The open technical questions I have not answered yet
Everything else on this site states what the record supports. This page states what it does not. Eleven questions across the three technologies are genuinely open — some because the work has not been done, some because it has been done and not published, and some because the answer may turn out to be unwelcome. Each is written as a question rather than left for a diligence team to find.
Why publish this at all
Two reasons, and neither is modesty.
The first is that every one of these questions will be asked eventually, by a licensee’s engineers or a reviewer or a regulator, and the answer they get should be mine rather than a guess. A gap someone else finds costs more than a gap you declared.
The second is that the strength of a claim is set by the weakest thing standing behind it. Publishing the open questions is what makes the closed ones worth something: if I will tell you what I cannot show, you have a reason to believe me about what I can. The same logic governs the eMedica questions page, where nine of the eighteen answers are no, and the research index, where two of the six deposited notes report that something does not work.
On the medical device
The device is regulated as a Class A medical device in India, is manufactured within an ISO 13485:2016 quality system, and measured 1.3 µA of leakage current against a 10 µA limit in IEC 60601-1 testing at a NABL-accredited laboratory. Those are electrical-safety and quality-system facts. None of them is a clinical fact, and the following remain open.
- 1. There is no published randomised controlled trial, so the efficacy question is simply unanswered. Not answered unfavourably — unanswered. Any statement about clinical benefit, from me or from anyone else, is at present a hypothesis. The honest position is that the device is offered as an adjuvant under a qualified practitioner and that the evidence pathway has not yet been walked.
- 2. The proposed mechanism is proposed, not demonstrated in humans for this device. The underlying physiology of transmembrane potential is well established in the independent literature, and I have set out what that literature does and does not show in the note on the electrical body. What has not been shown is that this device, at its recited parameter ranges, moves that physiology in a person in a way that matters clinically. Established background physics does not transfer to a specific device by association.
- 3. Which of the recited parameters actually does the work is unknown. Claim 1 recites ranges for voltage, current and frequency. A claim defines a legal boundary; it does not identify which variable within that boundary is the active one, or whether the effect — if there is one — is monotonic across the range. A dose-response study would answer this and has not been done.
- 4. The comparison against TENS has not been made experimentally. They are separate modalities and results do not transfer between them, which is why this site never cites TENS evidence in support of the device. But the converse study — a head-to-head against an established electrotherapy modality — is the one a sceptical reviewer would ask for first, and it does not exist.
- 5. There is no long-term safety follow-up. Electrical safety at the bench is established by the IEC 60601-1 result. Safety over years of repeated use in a population is a different question and a longitudinal one, and no such dataset has been published.
On the Hybrid Power Pack
The architecture pairs an electric double-layer capacitor bank with a battery so that transient current is absorbed by the capacitor rather than the cells. The physics of that is not in dispute and is set out in the hybrid storage note and the note on peak versus RMS current. The engineering questions that decide whether it is worth building are another matter.
- 6. The cycle-life benefit has been measured, but not across the range of duty cycles that would settle it. The pack has been cycle-tested at CIRT and environmentally tested at DRDO R&DE(E). Those are test reports, not certifications, and this site never calls them anything else — the distinction is explained in how to read a test report. A test report answers the question its protocol asked. The open question is how the benefit scales across real duty cycles, which vary enormously by application and which no single protocol covers.
- 7. The cost question is not settled and it is the one that decides adoption. A capacitor bank adds bill-of-materials cost, volume and mass in exchange for cell life. Whether that trade is favourable depends on the cell chemistry, the duty cycle and the replacement economics of the specific application. I do not have a general answer, and I am suspicious of anyone who offers one.
- 8. Optimal sizing of the capacitor buffer remains an open design problem. I have published the first-order method I use, which is a starting point rather than an optimum. A proper treatment would be a control problem over a statistical load profile, and I have not solved it.
- 9. Thermal behaviour of the combined pack over a full service life has not been characterised. Environmental testing establishes that a pack survives defined conditions. It does not establish how the thermal profile of the two storage elements interacts as both age, at different rates, in the same enclosure.
On OMNIA Drive
- 10. It has not been built and run at scale, and nothing on this site should be read as saying it has. The vehicle power-conditioning architecture is granted in India, the United States and Japan. Outside those three the family is substantially lapsed — stated plainly on the patent register rather than left out. A granted claim is a legal position, not a product. There is no independent third-party evaluation of OMNIA Drive anywhere, and until there is, the honest description is a patented architecture rather than a proven system.
And one that applies to all three
- 11. Almost all of the evidence is first-party. The patents are examined by offices, the licence is issued by a regulator, the test reports come from independent laboratories and one review is indexed in PubMed via PMC. Those are real external checks and they are the reason this site exists. But no independent research group has replicated any of this work, and no peer-reviewed publication by an unconnected author evaluates any of the three technologies. That is the largest single gap in the record, it is not one I can close by publishing more myself, and pretending otherwise would undo the point of the rest of the site.
What I have already published that says something does not work
Two of the six technical notes deposited in September 2026 are negative results, and they are on the research index alongside the rest rather than quietly left off it. One concludes that carbon-dioxide utilisation is an energy carrier rather than an energy source. The other concludes that a static magnetic field does no work on a stationary conductor, which rules out a class of harvesting scheme that gets proposed regularly. Publishing those is the cheapest available demonstration that the positive results were not selected.
How this page will change
A question moves off this page only when it is answered and the answer is published with its source — not when it becomes inconvenient. If an answer turns out to be unfavourable, it will be published as an unfavourable answer and the claim that depended on it will be withdrawn from every property listed on this site. That is the commitment, and this page is where it is kept.
Anyone conducting diligence is welcome to work from this list. If a question that should be here is missing, it is an omission rather than a decision, and I would rather be told.