Ever Wondered What Makes StreamZ Different?
Where did our technology come from? Why is StreamZ different from conventional magnetic products? And what lies behind the technology used today by people, horse owners and animal professionals around the world?
Our story didn't begin with a marketing idea or a product designed to follow a trend.
It began more than three decades ago with Eric Dodd, an inventor fascinated by magnetic fields, resonance and their potential interaction with biological systems. His years of experimentation created the foundations of the technology we still manufacture today — and left us with an extraordinary legacy of original research, documents, prototypes, and StreamZ material produced by Eric himself.
That history gives StreamZ something increasingly rare: a genuine technological origin, a documented development story and more than thirty years of questions still worth investigating.
And now, we are going back to where it all began.
In this article, we explain the story behind StreamZ, what we have learned along the way, the new scientific equipment we are developing, and our ambitious plans to investigate Eric's original technology using modern measurement techniques.
Most importantly, we explain how this work is shaping a new mission for StreamZ — one built around research, evidence, innovation and a determination to better understand the technology we inherited.
What to understand our origins and StreamZ technology more? Check out these two related articles. All About Us, and Our Technology.
We also recognise that this article may not be for everyone. It deliberately crosses the boundaries of traditional marketing content and ventures into magnetic physics, biological research and scientific theory. Some of the ideas we discuss are complex, some remain hypotheses, and some raise questions to which we simply do not yet have the answers.
But we believe that distinction is important.
Rather than simplifying the StreamZ story into convenient marketing claims, we want those who are interested to understand where our technology came from, the scientific thinking that influenced its development, what we currently know, what we don't know and — most importantly — how we intend to investigate those unanswered questions.
So, for those willing to venture a little deeper into the science behind StreamZ, this is our story — and where we intend to take it next.
✔ Repair when something goes wrong.
✔ Prevent problems before they occur.
✔ Perfect their daily routines.
The Next Chapter for StreamZ
More than thirty years ago, our inventor Eric Dodd began experimenting with an unusual idea.
He believed that very weak magnetic fields, arranged in a particular way, might interact with biological systems differently from the conventional static magnets commonly used at the time.
His experiments ultimately led to the technology that became StreamZ.
Today, more than three decades later, we have an opportunity Eric never had: to return to those original ideas with modern scientific instrumentation, purpose-built experimental equipment and a much greater ability to measure precisely what the technology is actually doing.
That is now becoming a major part of the future of StreamZ.
Our objective is ambitious but straightforward:
Understand the StreamZ technology in considerably greater scientific detail, investigate its effects through carefully designed research, and use what we learn to develop the next generation of StreamZ products and applications.
This represents an important new chapter for our company.
Going Back to the Beginning
StreamZ did not begin as a conventional magnetic therapy product.
Eric Dodd's original work explored magnetic fields, resonance and the possibility that biological systems might respond to extremely weak electromagnetic environments.
Some of the scientific ideas that interested Eric included research into ion cyclotron resonance and related theories proposing that particular combinations of magnetic fields and frequencies could influence the behaviour of ions within biological systems.
These are complex areas of science and remain subjects of scientific discussion and investigation.
It would therefore be wrong for us simply to state that ion cyclotron resonance explains how StreamZ works.
We don't know that.
And recognising the difference between an interesting scientific hypothesis and an experimentally demonstrated mechanism has become increasingly important to us.
Rather than beginning with a mechanism and trying to prove it, our future research will begin somewhere much more fundamental.
We are going to measure the technology itself.
Not All Magnetic Products Are the Same
One of the reasons we believe this work matters is that the magnetic product industry has, for many years, operated with remarkably little explanation of the technology being sold.
Many products in the market are based around readily available permanent magnets, including neodymium magnets of types used across countless industrial and consumer applications, incorporated into boots, wraps, bracelets, supports and other wearable products.
But that leaves some important questions.
Why that particular magnet?
Why that strength?
Why that polarity?
Why that position?
What magnetic field actually reaches the body?
What happens to that field with distance?
And, most importantly, what evidence demonstrates that the chosen configuration produces the biological effect being claimed?
In many cases, consumers are given very little information with which to answer those questions.
Scepticism, particularly within evidence-based audiences, is rife within the magnetic therapy industry — and frankly, we're not surprised.
There may be references to magnet strength, circulation, recovery or wellbeing, but considerably less information explaining why a particular magnetic configuration was selected in the first place or presenting controlled research specifically investigating that product and its proposed effects.
We think our industry should be capable of doing better.
StreamZ has never simply been a conventional permanent magnet placed inside a wearable product. Our technology originated from Eric Dodd's experiments into weak magnetic fields, spatial magnetic patterns and resonance, and its physical construction is fundamentally different from simply inserting powerful individual magnets into a boot or bracelet.
But we also recognise that being different is not, by itself, scientific evidence that something works.
That distinction is important.
It would be very easy for us to criticise conventional magnetic products for failing to explain their mechanisms while simply declaring our own explanation to be correct.
We don't want to do that.
Instead, we intend to hold StreamZ to the same standard we believe should apply across the industry.
What exactly does the technology produce?
Can it be measured?
Can its physical characteristics be reproduced?
Does exposure produce measurable biological effects under controlled conditions?
And if it does, can we begin to understand why?
Those are much harder questions than simply quoting the Gauss rating of a magnet.
But they are the questions we believe manufacturers of magnetic technologies should be prepared to investigate.
Our objective is not to have the strongest magnet.
It is to build the strongest understanding of the technology we manufacture.
A Claim Repeated So Often It Became Accepted
Spend a few minutes looking through magnetic products currently available to horse owners and one explanation appears repeatedly: magnets improve or stimulate circulation.
It has become such a familiar part of magnetic-product marketing that it can easily sound like established physiology.
But is it?
Some manufacturers currently describe magnetic products as stimulating or maintaining circulation, while products using conventional static magnets are routinely promoted on the basis of increased blood flow, improved oxygen delivery, reduced swelling and accelerated recovery.
The problem is that when researchers have actually attempted to measure this proposed increase in blood flow under controlled conditions, the results have not provided the straightforward confirmation that the marketing language might suggest.
In one randomised controlled study involving horses, commercially available static magnetic wraps were applied for 48 hours and blood flow was measured objectively. The researchers found no significant increase in blood flow beneath the magnetic wraps compared with controls.
A later randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled equine study investigated 900-Gauss static magnetic blankets. Again, researchers found no significant difference in muscular blood flow between horses wearing active magnetic blankets and those wearing otherwise equivalent placebo blankets.
More recently, a scientific review examining the wider evidence surrounding static magnetic fields and blood flow concluded that claims of increased circulation are not supported by human studies and are not well supported by animal studies.
That doesn't prove that every magnetic configuration is biologically inactive.
But it does illustrate a problem we believe our industry needs to confront.
Repeating a mechanism does not establish that mechanism.
Nor does quoting an increasingly large Gauss figure explain why a magnetic product should produce a particular biological response. Particularly when companies such as Apple inc run studies as explained in our 10mm myth article.
This is exactly the approach we want StreamZ to move beyond.
We have hypotheses about our own technology. Eric Dodd certainly had hypotheses about how it might interact with biological systems. Some of those ideas are fascinating.
But fascination is not evidence.
If we believe StreamZ influences a biological process, our responsibility is to design experiments capable of detecting and measuring that process — and to accept the result whether it confirms our expectations or challenges them.
That is the scientific standard we increasingly want to apply to ourselves.
And we believe consumers should expect the same standard from the wider magnetic-product industry.
So, Which Technology Would You Have More Confidence In?
Perhaps this ultimately comes down to a question of confidence.
A neodymium magnet is an extraordinarily useful industrial component. Magnets of this type are manufactured in enormous quantities for applications ranging from loudspeakers and electric motors to generators and electronic devices.
But taking a conventional magnet and placing it inside a horse boot, bracelet or support doesn't suddenly explain why that particular magnet should produce a particular biological effect.
So, as a consumer, which approach would give you greater confidence?
A readily available industrial magnet incorporated into a wearable product, accompanied by familiar claims about circulation, oxygen delivery and recovery?
Or a proprietary magnetic technology with more than thirty years of documented provenance, originating from an inventor's experimental work, manufactured specifically for StreamZ, and backed by a company prepared to invest in research, develop purpose-built scientific equipment and subject its own theories to scrutiny?
Being proprietary doesn't prove that StreamZ works.
Having more than thirty years of history doesn't prove that StreamZ works either.
Evidence has to do that.
But provenance matters. Research matters. Understanding what you manufacture matters. And being prepared to question your own assumptions matters.
We believe consumers have every right to ask manufacturers:
Where did your technology come from?
Why was it designed that way?
What evidence supports the claims you make about it?
What research have you undertaken into the actual product you sell?
And can you explain how you believe it works without presenting theory as established scientific fact?
Those are questions we are increasingly determined to answer about StreamZ.
And that brings us back to perhaps the most fundamental question of this entire research programme:
What, exactly, did Eric Dodd create?
What Did Eric Actually Create?
This sounds like an extraordinarily simple question.
It isn't.
A conventional magnet can relatively easily be characterised by measuring the magnetic field at particular positions.
StreamZ is different.
StreamZ technology incorporates a proprietary magnetic material arranged around the circumference of the product. Its magnetic characteristics vary spatially around that structure rather than simply behaving like a conventional north/south permanent magnet positioned against the body.
Historically, much of the discussion surrounding magnetic products has focused on a single measurement: magnetic flux density, usually expressed in Gauss or Tesla.
But that measurement alone tells only part of the story.
A magnetic field has direction as well as magnitude. Its characteristics can change with position and distance. Adjacent regions can create complex spatial patterns, and movement relative to a spatially varying magnetic field can produce a changing magnetic exposure over time.
Understanding those characteristics requires much more than placing a basic Gauss meter against the material and recording a number.
Importantly, we still possess StreamZ material manufactured by Eric himself.
The underlying StreamZ magnetic design has not changed since Eric developed it. The technology we manufacture today follows his original design and manufacturing principles.
Our interest in Eric's original material is therefore not about comparing an old version of StreamZ with a new one.
It is something much more fundamental.
We want to use modern scientific instrumentation to characterise, in detail, the technology Eric actually created.
Building a Three-Dimensional Picture of StreamZ
To do that properly, we need more than a conventional Gauss meter.
So we are developing a purpose-built magnetic-field measurement system specifically for StreamZ technology.
Our experimental system is being designed around a cylindrical test geometry, allowing StreamZ material to be positioned around it in a repeatable configuration.
Measurements can then be taken at controlled positions from the surface towards the centre and at different positions around the circumference.
Rather than taking isolated field-strength measurements, the objective is to systematically investigate characteristics including:
-
magnetic field magnitude;
-
directional components of the field;
-
polarity;
-
spatial variation around the technology;
-
magnetic field gradients;
-
behaviour with increasing distance from the material; and
-
the way movement relative to that spatial field translates into a changing magnetic exposure.
Ultimately, this should allow us to create something we have never previously possessed:
a detailed three-dimensional characterisation of the StreamZ magnetic environment.
We also intend to investigate Eric's original material using this system.
Eric developed StreamZ through years of experimentation with magnetic fields, spatial patterns and ideas surrounding resonance, but sophisticated three-dimensional magnetic measurement equipment of the kind available today was simply not readily accessible when much of that work was being undertaken.
For the first time, we want to put numbers, measurements and three-dimensional data around something Eric originally developed through experimentation and observation.
It is not about changing his technology.
It is about finally having the tools to investigate it in ways that Eric himself could not.
The measurement system should also give us the ability to investigate conventional permanent magnets within the same controlled geometry.
The interesting question then becomes much more sophisticated than:
Which magnet produces the biggest Gauss reading?
Instead, we can begin asking:
What do these magnetic environments actually look like in three dimensions?
That becomes particularly important when we return to Eric's ideas surrounding resonance.
A biological system wearing StreamZ does not experience a number printed on a Gauss meter.
It exists within a spatial magnetic environment.
Understanding that physical environment is therefore an essential first step before attempting to construct more detailed hypotheses about how — or whether — it might interact with a biological system.
From Magnetic Physics to Biology
Understanding the magnetic field is only the beginning.
Ultimately, the much bigger question is whether exposure to the StreamZ environment produces measurable biological effects — and, if so, what processes might be involved.
This is where the order of our research becomes extremely important.
We do not want to begin by declaring that a particular mechanism explains StreamZ and then search for evidence to support it.
Instead, we want the experimental evidence to determine which questions should be asked next.
First: characterise the physical technology.
Second: determine the magnetic exposure produced under realistic conditions.
Third: develop scientifically testable hypotheses.
Fourth: investigate biological responses under controlled experimental conditions.
If our physical measurements provide a rational basis for further investigation of resonance-related mechanisms, including ideas connected with Eric's original research, those hypotheses can then be tested.
If the measurements point somewhere else, we follow the evidence somewhere else.
Improved physical characterisation of StreamZ should also allow future biological studies to be designed much more precisely.
Instead of simply comparing animals or people wearing StreamZ with those who are not, researchers can potentially work with a quantified physical exposure.
That creates much more interesting scientific questions.
Can a measurable biological response be reproduced?
Is that response dependent upon the configuration of the technology?
Does distance matter?
Does movement matter?
Does the spatial structure of the magnetic field matter?
Do different configurations produce different outcomes?
And importantly, some experiments may produce no measurable effect at all.
That information matters too.
The purpose of research should not be to manufacture a predetermined conclusion.
It should be to discover what is actually happening.
Developing Better Experimental Tools
Our magnetic-field measurement system also illustrates a much broader philosophy that is beginning to influence StreamZ research.
Sometimes the limitation isn't the question.
It's the equipment available to answer it.
Equine cooling provides another example.
Cooling has long played an important role in equine care, particularly following exercise, and considerable research has been undertaken into the effectiveness of different cooling methods.
In 2019, equine scientist Dr David Marlin and colleagues published research comparing the cooling efficacy of different equine leg-cooling methods.
The study has subsequently become widely referenced within discussions surrounding equine cooling.
It was an important piece of comparative research.
But there is something about the study that can easily be overlooked when its findings are discussed:
the cooling experiments were not conducted on live horses.
Recognising the difficulty of standardising cooling experiments using live animals, the researchers deliberately developed a repeatable laboratory method. A heated metal flask was used as the test object, allowing different cooling methods to be compared under controlled conditions.
That was a sensible experimental solution to a difficult problem and provided a useful standardised method for comparing the overall heat-removal capability of different cooling approaches.
But every experimental model has limitations.
A heated metal flask is deliberately simple. It provides a repeatable thermal mass, but it does not reproduce the external geometry of an equine distal limb, nor was it designed to examine temperature changes at multiple positions and depths within a limb-shaped test object.
This is where we believe modern experimental equipment can take the methodology further.
We are currently developing our own life-sized equine distal-limb thermal simulator, specifically designed for controlled cooling experiments.
Our simulator does not attempt to recreate the complex anatomy or physiology of a living horse's leg.
It does not replicate individual tissues, blood flow or the distinct thermal properties of structures such as skin, tendon and bone.
Instead, we are trying to answer a narrower experimental question with much greater spatial detail.
Our purpose-built equine limb phantom will provide a repeatable, anatomically shaped test platform incorporating a controlled internal thermal system together with precision temperature sensors positioned at multiple locations and depths within the casting material.
This should allow us to observe how temperature changes through different regions of the same standardised model over time, rather than principally measuring the change in temperature of a single heated volume.
That distinction is important.
The resulting measurements will tell us about heat transfer through our experimental model — not directly what temperature a tendon, ligament or other structure inside a living horse would reach.
Live-horse research remains necessary for answering those biological and physiological questions.
What the simulator should allow us to do is compare cooling products, materials and application methods under tightly controlled and repeatable conditions, examine differences in their thermal behaviour at multiple measurement positions, and identify the most interesting questions to progress into subsequent biological research.
In that respect, we do not see our work as a rejection of previous research.
We want to build upon it.
The principle established by studies such as Marlin's — removing as many variables as possible so different cooling methods can be compared under repeatable conditions — remains extremely valuable.
Our objective is to take that principle and combine it with a limb-shaped experimental platform, multiple measurement locations, modern sensors and detailed data acquisition.
There is also a common philosophy connecting this project with our magnetic research.
For our magnetic technology, we are building equipment capable of characterising a complex spatial magnetic field.
For cooling research, we are building equipment capable of recording temperature changes throughout a controlled limb-shaped thermal model.
In both cases, the principle is the same:
If the equipment required to answer the question doesn't exist, build it.
What Does Gauss Really Tell Us?
Another question we intend to investigate is surprisingly fundamental: how much does the advertised gauss rating of a magnetic product actually tell us about the magnetic field experienced deeper within the body?
Permanent magnetic products are commonly described using figures such as 600 gauss, 1,200 gauss or even 2,000 gauss. However, these figures generally describe magnetic-field strength measured at, or very close to, the magnet itself. Magnetic field strength changes with distance, and the rate of that change also depends upon the size, shape, orientation and arrangement of the magnets.
Our magnetic-field simulator will allow us to investigate this directly.
By positioning calibrated magnetic sensors at known distances from the surface, we can compare conventional static magnets of different advertised strengths — for example 600 G and 2,000 G — and map what field actually remains at progressively greater simulated tissue depths.
This should allow us to answer several useful questions experimentally:
-
How rapidly does the field from a conventional static magnet decline with distance?
-
At what depth does it become difficult to distinguish from the surrounding magnetic environment?
-
Does a 2,000 G surface magnet produce a substantially stronger field at depth than a 600 G magnet?
-
How much does magnet geometry and orientation affect the result?
-
And, ultimately, how useful is a surface gauss figure when trying to understand magnetic exposure within deeper tissue?
Importantly, the experiment will measure the physical magnetic field, not assume a biological effect from its presence or absence. Establishing what actually reaches different depths is a necessary first step before questions about biological responses can be investigated meaningfully.
We will then be able to compare those measurements with StreamZ using the same controlled geometry — looking not only at field magnitude, but also at spatial distribution, direction and any measurable time- or frequency-dependent magnetic behaviour.
The objective is not to begin with an answer. It is to build an apparatus capable of showing us what is actually there.
An Invitation to Our Sceptics
We are very aware that StreamZ has its critics.
Some evidence-based audiences remain deeply sceptical of magnetic products, and scientists and commentators have publicly challenged technologies such as ours.
Frankly, we understand some of that scepticism.
As discussed earlier in this article, the magnetic therapy industry has frequently repeated biological explanations without producing adequate product-specific evidence to substantiate them.
But our response to criticism is changing.
We don't want to fight scepticism with marketing. We want to answer it with better research.
That means being prepared to have our hypotheses challenged.
It means designing experimental methods that others can scrutinise.
It means reporting what we measure rather than only what we would like to find.
And it means recognising that a result which challenges one of our assumptions can be just as scientifically valuable as one that supports it.
We therefore welcome the involvement of independent scientists, universities, veterinary researchers, engineers and other appropriately qualified specialists — including those who are sceptical of StreamZ and those who have previously criticised magnetic technologies.
We want them to question the methodology.
We want them to identify weaknesses.
We want them to suggest better experiments.
And ultimately, we want independent researchers to be able to reproduce or challenge what we find.
Because if our ideas cannot withstand serious scientific scrutiny, we need to know.
And if a measurable effect can withstand that scrutiny, critics should be able to examine the evidence for themselves.
We would rather invite sceptics into the experiment than fight with them outside it.
Scientific disagreement should not be decided by marketing, reputation, commercial interest or who has the loudest voice.
The experiment should determine the answer.
Working With Independent Researchers
Building our own experimental capability does not mean we intend to conduct this journey alone.
Quite the opposite.
As our research programme develops, we want to work with scientists, engineers, veterinary researchers, universities, students and other specialists capable of bringing expertise and independent scrutiny to the questions we are asking.
There is an inherent challenge when a commercial company funds research into its own technology.
The company naturally hopes that research will produce a positive result.
But genuine research cannot begin with a required answer.
Our responsibility is therefore to provide researchers with a clearly defined technology, properly characterised samples, useful experimental equipment where appropriate and questions that can genuinely be tested.
Independent researchers must then be free to investigate those questions properly.
Some findings may support our existing hypotheses.
Others may challenge them.
And some may generate entirely new questions we have not yet considered.
That is precisely why independent involvement matters.
Revisiting Thirty Years of Questions
The potential scope of this programme extends beyond the products we manufacture today.
Over more than thirty years, Eric's technology has generated observations and questions across humans, horses, dogs and other applications.
Some of those observations were made long before the measurement technologies available today existed.
That creates an unusual opportunity.
Rather than treating historical observations as proof, we can revisit the most interesting questions using modern experimental methods.
Which effects can be measured?
Which can be reproduced?
Which cannot?
Which depend upon configuration, exposure or application?
And which lead us towards entirely new areas of investigation?
This is where the history of StreamZ becomes particularly valuable.
We are not starting with a blank sheet of paper.
We have more than thirty years of ideas, observations, products, documents and original material to investigate.
But history provides the questions.
Modern research must provide the evidence.
Research Should Lead to Better Products
This programme is not intended to become science for science's sake.
Better understanding should ultimately lead to better products.
If we can characterise the StreamZ magnetic environment more precisely, we can begin asking much more informed product-development questions.
Does positioning matter? (we think it does)
Does orientation matter?
How much StreamZ material is required?
Do different geometries change the magnetic environment?
Can the technology be integrated more effectively into supports, textiles or other materials?
Could particular configurations be better suited to particular applications?
Could entirely new applications emerge from what we discover?
Historically, many magnetic products have followed a relatively simple development process: create a product and then add magnets to it.
Our ambition is increasingly the reverse.
Understand the technology first, then engineer products around what the research tells us.
That could influence everything from the positioning of StreamZ elements to the materials surrounding them and the types of products we develop in the future.
A New Standard for Our Own Claims
There is another consequence of taking this approach seriously.
We have to become increasingly precise about what we say.
Terms such as magnetic therapy, resonance and circulation can easily become explanations in themselves when, scientifically, they may represent very different levels of evidence.
We therefore want to make clearer distinctions between:
what we have physically measured;
what previous research has observed;
what customers and users report;
what we currently hypothesise; and
what remains unknown.
Those categories should not be interchangeable.
A customer observation can be valuable without proving a mechanism.
A scientific hypothesis can be worth investigating without being presented as established fact.
A measurable physical characteristic of StreamZ does not automatically demonstrate a biological effect.
And a biological effect, if demonstrated, does not automatically explain the mechanism responsible for it.
This may occasionally mean saying something companies are often uncomfortable saying:
We don't know yet.
We think that is a strength, not a weakness.
An unanswered question is not necessarily a problem.
It can be the beginning of the next experiment.
Eric's Legacy — and What Comes Next
Eric Dodd worked in a very different technological era.
He experimented, observed, built prototypes and developed ideas about magnetic fields and resonance without access to many of the sensors, computerised data-acquisition systems, modelling tools and precision manufacturing technologies available today.
We now have an opportunity that Eric did not.
We can return to his original technology.
We can measure it.
We can map its magnetic architecture.
We can investigate the physical environment it creates.
We can develop testable hypotheses from those measurements.
We can design controlled experiments.
We can invite independent researchers to challenge those experiments.
And we can use what we learn to develop better products and entirely new applications.
That does not mean rewriting Eric's theories as established scientific fact.
Nor does it mean dismissing them because they were developed decades ago.
There is a much more interesting option.
We can test them.
That, perhaps more than anything else, is how we believe Eric's legacy should continue.
Not as a story frozen in the past.
But as a scientific question that is still being investigated.
👉 Articles of interest:
If your horse is recovering from injury, read our complete guide to Rehabilitation & Recovery for Equine Injuries (Repair).Prevention is as important as cure. With this in mind, read our guide to How to Prevent Injuries in Horses (Prevent).
To go beyond prevention and optimise long-term soundness, explore Optimising Performance in Horses (Perfect).
In Summary: StreamZ New Mission
For more than thirty years, StreamZ has grown from the work of an inventor prepared to investigate an unconventional idea.
The next chapter is about taking that curiosity considerably further.
We want to understand the technology we inherited.
We want to build the experimental tools necessary to investigate it properly.
We want to challenge assumptions — including our own.
We want to work with independent scientists and researchers.
We want to produce evidence capable of being examined, questioned and reproduced.
And we want to translate what we discover into better products, better research and new applications for StreamZ technology.
We cannot promise what every experiment will find.
Science doesn't work that way.
What we can promise is that we intend to keep asking the questions.
Our mission now is to turn curiosity into measurement, measurement into understanding, and understanding into innovation.
This is the next chapter of StreamZ.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the EQU StreamZ equine leg simulator?
The EQU StreamZ equine leg simulators are life-size physical models of the lower horse limb being developed for controlled thermal research, due to be completed in 2026.
Temperature sensors and highly advanced magnetic probes positioned at anatomically positioned locations and depths will allow us to measure how heat and magnetic fields (of varying types) move through the model and compare different equine cooling products and magnetic therapy techniques under repeatable conditions.
How does StreamZ test equine cooling boots and cooling products?
Our objective is to test different equine cooling products under the same controlled conditions, including consistent starting temperatures, treatment periods, measurement depths and environmental conditions.
This should allow us to compare how effectively different approaches remove heat and how cooling develops below the surface rather than relying only on external temperature measurements.
Can an equine leg simulator replace testing on live horses?
No. A simulator cannot reproduce circulation, metabolism or the complete biological response of living equine tissue.
However, our simulator introduces an important additional feature compared with previously published laboratory studies that have used relatively simple heated vessels or "metal flask" models. A continuously circulating, temperature-controlled internal water system runs through the simulator, providing an ongoing internal heat source throughout testing.
This creates a thermal rebound effect: as a cooling product removes heat from the exterior, heat continues to be supplied from within the model. While this should not be interpreted as replicating blood circulation or living tissue, it provides a valuable way of investigating how a cooling product performs when heat is continuously being reintroduced rather than simply cooling a passive object.
The major advantage of the simulator remains repeatability and control. The same experiment can be performed multiple times using consistent starting temperatures, internal heat input, treatment periods, sensor depths and environmental conditions.
This should allow us to investigate not only how quickly a product cools the surface, but how cooling progresses at different depths and how effectively that cooling is maintained in the presence of continued internal heat input — before biological questions are investigated separately.
How are magnetic horse boots scientifically tested?
There are several different questions that can be tested. Before considering biological effects, one of the most fundamental is simply establishing what magnetic field a product actually produces.
Our magnetic research equipment is being developed to measure field magnitude, direction, spatial distribution and behaviour with distance. It will also allow us to investigate whether any repeatable time- or frequency-dependent characteristics can be detected.
How many gauss should a magnetic horse boot have?
There is no single gauss figure that, by itself, establishes how a magnetic horse boot will interact with the body.
Gauss is a unit used to describe magnetic flux density, but a quoted figure needs context — including where it was measured and the geometry, size, orientation and arrangement of the magnets involved.
This is one reason we believe measuring magnetic fields at realistic distances is more informative than simply comparing the maximum gauss figures advertised for different products.
Do higher-gauss magnets produce stronger magnetic fields deeper in a horse's leg?
This is one of the questions we intend to investigate experimentally.
A stronger measurement at the surface does not by itself tell us the magnitude of the field at a particular depth. Distance, magnet dimensions, geometry and configuration all affect the field that will be measured farther away.
Our magnetic simulator will allow magnets with substantially different surface measurements — for example 600 G and 2,000 G — to be measured at identical increasing distances.
How deep does a magnetic field penetrate into a horse's leg?
A static magnetic field does not simply stop when it reaches the skin. However, its measurable strength changes with distance from its source.
Rather than describing this using a single arbitrary 'penetration depth', our research will measure magnetic flux density at controlled distances from the product. This should provide a much clearer picture of the field that could be present at different simulated tissue depths.
What happens to magnetic field strength as distance from a magnet increases?
The magnetic field produced by a permanent magnet decreases as the measurement point moves farther away from it. The precise relationship depends upon the magnet's shape, dimensions and configuration, so a single universal distance rule cannot accurately describe every magnetic product.
Our testing system is intended to map this decay experimentally at a series of known distances.
Does a 2,000 gauss magnet necessarily work better than a 600 gauss magnet?
A larger gauss measurement demonstrates a stronger magnetic flux density at the position where that measurement was taken. It does not, by itself, demonstrate a greater biological or therapeutic effect.
We intend to compare magnets of different strengths at identical distances to establish how large the physical difference remains as measurement depth increases.
Whether any measured magnetic exposure produces a biological response is a separate scientific question.
Do magnetic horse boots increase blood flow?
Claims that static magnetic products increase circulation need to be distinguished from simply demonstrating that a magnetic field is present.
Our magnetic-field experiments are designed first to characterise the physics: what field exists, where it exists, how strong it is and how it changes with distance.
Detecting a magnetic field does not automatically demonstrate an effect on blood flow. Questions about circulation and other biological responses require appropriate biological evidence rather than being inferred from magnetic measurements alone.
What is the difference between StreamZ and conventional static magnetic horse boots?
Conventional magnetic horse products commonly incorporate permanent magnets positioned within a boot, wrap or band.
StreamZ uses a proprietary flexible magnetic material and a different physical configuration. Our research programme is intended to characterise those differences objectively rather than assume what their significance might be.
We will investigate characteristics including magnetic-field magnitude, direction, spatial distribution, distance decay and any measurable time- or frequency-dependent behaviour.
Is StreamZ trying to prove that its technology is better than conventional magnets?
The immediate scientific objective is not to begin with that conclusion.
We want to determine whether measurable physical differences exist between StreamZ and conventional permanent-magnet configurations and, where differences are found, characterise them accurately.
A scientifically useful experiment must also be capable of producing an unexpected or null result. Furthermore, demonstrating a physical difference does not automatically demonstrate a biological or therapeutic advantage.
Does detecting a magnetic field prove that a magnetic product has a biological effect?
No.
Measuring a magnetic field establishes physical exposure. It does not automatically establish that the exposure causes a meaningful biological response.
Separating those two questions is central to our research approach: first characterise the physics accurately, and then determine which biological hypotheses, if any, warrant separate investigation.
What is StreamZ hoping to discover through this further research?
Ultimately, we want to understand the physical science behind both the products we are testing and our own technology in considerably greater detail.
For cooling, that means measuring how temperature changes at different locations and depths under controlled conditions.
For magnetism, it means mapping what magnetic fields actually exist, how they behave in three dimensions, how they change with distance and whether StreamZ exhibits measurable characteristics that distinguish it from conventional static-magnet configurations.
The objective is simple: measure first, understand the physics, and allow the evidence to determine what questions should be investigated next.
Please note images used in this article are mock-ups and not the final version of our scientific instrument.