The Pugh method is an established decision-making tool. In this post you will see how it can be exploited to communicate about quantum sensors in a structured way.
As quantum sensors continue to be highly touted for their potential to achieve entanglement-enhanced sensitivity, securing support and funding has been relatively straightforward. However, stakeholders may soon realize that such advanced enhancements are still a long way off. In the near term, quantum sensors may offer some advantages over traditional technologies, but appear comparable to other emerging sensing technologies, such as graphene-based sensors, NEMS, optical fiber sensors, and plasmonic sensors.
When users aim to identify a sensing solution to their problem, there are multiple ways in which the decision can be made with increasing complexity:
- Heritage: The user chooses the industry-standard. If it does not perfectly meet their requirements, they might adapt, scale or incrementally innovate on it.
- Trade-Off: The user reviews existing solutions to the problem, does a trade-off analysis and bases the decision on the results.
- Technology Scouting: The user engages in a broader evaluation of emerging trends and technologies to identify innovation potential when addressing their problem.
With a throrough technology scouting approach, quantum sensors will be covered and have a chance to show their worth. However, before this approach is chosen the sensing problem needs to be sufficiently important to the user. Quantum sensors thus might miss an opportunity to solve more problems cost-effectively. How to move up the ladder to 2. Trade-Off? You need to do it for and with the user.
Case-Study: Keystone
Consider Keystone, an Earth observation space mission concept aiming to measure Terahertz (THz) radiation from the atmosphere. We know very little about the distribution of atomic oxygen in the range of 50-250 km above Earth’s surface and this mission could address this lack of knowledge. For this purpose the mission will need a THz detector. We can use the Pugh method to look at different solutions. Below is an exemplary, to be reviewed table filled with pair-wise comparisons to a reference detector based on a review article on THz detectors.
| Criteria/Technology | TES Bolometer (Reference) | Pyroelectric Detector | Schottky Diode | Photoconductor | Superconducting Detector (HEB) | Rydberg Receiver |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (NEP) | R | – | – | – | 0 | 0 |
| Bandwidth | R | – | + | 0 | + | – |
| Dynamic Range | R | 0 | + | 0 | + | + |
| Operating Temperature | R | + | + | + | 0 | + |
| System Complexity/Cost | R | + | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| Power Consumption | R | + | + | + | 0 | 0 |
| Integration with Existing Systems | R | + | 0 | + | 0 | + |
Precise evaluations aren’t crucial in these assessments since they are relative comparisons. The table serves as an excellent 2D visualization to stimulate further discussion and gather expert feedback. A potential question arising from this table and initiating a discussion on Rydberg Receivers might be:
“I notice you are considering a TES bolometer for this application. Would it be advantageous to trade some bandwidth for an increased dynamic range?”
Conclusion
As a quantum sensor developer you must think of impactful ways of persuading potential users to at least consider your technology. The Pugh method is a great tool for evaluating quantum sensors and highlighting advantages and potential drawbacks.
No responses yet