ABOUT FI SYSTEMS
From signals and decisions
to efficient machines.
We develop better ways to use the data, energy and hardware a system already has.
FI Systems, Corp brings eight product paths across 16 programs into one portfolio. Our work connects measurement plans, signal models, device code and physical design. The goal is useful efficiency across a complete machine.
OUR PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT
A clear purpose.
For every product.
Each path solves a different part of the job. The status below shows where we have checked results and where we are still developing the application.
Measurement planning
Make each reading count.
Meet a named modeled quality limit with fewer readings, or keep the readings for a steadier combined answer. Skipping work can save energy when it exceeds added processing.
Model and software checksLinked-error decisions
Turn shared error into a clearer decision.
Use known links between errors to narrow a valid range. A tighter range may avoid extra checks when the workflow can act on it.
Conditional model result
Amplifier modeling
Guide cleaner, more efficient radio designs.
Model how present and past inputs shape amplifier output. The aim is signal correction that keeps useful quality with less waste; an application gain is still under study.
Application development
Checked device-code export
Keep the design intact as it becomes code.
Carry model behavior into device code through a checked handoff. The corrected controller matched its reference across 45 declared test sequences.
Bounded code checks
Energy and heat accounting
Find the losses worth fixing.
Trace energy from its source to useful output. Use that view to target parts that waste power or add heat while preserving the machine’s required work.
Product developmentPassive signal recording
Keep the evidence the next task needs.
Design signal records around later analysis. The tested smaller-recording change lost required data and failed quality checks; its storage saving is not accepted.
Retention design in development
Offline engineering workbench
Keep engineering work moving offline.
Bring models, code and evidence into a repeatable handoff without a live network. An offline delivery slice works; full-job time savings remain unmeasured.
Working delivery sliceReceiver health and evidence
Make suspect signal data easier to inspect.
Link passive logs so a reviewer can examine a suspect interval. The goal is focused review; detection and review-time gains are not yet established.
Product developmentOne machine may use several FI tools. Shared savings count once; every added part and operation counts toward the cost.
THE CASE BEHIND THE OPPORTUNITY
Clear gains.
A complete comparison.
Our reading-plan study found two useful options: 23.8% fewer minimum readings at the old equal-plan quality limit, or 26.3% lower modeled variance at the same reading budget, on average across 12 selected cases. Lower variance means a steadier combined answer.
Exact allocation methods matched FI in these cases. A device saves energy only when work removed exceeds work added. The full model, software checks and design estimates are below.
Explore the calculations, comparisons and design estimates
26.2972% lower modeled variance. A choice in how to use it.
Across 12 selected cases, FI with a shared whole-reading adjustment cut variance by 26.2972% on average versus equal counts at the same budget. Mean standard deviation fell 15.0136%. Exact minimum reading budgets fell 23.7847% on average when matched to the old equal-plan variance limit. A designer can keep the readings for better precision or use the lower-budget plan, provided the required quality and workload stay fixed. Energy and battery changes depend on actual skipped work and added computing cost.
Nine cases improved and three tied at the original budget. Exact greedy allocation and full search matched FI in every case. The result concerns combined estimates; it does not change the noise in each individual reading.
10 saved report pairs. Exact arithmetic checked.
All 10 saved report pairs matched exact recalculation across 1,018 paired rows and 12,200 running-sum steps. Nine cases were synthetic; one had an unverified recorded-data label. The match shows arithmetic consistency, not physical accuracy or that every task passed its limits.
See all 12 model cases and how the average is calculated
Each of four designed variance sets was checked at reading budgets of 12, 24 and 48. The model assumes independent readings within and across channels, fixed variance for each reading, equal cost per reading, and no shared drift or systematic error (a bias in the readings). Variance measures spread; mV² means squared millivolts.
| One-reading variances (mV²) | Reading count | Equal-plan variance (mV²) | FI-plan variance (mV²) | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,1,1 | 12 | 3/4 | 3/4 | 0.00% |
| 1,1,1 | 24 | 3/8 | 3/8 | 0.00% |
| 1,1,1 | 48 | 3/16 | 3/16 | 0.00% |
| 1,4,9 | 12 | 7/2 | 3/1 | 14.29% |
| 1,4,9 | 24 | 7/4 | 3/2 | 14.29% |
| 1,4,9 | 48 | 7/8 | 3/4 | 14.29% |
| 1,9,81 | 12 | 91/4 | 113/8 | 37.91% |
| 1,9,81 | 24 | 91/8 | 113/16 | 37.91% |
| 1,9,81 | 48 | 91/16 | 155/44 | 38.06% |
| 1,1,100 | 12 | 51/2 | 12/1 | 52.94% |
| 1,1,100 | 24 | 51/4 | 6/1 | 52.94% |
| 1,1,100 | 48 | 51/8 | 3/1 | 52.94% |
For each row: reduction = (equal-plan variance − FI-plan variance) ÷ equal-plan variance × 100. The exact sum of the 12 row percentages is 5,370,000/17,017. Divide by 12 to get 447,500/17,017%, or 26.2972% when rounded to four decimal places. Converting each case before averaging gives a 15.0136% mean standard deviation reduction. Exact lower-budget planning gives 23.7847% mean reduction in minimum readings to meet the old equal-plan variance. Each case has equal weight. These describe selected designed cases, not future customer gains.
A separate, preselected 13-reading case used variances 1, 5 and 13 mV². The best balanced plan, with counts 4, 4 and 5, gives 41/10 mV². FI plus the shared adjustment, with counts 2, 4 and 7, gives 101/28 mV²: 12.0209% less modeled variance. Both exact methods tie it. This case is excluded from the 12-case mean.
Every allowed positive whole-reading split was checked: 5,556 across the 12 exploratory cases and 66 in the separate case. These are mathematical choices, not devices or field trials. No hardware readings were measured in these model checks.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
Same reading count.
A different plan.
Where each reading goes can change the result. Explore three saved model cases, including one with no gain.
Different spread, 13 readings
MODELED CALCULATIONHow the readings are shared
One square is one reading. Both plans use 13.
than the best balanced split
Variance means spread. Lower is better.
Exact comparison methods reach the same result. FI adds 0% extra variance reduction over them.
This model assumes independent readings, fixed spread, equal cost per reading, and no shared drift or systematic error (a bias in the readings). It does not show a measured device, time or cost gain.
View the calculation
For each channel, divide its one-reading variance by its reading count, then add the three values.
Best balanced split: 1/4 + 5/4 + 13/5 = 41/10 mV²
FI + shared adjustment: 1/2 + 5/4 + 13/7 = 101/28 mV²
Reduction = (balanced-plan variance − FI-plan variance) ÷ balanced-plan variance × 100 = 12.02%, rounded.
A balanced split keeps channel counts within one reading of each other. For 13 readings, the baseline is the best of the three balanced splits.
The shared adjustment assigns whole readings. Exact greedy allocation and a check of every allowed split tie its result. These are selected saved examples, not an average across all tests.
WHAT LESS WASTE CAN MAKE POSSIBLE
Less heat to manage.
More useful work.
When a smarter reading plan saves more energy than it adds in processing, it frees part of the energy budget for the job you care about.
Give the cooling system less to do.
Cut the energy that becomes heat inside a device, and less heat needs to be carried away. In equipment held back by heat, that can make room for more sustained work.
Get more from the same energy budget.
A net energy saving can support more useful operations or another function. The gain depends on what else sets the system’s pace, including processing time and data flow.
Go longer between charges.
With the same battery and workload, lower energy use can extend time in service.
Make room for a lighter design.
If a smaller battery or cooling system can do the same job, a redesign may need fewer or lighter parts.
Any estimate for cooling or output includes the extra processing FI needs and the limits of the complete device.
GOVERNMENT & DEFENSE
Designed around
mission constraints.
Potential applications include passive radio sensing, signal records, receiver health and power-aware equipment. We also review scanning, spoofing and jamming at the level of system needs, test methods and evidence.
These are development directions. Simulations describe the conditions modeled; they do not establish a field-ready FI capability.