research journal that explores the latest concepts in analytical measurements and the best new ways to increase accuracy, selectivity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. This page is organized as follows:
o o o o

Univariate data: official literature Generalization to multivariate and beyond The example of multivariate selectivity References & further information

Univariate data: official literature Analytical figures of merit are well-defined for univariate (i.e. zeroth-order) calibration, where a single number is measured for each sample. See, for example:
o

International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Compendium of Analytical Nomenclature

Consider a linear calibration function that relates content (x) to signal (y) according to the classical model. An important figure of merit is the sensitivity, which in this case is given by the slope of the calibration function:

Figure FOM 1: Linear calibration function without intercept - the simplest classical

model. The sensitivity (s) is inversely proportional to the amount of error propagation when predicting the true content from the noisy signal. It is therefore the combination of sufficiently low instrument noise (y) and high sensitivity that ensures small changes in content (x) to be detectable. In addition, these characteristics determine the number and design of samples required to construct a sufficiently predictive model. Other figures of merit such as signal-to-noise ratio and selectivity have an equally straightforward and intuitive interpretation. Generalization to multivariate data and beyond Top The situation is obviously more complicated when a more complex data structure is measured for a single chemical sample and accordingly more sophisticated calibration methods are used to predict analyte concentrations. The theory of analytical chemistry enables one to generalize the figures of merit agreed upon for univariate calibration to more complex instrumental data structures. We have contributed to a generalization that directly relates to the uncertainty in the determination, quantified as a standard error of prediction. Some properties of this generalization are:
o

The figures of merit are analyte-specific. In other words, each analyte can be characterized by a different sensitivity, selectivity or signal-to-noise ratio. An analyte-specific signal-to-noise ratio may seem counterintuitive, because this figure of merit is traditionally used to characterize the instrument. However, this tradition has a univariate origin. In the multivariate context, a low noise level is of little use if severe spectral overlap (ideally non-existent in the univariate setting) hinders the construction of a reasonable model. The figures of merit are consistent in the sense that they can be used to compare instruments of different complexity. For example, they can be used to quantify the gain in selectivity when moving from GC-MS to GC-MS-MS.