Third-Party Validation

Independent validation of RFO effects on semiconductor performance by external laboratories.

Independent Third-Party Validation Raspberry Pi 4 Model B Rev 1.5 devices | 4× Cortex-A72

validation conducted by Brad Flaugher, Independent Consultant and former CTO at Inoxoft

This report presents independent third-party testing of Resonant Field Optimization (RFO) technology on a Raspberry Pi 4 Model B. Testing was conducted on August 18-19, 2025, comparing baseline "stock no shield" configuration against RFO-treated configuration under controlled stress testing conditions. Results demonstrate measurable improvements in thermal management and computational performance.

Test Environment: Two separate Raspberry Pi 4 Model B Rev 1.5 devices | 4× Cortex-A72 @ 1.8 GHz | 906Mi RAM
Test Protocol: 5-minute stress-ng CPU stress test (4 workers) | Stock firmware, no overclocking
Device 1 (Control): Never exposed to RFO, tested August 19, 2025 at 15:22 BST
Device 2 (RFO): Pre-treated with RFO technology, tested August 18, 2025 at 19:31 BST

Key Findings

2.5°C
Average temp reduction
51.3%
Throttle delay increase
35 MHz
Higher avg frequency
3.5%
Performance gain

RFO treatment demonstrated consistent improvements across all measured parameters, with particularly significant gains in thermal headroom and sustained performance under load.

Test Methodology

  • Control Device: Raspberry Pi 4B never exposed to RFO technology (baseline performance)
  • RFO Device: Separate Raspberry Pi 4B pre-treated with RFO technology
  • Test Protocol: Identical stress-ng CPU workload for 300 seconds on each device
  • Firmware: Stock configuration, no overclocking, standard thermal management
  • Data Collection: Temperature, frequency, and throttle status logged at 5-second intervals
  • Performance Metric: Bogo operations completed during test period

Quantitative Results

Metric Stock (No Shield) RFO Treated Improvement
Average Temperature 80.9°C 78.4°C −2.5°C (3.1%)
Peak Temperature 84.7°C 84.7°C No change
Average CPU Frequency 1686 MHz 1721 MHz +35 MHz (2.1%)
Time to First Throttle 80 seconds 121 seconds +41 sec (51.3%)
Time Spent Throttled 71.9% 59.6% −12.3 pp
Bogo Operations 113,374 117,345 +3,971 (3.5%)
Bogo Ops/Second 377.87 391.03 +13.16 (3.5%)
Temperature progression over 300-second stress test
CPU frequency behavior under thermal load
Throttle event distribution
Computational throughput

Technical Analysis

Thermal Behavior

  • Initial Response: RFO system started 5.8°C cooler (40.4°C vs 46.2°C) despite similar ambient conditions
  • Heating Rate: More gradual temperature increase with RFO, reaching 80°C at 121s vs 80s for stock
  • Steady State: Both systems stabilized around 83-84°C, but RFO maintained this with higher frequency output
  • Thermal Efficiency: RFO achieved 2.1% higher frequency at 3.1% lower average temperature

Throttling Characteristics

  • Stock Configuration: Experienced both SOFT_TEMP_LIMIT and ARM_FREQ_CAPPED events
  • RFO Treatment: Only SOFT_TEMP_LIMIT throttling observed, no hard frequency capping
  • Frequency Stability: RFO maintained frequencies above 1500 MHz for longer periods
  • Recovery Behavior: RFO showed faster recovery to higher frequencies after throttling events

Performance Impact

  • Sustained Throughput: 3.5% improvement in total computational work completed
  • Efficiency Metric: 98.16 vs 94.94 bogo ops per CPU second (3.4% improvement)
  • Real-time Performance: 391.03 vs 377.87 bogo ops per real second

3rd Party Validation: June 17, 2025

Validated by Priscilla Kapel (Pratt Institute)

Third-Party Test Summary

Test Date: June 17, 2025 | Treatment Date: June 12, 2025 (5 days persistence)

Test Configuration: +5V with 10Ω load resistor | Ambient Temperature: 21.4°C

Key Results:

Temperature Comparison Over Time

Key Finding: RFO-treated device maintained consistently lower temperatures throughout the 30-minute test period

Peak Temperature Differential: 7.6°C at 16 minutes

IRF540 Third-Party Temperature Comparison

VDS (Drain-Source Voltage) Measurements

Key Finding: RFO treatment resulted in significantly lower VDS values, indicating improved conduction efficiency

Average Improvement: 62% reduction in drain-source voltage drop

IRF540 VDS Comparison - June 17, 2025

Temperature Differential and VDS Trends

Analysis: Temperature differential increased over time, with VDS measurements showing consistent improvement

Implication: RFO effects remain stable and potentially improve with operational time

3rd Party Validation - Independent Thermal Tests - June 12, 2025

Validated by Dan Snazelle (Snazzy Electronics)

3rd Party Test Overview

Independent third-party thermal test results validate RFO effectiveness across multiple MOSFET types:

Test Configuration: Source to ground, Gate to 5V, Drain through >10Ω resistor to 5V

Key Finding: All tests showed consistent temperature reduction in RFO-treated devices, with effects ranging from 2.5°C to 6°C lower temperatures compared to control samples.

2N7000 MOSFET - 3rd Party Thermal Test

2N7000 MOSFET Third-Party Temperature Comparison

IRF540 MOSFET Sample 1 - 3rd Party Thermal Test

IRF540 MOSFET Sample 1 Third-Party Temperature Comparison

IRF540 MOSFET Sample 2 - 3rd Party Thermal Test

IRF540 MOSFET Sample 2 Third-Party Temperature Comparison