A Magnetic Analogue to the Strong Nuclear Force

The research paper is “Polarity Free Magnetic Repulsion and Magnetic Bound State”. Here is the abstract:

This is a report on a dynamic autonomous magnetic interaction which does not depend on polarities resulting in short ranged repulsion involving one or more inertial bodies and a new class of bound state based on this interaction. Both effects are new to the literature, found so far. Experimental results are generalized and reported qualitatively. Working principles of these effects are provided within classical mechanics and found consistent with observations and simulations. The effects are based on the interaction of a rigid and finite inertial body (an object having mass and moment of inertia) endowed with a magnetic moment with a cyclic inhomogeneous magnetic field which does not require to have a local minimum. Such a body having some degrees of freedom involved in driven harmonic motion by this interaction can experience a net force in the direction of the weak field regardless of its position and orientation or can find stable equilibrium with the field itself autonomously. The former is called polarity free magnetic repulsion and the latter is classified as a magnetic bound state. Experiments show that a bound state can be obtained between two free bodies having magnetic dipole moment as a solution of two-body problem. Various schemes of trapping bodies having magnetic moments by rotating fields are realized as well as rotating bodies trapped by a static dipole field in presence of gravity. Additionally, a special case of bound state called bipolar bound state between free dipole bodies is investigated.


A magnetic bound state solution in classical physics is based on a stable equilibrium of a magnetostatic attraction force, basically between two dipoles and a dynamic repulsive interaction which varies about two times faster than a magnetostatic forces respect to the distance while strength of these forces depend on configurations. So by choosing a suitable ratio between these strengths, it is possible to obtain a similar curve of the strong nuclear force profile.

The units in left figure can be Newton and Inch for a setup based of medium sized neodymium magnets.


I’m not competent to judge whether this purported classical description of the strong nuclear force (appearing in a book on CQM by Randell Mills) makes sense:

All of the critiques of Mills’s CQM appear to me to be hit-and-run tactics not unlike the legacy media’s hit-and-run Trump hoaxes. Just hit and then refuse to respond to the defense – all the while pretending to be engaged in some sort of “dialogue”: scientific in the former case and national in the later.

My attempt to get a ballpark cost quote from a university lab with the EPR equipment necessary to replicate analysis of a hydrino material as recently published was flat out refused because the material was produced in Mills’s lab. They didn’t respond when I sent them the protocol to produce the material (pictured in this video) themselves.

The general tenor of the “dialogue” is reflected in the top google hit on the topic one frequently runs across Hydrinos: Impressive Free Energy Crackpottery which contains this admission:

On this level, it sort-of looks correct. It doesn’t violate conservation of energy: the collision between the two atoms doesn’t produce anything magical. It’s just a simple transfer of energy. That much is fine.

It’s when you get into the details that it gets seriously fudgy.

This invocation of “free energy” as the headline (quickly covered by retreat to no such claim in the body of the text) is reminiscent of the time I talked to a former DoE colleague about Mills and my colleague echoed the mealymouthed noise about “perpetual motion” out of the Robert Park/APS/USPTO. “Perpetual motion” was used to invoke rules that permitted the USPTO to withdraw a patent it had already issued. Again, of course, if you look closely at what Robert Park/APS/USPTO say in the details of their statements, they make no such claim. “Perpetual motion” is simply an epithet applied to create a stigma that says “Sheep: Note the smell of shite on this and stay away.” While one may defend such tactics as compassionate toward the “sheep” – dumb animals that they are – one may not defend such an attitude as being part of any kind of civil (ie: adult-to-adult) “dialogue”.

Another tactic in the “Free Energy Crackpottery” article is to call attention to the repeated failures of Mills to bring a device to market over the years – but then we might say the same of the government’s lavishly funded fusion energy technology at a level orders of magnitude higher than Mills – a program that was admitted by one of its founders to be essentially fraudulent in origin.

Self-awareness here?


Finally – and this is what makes me have ZERO respect for Mills’s critics – is the only substantive cite provided by the “crackpottery” hit (top result provided by google) is to Rathke’s critique. Mills responded to Rathke point by point.

Rathke’s response to Mill’s defense?


None of this has done anything to convince me that there is substance to the Robert Park/APS/USPTO/Rathke culture except a demonstration that they are in a conflict of interest that they do not admit and most definitely should have admitted as part of their takedowns of Mills.

PS: As an example of Rathke’s apparent hit-and-run misrepresentations – he cites equation 1.49 of Mills’s 2005 edition – note the sign switch on the time derivative:

But here is Rathke’s version of that equation – note the sign switch on the time derivative:

The only way this could not be a misrepresentation by Rathke of Mills is if the 1/r^2 term is 180degrees out of phase with Mills’s del^2 operator in 1.48.


My comment is magnetic bound state solutions should not be skipped in the search on models about nuclei. Mills model is also built on central force/orbital mechanism according to your excerpt while covering electromagnetic interactions. In essence the orbital mechanism was the only scheme to obtain bound states when classical physics is considered. Despite magnetic forces being powerful, they are not working in a central force solution since it is not possible to obtain stable orbits when the dependence of the force on the distance is inverse cube or more (gravity and coulomb forces have inverse square dependency, therefore works).


(Video) The Gluon Setup made by D. Paschall
I would like to share the idea behind the design of the setup shown on this video.

Basically, a neodymium magnet attached to the end of a motor can trap another magnet in air. The effect also shows a similarity with the strong force. But what about the gluon? It is a concept particle carrying the strong force as its name implies. Could we carry this concept to the strong force analogy? In this scheme let have two quarks and a gluon which bind them. The mechanism of the magnetic locking actually allows a rotating magnet to trap two other magnets at the same time in its opposite axial directions. Even, we can give some degrees of freedom to the rotating magnet in order it both rotates and performs peculiar angular oscillations by satisfying all requirements of the locking dynamics by itself. But we need to keep the setup in the air in some way otherwise it will fall to the ground unless this experiment is performed on the space station. We also need to power this center magnet (Gluon for short) in order to keep it spinning. A motor but it will occupy the place of the second magnet. A quick solution is to split the Gluon in half and put the motor at the center. This way, degrees of freedom are restricted, but the design still works because the magnets in air also oscillate and satisfy the trapping mechanism. We also suggested hanging the Gluon from its soft electrical wires like in this video. So, this way the Gluon is made.

1 Like