Research and publications — the complete index
This is everything, and each item carries the label it actually deserves. Six open-access technical notes with registered DOIs, and one review indexed in PubMed via PMC. The technical notes are not peer-reviewed, and this page says so rather than leaving it to be discovered. An index that overstates what it lists is worth less than no index at all.
Indexed literature
PMID 41116920 · PMCID PMC12535686 · doi 10.7759/cureus.92697 · first author.
The venue, described accurately: Cureus is a Springer Nature title and this review is indexed in PubMed via PMC. It is not MEDLINE-indexed, and it is not Scopus-indexed. Those three things are routinely conflated and they are not the same; anyone running diligence will check, so it is stated here first.
A citation is a record of what was published, not a claim about a device. Nothing on this site presents any device as a treatment for a named condition, and this entry is bibliographic.
Technical notes
Six notes, all deposited 11 September 2026 on Zenodo, the repository operated by CERN. Each has a registered DOI, is released under CC BY 4.0, carries the ORCID iD, and is typed on the record as a technical note.
| Note | Subject | DOI |
|---|---|---|
| The four-layer rule | How a technical claim is verified before it is published | 10.5281/zenodo.22700035 |
| Three-way harvesting | What a three-source on-board harvesting test showed | 10.5281/zenodo.22700047 |
| State of charge vs depth of discharge | Which of the two dials actually buys cell life | 10.5281/zenodo.22700050 |
| What makes hybrid storage hard | Sizing, power conditioning and the real constraints | 10.5281/zenodo.22700056 |
| CO₂ utilisation pathways | Why CO₂-to-fuel is an energy carrier, not an energy source | 10.5281/zenodo.22700061 |
| Geomagnetic-field harvesting | Why a static field does no work | 10.5281/zenodo.22700063 |
Two of the six exist to say that something does not work: CO₂ utilisation is an energy carrier rather than a source, and a static magnetic field does no work on a stationary conductor. Publishing the negative results is the cheapest way to show that the positive ones were not selected.
Why these are technical notes and not papers
A Zenodo deposit gets a DOI. It does not get peer review, and a DOI is not a quality signal — it is a persistent identifier, and a repository issues one to whatever is deposited. So these are called technical notes, which is what they are, and they are never described as papers or as peer-reviewed.
The same rule runs the other way. A preprint is called a preprint, never “published in” the society that hosts the server. Work written but not deposited is unpublished. Work planned is proposed. Nothing unpublished is ever presented as peer-reviewed, and that single rule is what protects every other claim on this site.
The check every venue has to pass
Before a journal is cited, submitted to, or named anywhere in this estate, five things are checked. All five, every time.
- Scopus status now, and status at the date of the paper. A journal discontinued before a paper appeared in it is the pattern a diligence team finds fastest.
- DOAJ listing, current.
- MEDLINE indexing — and “in PubMed via PMC” is not MEDLINE indexing, and must never be described as though it were.
- Does the DOI prefix resolve to the publisher of record for that ISSN? A mismatch here is the clearest single signal that a title is not what it appears to be.
- Absence from the hijacked-journal registers.
For a repository or a preprint server the honest statement is that points 1 to 3 do not apply, and it must never be implied that they do.
Work in preparation, and where it is intended to go
Three engineering papers are in preparation: the hybrid storage architecture, the vehicle power-conditioning architecture, and a mechanism review. The intended route is a preprint first, for a DOI and a date, then submission to a journal that passes the check above.
No submission has been made, and nothing here should be read as acceptance anywhere. This paragraph is a statement of intent and is labelled as one. It will be replaced by citations if and when they exist.
How to cite this work
Cite the DOI, not this page. Each technical note resolves through doi.org to its Zenodo record, which carries the canonical citation, the version history and the CC BY 4.0 licence terms. The licence permits reuse with attribution, including commercial reuse.
For the author identifier, use the ORCID iD 0009-0005-3275-1743. The patent record spells the name three ways, so the iD is the only unambiguous handle — why that is, and how to read all three.
Where the profiles are
| Profile | Identifier |
|---|---|
| ORCID | 0009-0005-3275-1743 |
| Zenodo | Six technical notes, listed above by DOI |
| Google Scholar | c3Vk6ZMAAAAJ |
| Wikidata | Q141430390 |
| PubMed | PMID 41116920 |
Why this page is short. Seven items is the whole record, and a longer list could be assembled by counting differently. It is not, because a list that a reader can check in ten minutes and find accurate is worth more than a list that impresses for five and disappoints in the sixth. This page will grow when the record does.