MagNex : Magnets without Rare-Earth

MagNex: The AI-Discovered Magnet That Could Change Clean Energy

A UK startup called Materials Nexus has created a new magnet called MagNex — and it might be a big deal for electric cars, wind turbines, drones, and robots. What makes it special? It was designed with artificial intelligence (AI), and it doesn’t use rare-earth metals, which are usually expensive, hard to get, and bad for the environment.

Even better — it only took three months to create, which is about 200 times faster than normal.

Why This Is Important

1. No Rare-Earth Metals

Most strong magnets use rare elements like neodymium and dysprosium. These are mostly mined in China, and the mining process is harmful to the environment. MagNex doesn’t use any of them.

2. Cheaper and Cleaner

Making MagNex costs about 80% less than traditional rare-earth magnets, and it produces 70% less carbon pollution.

3. Fast Discovery

Using AI, the Materials Nexus team tested over 100 million combinations of metals on a computer to find the best one. Then they made and tested it in a lab — all in just a few months.

How They Did It

Materials Nexus worked with scientists from the University of Sheffield and the Henry Royce Institute in the UK. The AI system looked for materials that were:

• Strong magnets
• Cheap to make
• Easy to find
• Environmentally friendly

Once the AI found a few good options, the scientists made them and tested them to find the best one: MagNex.

Why It Matters

Fixing Supply Chain Problems

With the rise of electric vehicles and renewable energy, the world needs more magnets than ever. MagNex could help solve the problem of relying too much on rare, expensive metals.

Helping the Environment

Because MagNex uses more common materials and produces less carbon, it’s better for the planet.

A New Way to Make Materials

This is just the beginning. Materials Nexus plans to use the same AI technology to discover better semiconductors, superconductors, batteries, and more.

Their CEO, Dr. Jonathan Bean, said:

> "This is just one example of how AI can help us create materials that support climate goals."

What’s Next?

MagNex is promising, but it’s still new. It needs to prove that it can work as well as (or better than) current magnets in real-world products. It also needs to be made at a large scale.

But if it succeeds, it could help make green technology cheaper, faster, and more sustainable — and change how we invent materials in the future.

Silly supplier mistake, Costs them an order

 We're in the process of upgrading our Network Attached Storage (NAS) to protect our data. We've had to buy some NAS hardware, disks and network upgrades. 

We placed two orders with BroadBandBuyer, about 1 hour apart on the same day, for a 10 GB LAN card, some network patch cables, and LAN Switch. They fulfilled one of the orders promptly, but appeared to have overlooked the second order. Its status was stuck at "awaiting stock allocation" even though the items were marked as "in stock" at the time of order.

When we queried the order status a couple of days later, we were given the line that despatch would be timed in line with the despatch method specified at the time of order, i.e. it's going to sit untouched for a couple of days even though the stock is available.Essentially arrant nonsense when the first order had the same method of despatch as as the delayed one. 

We subsequently decided we wanted to increase the capability of the NAS units with extra (ECC RAM) memory. BroadBandBuyer had the memory modules in stock, but they didn't get the order from us. We chose instead to order directly from the NAS manufacturer.  They've now been moved down the pecking order when it comes to selecting suppliers. We don't appreciate lies from their helpdesk. It also caused us to check their rating on Trustpilot.  They were preferred suppliers.

GDPR Red Flags in the Companies House

 Blog Update: GDPR Red Flags in the Companies House Identity Verification System

In my ongoing efforts to comply with Companies House's new director identity verification requirement, a recent development raises serious concerns under UK GDPR.

Following a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Companies House, I have now received written confirmation that they hold no records relating to my identity verification attempts via the GOV.UK One Login system. Specifically, they state they cannot see:

• Any verification outcome or status,
• Any login identifiers linked to me,
• Any audit trail or escalation records,
• Any way to associate a One Login attempt with a named director.

In short: the government department mandating legal compliance through a digital system is unable to access or confirm whether the process it enforces has even been attempted.

This raises three fundamental GDPR issues:

Lack of data traceability – If no record links a login ID to a director, how can Companies House enforce or prove compliance?

Opaque automated decision-making – GOV.UK One Login is effectively a black box. Users are not informed why they fail verification. No explanation is given, and no human review appears available — potentially breaching Article 22 of UK GDPR.

Shared controller confusion – Companies House refers all identity processing responsibility to GDS/Cabinet Office. Yet it is Companies House that imposes consequences based on that process. This blurred boundary undermines accountability.

With SARs now also submitted to GDS and DSIT, I intend to escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office if these concerns are not addressed. Legal obligations should never be built on systems that are opaque, untraceable, and immune to oversight.

Edit 8th Aug 2025 - relevant to the issue:

A UK court has ordered HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to disclose whether it used artificial intelligence in deciding to reject research and development (R&D) tax credit claims. The ruling came after tax expert Tom Elsbury filed a Freedom of Information request in December 2023, suspecting AI involvement based on rejection letters. HMRC initially refused, citing concerns about aiding fraudulent claims—a stance later upheld by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

However, the first-tier tribunal ruled that the public interest outweighed those concerns, giving HMRC until 18 September to respond. Judge Alexandra Marks found Elsbury’s arguments “compelling,” noting that HMRC’s refusal to confirm or deny AI use risked undermining public trust. Elsbury warned of potential dangers if public large language models like ChatGPT had been used for tax assessments, particularly where sensitive defence-related innovations might be exposed.

The case comes amid heightened scrutiny of R&D tax credits due to fraud concerns, though critics argue HMRC’s approach has unfairly penalised legitimate businesses. HMRC said it is reviewing the decision and considering next steps.

Attribution:
Based on reporting by Emma Agyemang, Financial Times (© The Financial Times Limited 2025).

Is the GOV.IT One Login programme failing?

The Trouble with GOV.UK One Login: What You Should Know

The UK government’s new digital identity system, GOV.UK One Login, aims to make it easier for people to access public services online. It’s designed to replace older systems like Government Gateway and Verify. But while the idea is promising, the rollout has been far from smooth.

Here are the key problems that have come to light:

 

1. Serious Security Risks

Independent testing revealed that hackers could gain high-level access to the system without triggering any alerts. That means someone could break in—and no one would know.

This isn’t the first warning. Since 2022, multiple government bodies have flagged issues with how secure One Login really is. While the government claims it’s fixed most of these, trust is still shaky.

 

2. Not Meeting Cybersecurity Standards

The system still doesn’t fully meet the government’s own cyber security standards.

As of April 2025, One Login passed only 21 out of 39 security checks set by the National Cyber Security Centre. That’s an improvement over last year, but still not good enough, especially for something so critical.

 

3. Lost Trusted Identity Status

In May 2025, One Login lost its official certification under the UK’s Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework (DIATF). This happened when one of its main suppliers failed to renew their approval.

This means One Login is no longer on the list of trusted digital ID providers, a major credibility blow.

 

4. Hard for Some People to Use

A government study found that up to 9% of people can’t verify their identity using One Login. That includes people without passports, driving licenses, or a strong financial history.

Young people face even more problems:

• Only 4% have a big enough financial “footprint”
• Nearly half don’t have a mobile phone
• 1 in 5 don’t have an email address
• Many need help using online services at all

This raises questions about how “universal” the system really is.

 

5. Concerns Over Development and Oversight

There are also red flags about how the system is being built and managed:

• A whistleblower claimed that large parts of the work were offshored to Romania, without proper oversight or cybersecurity checks.
• Key security flaws took months to be addressed.
• Internal governance has been criticised for being too slow to act on known risks.

6. Industry and Political Pushback

Industry groups say the system should only be used for public services and not expand into the private sector. They fear it could harm private digital ID providers and distort the market.

Meanwhile, MPs and peers continue to question the government about security weaknesses, insider risks, and lack of transparency.
Government Response

The Government Digital Service (GDS) says it is fixing the issues. Measures include:

• Stronger monitoring
• Tighter access controls
• Independent risk assessments

Ministers also say that some of the security concerns are “outdated,” and that full compliance is on the way.

 

Final Thoughts

GOV.UK One Login was supposed to be the future of digital identity in the UK. But with ongoing security issues, adoption challenges, and lost certification, it’s facing real questions about its readiness.

Until the government proves it can make the system secure, inclusive, and fully trusted, many people, rightfully, remain cautious.

Update 6th Aug 2025:

Issue: Despite the voluntary IDV period starting April 8, 2025, only about 200,000 out of 7 million individuals (less than 3%) have verified their identities so far, suggesting low awareness or reluctance.

Impact: The low uptake could lead to a last-minute rush as the November 18, 2025, mandatory deadline approaches, potentially causing delays in filings, rejections of incorporations, or penalties for non-compliance. Non-compliance is a criminal offense, with risks including fines, disqualification, or public annotations on the register that could harm a company’s reputation and access to finance or insurance.

Desktop PC archive and backup

From Cloud to Control: Why We Switched to NAS for Our Business Backups

Like many small businesses, our IT setup has evolved organically over time. We currently manage a mix of three Windows PCs, four Linux boxes, a couple of Chromebooks, and three laptops. all interconnected via a LAN secured behind firewalls and segmented subnets. While much of the work involves standard business documents, we also rely on a variety of software tools tailored to our consulting work.

With so many devices in play, a hard disk failure would be more than just inconvenient, it could be both costly and disruptive. That’s why we’ve always maintained regular, daily backups. These are stored separately and air-gapped from the rest of our network, ensuring we could recover even in the event of a complete loss of access to our office, something that’s critical given that our work often takes us off-site or even overseas.

When the Cloud Got Expensive

Our data needs have grown significantly over the past year. The introduction of GoPro cameras and drones for fieldwork caused a spike in storage usage — particularly with large video files. Until recently, we were backing everything up to AWS S3. It worked reliably, but the monthly costs began to creep up, around £45 per month just to store 2 TB. And while uploading was painless, the Amazon interface wasn’t exactly user-friendly for quick restores.

We experimented with a more budget-friendly solution: USB-attached hard drives paired with EaseUS backup software. Unfortunately, during test recoveries, we found it lacking in reliability and speed. Cheap, yes but not something we could count on during a real crisis.

Moving to NAS: Why Synology Was Worth It

Eventually, we decided it was time to bring storage back under our own roof. After some research, we opted for a Synology NAS system. While the hardware cost was a bit higher than other options, the added value in terms of built-in software, usability, and long-term savings made it an easy choice.

The benefits were immediate:

• RAID support for drive redundancy
• Hot-swappable enterprise-grade drives
• Integrated UPS backup control
• FTTP-enabled remote backups to a secondary off-site location
• Seamless local and remote file sharing across all our devices
• Disk capacity upgrades are easy.

Best of all, we now have four times the storage capacity we had with AWS, and we own the infrastructure. Based on our current and projected usage, the system will pay for itself in under three years.

Setup was surprisingly quick, under two hours, and required no special tools (not even a screwdriver). We also appreciated being free from proprietary cloud ecosystems like Microsoft OneDrive, while still maintaining the flexibility to access data globally. We've also given the Synology box its own APC UPS to provide at least 30 minutes backup power.

Final Thoughts

For our business, this move was about regaining control. AWS S3 served us well, but it became increasingly expensive and a bit opaque to manage. Our new NAS setup gives us performance, scalability, and peace of mind — all with the simplicity we need and the flexibility to grow.

If you’re a small business grappling with rising cloud storage costs and complex recovery procedures, investing in a NAS might be the best IT decision you’ll make this year.

Variable memory pricing - NAS

 For the Synology 723+ NAS

Prices include VAT All ECC modules. ECC memory can help correct some memory errors.

https://www.comms-express.com/products/synology-d4es02-4g-ddr4-sodimm-4gb-memory-module/ listed price £186.48 per module I think this is a pricing error.

On the Synology (UK) shop: £73.20  per module https://www.synology.com/en-uk/products/DDR4  D4ES02-4G

Broadbandbuyer £80.60 per module. https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/products/49908-synology-d4es02-4g/

Insight £82.79 per module. https://uk.insight.com/en_GB/shop/product/D4ES02-4G/synology/D4ES02-4G/Synology-DDR4-module-4-GB-SODIMM-260pin-unbuffered/ 

 🧾 When the Machines Were Louder Than the Mistakes

A personal journey through the early days of national computing

Part 1: From Cardboard to Code — Joining the Machine

In the early 1970s, I joined the fledgling Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) as a fresh-faced 19-year-old with a two A-levels and absolutely no interest in working with computers. I’d tried FORTRAN in school using graphite-sensed punched cards and had a miserable time of it — so when the Civil Service interview panel in London asked if I’d be interested in computing, I said “No.”

A few years later, I found myself standing in the middle of a massive, under construction, data centre in Swansea, surrounded by tape drives, gas turbines, and hammer printers — and helping to build one of the UK’s largest early national IT systems.

The DVLC system was designed around tape-based batch processing. At its heart were magnetic tapes running at 1600 BPI (later 6250 BPI), each one a file in its own right. The system tracked millions of vehicle and driver records, with 340 tapes for vehicle data and 240 for drivers, processed in overnight cycles. If a single tape broke, the system could skip that segment and continue, avoiding full re-runs. Resilience by necessity.

Each update was a delicate orchestration of variable-length, variable-format records, which had to be unpacked into fixed-layout structures for COBOL processing, and then repacked before writing back out. Every byte counted. Adding one byte to the average record length added 11 minutes to processing time, multiplied across hundreds of reels, that was days of extra work.

Part 2: Paper, People, and Punch Cards

The real story wasn’t just in the hardware it was in the people. Data didn’t come from the cloud or online forms. It came from 220 local offices, each with handwritten records and local staff who understood their regions better than any machine ever would. Those clerks were asked to transcribe thousands of records onto new data entry forms, while still keeping the old system running.

They did this knowing full well they were working themselves out of a job.

The process wasn’t frictionless. Forms came in with errors, public queries arrived by post, and the clerks handling those enquiries? They had no online access to the masterfiles. Every lookup required a paper form, a tape-based query job, and a printed response returned days later. A time and motion study showed that while a transaction took three weeks to complete, only about 30 seconds of it was actual manual handling. After cutover, the local office records were stored in an aircraft hanger on shelving, a retrieval and filing nightmare.

The system was built for throughput, not responsiveness  and that distinction shaped the experience for staff and the public for years.

Part 3: Print Like You Mean It

At the end of every batch cycle came the thunder: sixteen 160-column barrel hammer printers, shaking the floor with mechanical fury as they fired off vehicle tax discs, licence confirmations, and system reports on fanfold paper.

And these weren’t just pieces of paper.

The vehicle tax discs were printed on, photogravure paper, circularly perforated, each one serial-numbered and audited like currency. Changing the layout or security features required coordination between IT, print operations, suppliers, and civil service policy. Some print jobs ran from offline spool tapes, meaning the spooling system was literally a physical spool.

Every misprint had to be accounted for. Every wrecked disc recorded. At that stage, we weren’t just handling data , we were manufacturing trust.

 ☕ The Epilogue

I often joke that I just made the coffee. But in truth, I had a front-row seat to the birth of modern digital government, in an age where the systems we built had weight, heat, noise and impact.

The Synology NAS sitting on my shelf today, silently syncing terabytes of data across two sites, is exponentially more powerful than the entire DVLC setup we built with tapes and turbines.

But it owes everything to what we learned back then: how to build systems that don’t just process data — they handle people, policy, and pressure.