Here is further information that I obtained from Tom Bearden in answer
to my questions (slightly edited):
---------------------------------------------------------      
LEGEND:

\text\ = italic text
_text_ = underlined text
_\text\_ = italic underlined text
@   = filled dot (looks like the dot product but bigger)
Phi = Greek letter Phi representing field
Del = Greek letter Del (upside down triangle)
X_q = subscript q
==  = identity sign (3 parallel bars)
[2] = equation number

There are no figures to the paper "Background for Pursuing Scalar 
EM". I had envisioned preparing a book along that vein, with many, 
many figures, etc., but simply have not had time to start the 
project.

Further details about the coupling of virtual flux:

What I have begun is a "disassembly" of classical EM theory, 
separating the fundamental entities that are massless from those 
that have mass. When Maxwell wrote his theory, everyone knew that 
the vacuum was filled with a thin material fluid -- the material 
ether.  Maxwell incorporated that as a fundamental assumption of 
his theory.  In other words, the scalar potential Phi already 
consisted of "thin fluid".  Hence electrical charge was "material". 
(At the time, the prevailing view of electricity was as a thin 
material fluid, flowing through wires like water through pipes).  
Consequently, classical EM was modeled completely in terms of fluid 
dynamics, and \everything\ was material.  The notion of charge q 
then was just a small piece of the material liquid electricity.  
In other words, it was not a system of finer constituents.  
Maxwell's theory was in quaternions, and consisted of some 20 
equations in 20 unknowns (Nahin's count).  A great number of 
different potentials arose in that theory, potentials which no one 
had the slightest notion as to what they were.

Heaviside (and to a lesser extent Hertz and Gibbs) reduced the 
algebraic topology of Maxwell's quaternion model to vectors, which 
is a seriously curtailed mathematics compared to quaternions.  
Heaviside also hated potentials because he could not understand 
what they were.  Consequently, he got rid of as many as possible.  
He also focused attention of the electricians upon the notion of 
external forces pushing upon masses and "creating all the action".  
Again, this notion prevailed all of science at the time - and 
unfortunately still prevails in physics today.  It is absolutely, 
unequivocally false.  It is from Man's primitive experience, of 
pushing and pulling on objects.  It is a fact that mass is always 
a _\component\_ of force.  The rigorous definition of force may be 
taken as F == dp/dt = d/dt(mv).  From this definition, if there is 
no mass, there is no force.  (Suitable quotes from leading 
foundations physicists can also be given, of course).  Instead, 
there is at best dF/dm.  Quantum mechanically, all mechanical and 
EM forces are generated _\on and off\_ the affected mass by an 
exchange of virtual photons.  It is the coupling of the virtual 
photon flux of the vacuum to a particle of mass that produces a 
charged particle.  [It is a spatial asymmetry in that coupled flux 
exchange that, together with the coupled mass, produces a force]. 
The "charge" is the coupled virtual photon flux, not the mass.  
Consequently, our old friend q is actually a system defined by:

      q == Phi_q @ m_q                                        [1]

where the operator @ means "coupled to" or "trying to couple to",
representing the virtual photon flux aspect, and does not 
represent multiplication.  From [1], one easily obtains the 
expression for normal current i by time differentiating, so that:

    i == dq/dt == d/dt(Phi_q @ m_q) = (dPhi_q/dt)@(dm_q/dt)   [2]

We now see that, in an electric circuit, there are actually two 
"currents" represented by the normal current dq/dt.  There is the 
massless displacement current (dPhi_q/dt)@ component and there is
the "mass of the electrons" current @(dm_q/dt).  Note that the 
operator @ is retained; in this case, it represents "is trying to
couple" or "is coupling".  In dq/dt, of course, the coupling is 
occurring.

It is well known that (dPhi_q/dt)@ represents the flow of energy
without loss.  I.e., it is pure energy transport.  Actually, the
@(dm_q/dt) in EM theory represents the drift current 
longitudinally through the circuit.  That is the one in which the 
electron masses "progress" through the circuit, though at a feeble 
rate, typically on the order of 11 feet per hour or some such.  
The (dPhi_q/dt)@ component moves at the speed of light.  Now you 
can see the reason retaining the coupling operator @.  In a simple 
dq/dt current in a circuit, there is a continuous speed of light 
_\energy input to\_ and _\energy output from\_ the electrons that 
are sluggishly moving along at the drift velocity.  The electrons 
are actually moving much, much faster from side to side due to 
precession caused by their spin and the continual dE/dt being 
created on them by the coupling and uncoupling of the (dPhi_q/dt)@.  
In a given current loop, one can also show that the @(dm_q/dt) 
component is always the work (scattering of energy) in the loop.

When the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed the material ether,
Maxwell was already dead.  Heaviside (and to an extent Gibbs) was
just producing his own vector curtailment of Maxwell's theory.  
So nothing at all was done to the EM theory to remove its 
assumption on the material ether.  Not a single equation was 
changed.  A short debate ensued about 1980 or so, mostly in 
_Nature_, and the vectorists simply "threw out" the quaternionist 
model as being far too difficult for engineers and far too abstract.  
Remember, there were probably not more than about three dozen 
scientists in the world at that time who could have been considered 
"skilled" in EM theory.

To handle the negation of the material ether, electricians just 
simply announced "There is no ether, so we are not using one!"  
Not an equation was changed.  No one had the slightest notion \how\ 
to change them anyhow.  And _\that's\_ the classical EM we're stuck 
with today. It is riddled with errors.  It desperately needs redoing.  
Since no one else seems to want to redo it, I've started work on the 
reformulation problem.  Actually, the task needs a person with much 
greater \mathematical\ "horsepower" than me, but one who still is 
willing to ponder deeply on foundations issues (most are not).  
However, I can do it; it will just take three or four years.  There's 
no longer any problem in seeing what has to be done.  Now, it's just 
a matter of doing it.

I would like to also clear up one thing for which I've been 
severely criticized by academics.  Specifically, the charge has been 
leveled that "scalar interferometry" is an oxymoron.  Well, it is 
not such in quantum mechanics.  In addition, it is not an oxymoron 
anyway, on first principles.  Stoney and Whittaker showed that any 
scalar potential can be decomposed into a set of bidirectional wave 
pairs, with the pairs in harmonic sequence.  Each pair consists of 
a wave and its true time-reversed replica.  So, the interference of 
two scalar potential beams is simply the interference of two hidden 
sets of multiwaves.  That the waves in each beam are "hidden" is of 
no concern; mathematically, scalar potential interferometry is 
inviolate, in spite of the archaic assumptions of classical EM.  
Indeed, Whittaker's 1904 paper showed that any ordinary EM field, 
including EM waves, can be replaced by such scalar potential 
interferometry.  Further, the source of interfering potentials need 
not be local.  In other words, EM field gradients of any pattern 
desired can be created at a distance, by the distant interference 
of two scalar potential beams.  I hope that this lays the problem 
of scalar interferometry to rest.

Further details on his papers on cancer:

All the cancer and healing papers were interim, and are upgraded
by my two books _AIDS: Biological Warfare_,and _Gravitobiology_; 
and by my recent cancer paper (Cancer and the Unresolved Health 
Issues in the Biological Effects of EM Fields and Radiation) 
published by Tesla Book Company in 1993.  Incidentally, the cancer 
paper published by Tesla Book Co. is a slightly upgraded version 
of the "Mechanism for Long-Term Cumulative Biological Effects of 
EM Radiation", presented to the Alabama Academy of Science, 
Mar 1993.  Hard copies of all viewgraphs are also included in the 
paper.  Tesla Book Co. address is P.O. Box 121873, Chula Vista, CA,
91912. Their phone number is 1-800-398-2056 or 619-437-8515.

Further details about his patent application:
After filing the 1993 paper "The Final Secret of Free Energy" on 
Internet, I still had a year to patent the process. So in early 
February 1994, my associates and I filed a patent calling for the
blockage of the mass flow of the electrons (by several schemes),
while allowing the (dPhi_q/dt)@ to pass and be collected.  The 
collected excess energy is then shuttled onto a separate load
circuit, where it is discharged normally through the load by 
dq/dt. This way, the energy is delivered to the load and 
discharged normally through it as power and work, but without 
driving a corresponding dq/dt back through the back emf of the 
original battery source.

Now with an additional year's work under our belt, we at CTEC 
also filed a formidable 200-page Continuation of our patent 
application on May 13, 1994.  This filing is essentially a 
textbook on our approach to overunity electrical devices.  Our 
continuation also formalizes the process of charge blocking and 
(dPhi_q/dt)@ passage, together with energy shuttling between 
separate collection and work circuits, as means of achieving 
overunity.  The process does not violate any of the laws of 
physics and thermodynamics.  It is simply akin to the standard 
heat pump equations.  The system is open and there is an external 
source of the excess energy; the problem is simply to collect the 
energy without dissipation, then shuttle it over to the load and 
discharge it there as work, without any of the discharge current 
(dPhi_q/dt)@ being allowed to pass back up through the back emf 
of the battery/source.  Two days after our Continuation filing, 
I presented the gist of that work at the 2nd International 
Symposium on New Energy (ISNE) of May 12-15, 1994, in Denver, 
Colorado (sponsored by The Institute for New Energy, (INE) and 
The International Association for New Science (IANS)). Videotapes
and audio tapes were made for each presentations including mine 
and are available from Backcountry Productions, 831 Alpine Street, 
Longmont, CO, 80501, TEL: (303) 772-8358.  I had permission by my 
CTEC Board of Directors to release the new material only after our 
continuation was filed.  Consequently, since we successfully filed 
on 13 May 94, I took the next day and a half in my hotel room and 
feverishly hand-drew the major viewgraphs, got the transparencies 
made in the hotel's business center, then handcolored them with 
magic markers.  I finished the last viewgraph about 2 hours prior 
to my formal presentation to ISNE.  So the material in the 
presentation differs dramatically from the material in the 
_Proceedings_ paper.

The 656 pages Proceedings can be ordered from both The 
International Association for New Science (IANS), 1304 South 
College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524, TEL and FAX: 303-482-3731,
and The Institute for New Energy, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, 
UT 84158-8639, TEL: 801-583-6232, FAX: 801-583-2963

Of course, you realize that the U.S. Patent Office will never 
grant us a patent on an overunity electrical device unless a 
working model is built and independently tested.  We are pursuing 
that objective now.  We are certainly making progress, but we have 
not as yet solved the relaxation time problem or the "rigid 
capacitor" problem.  In fact, we have now extended our capacitor 
testing to include the very expensive laboratory calibration 
standard capacitors, and have proven that all of them reconfigure 
when charged.  In other words, every capacitor presently available 
is not just a capacitor, but is first an \energy-to-work 
transducer\.  The current dq/dt is drawn to provide the work to 
forcibly drive the physical reconfiguration.  Indeed, the precision 
$2,000 or more calibration standard capacitors actually contain 
precision springs!  So the electrical energy is converted to
mechanical work, then back to electrical stress energy.  In a 
standard closed circuit loop back through the source, the 
production of the reconfiguration work in the capacitor destroys 
any chance at overunity.  The reason is that the same current dq/dt 
that moves into the capacitor to do the reconfiguration work is 
also forcibly rammed back up through the back emf of the source, 
doing an equal amount of degradation work inside the source.  When 
the forcing V is removed and the capacitor connected across a load, 
it again reconfigures.  One recovers the mechanical stored energy 
as electrical energy due to a piezoelectric-type effect in the 
reconfiguring materials.  But the reconfiguration work, whose twin 
and equal is also done in the source, has already defeated the 
ability to store the energy on the capacitor "for free".  Instead, 
you already do not have an "excess" stored there, over and above 
the degradation of the source. The capacitive method of storage 
depends upon a true "charge-blocking" capacitor which does not 
reconfigure.

There is not now, and there never has been, a truly electrical 
capacitor.

The only candidate presently is the solid chip capacitor built 
into Fogal's charge blocking semiconductor (patented in 1993).  
That semiconductor is now being tested.  If it tests out, then a 
demonstration model for our patent application will be fairly 
straightforward, as outlined in our continuation.  Otherwise, 
demonstration of successful overunity with our methodology will 
still require substantial work before we succeed.  That's the 
present status of our work and our progress, and our patent 
application.

We are encouraged, however.  There are always two questions in 
research: (1) Can this in theory be done? and (2) if so, how 
difficult is it? What are the specific tests? What are the 
resources needed? etc.  Unless one has a clear "Yes!" to the first 
question, one is still scouting the territory for an effect.  So 
one cannot legitimately ask the second question at all.  On the 
other hand, once the first question can be clearly and 
unequivocally answered "Yes!", then the first question need never 
again be asked.  Instead, one now is dealing with exploratory 
development and engineering development.  In other words, it is 
known it can be done.  It is just a matter of doing it, which 
still may be a difficult task.  Our status is that we have clearly 
and unequivocally gotten a resounding "Yes!" to the first question.
We are now directly in the second series of questions.  So we know 
it can be done along the lines we are pursuing.  But nature still 
demands its payments;  we still have to actually get it done and 
prove it.

As a result of the rather catastrophic aerospace layoffs here in 
Huntsville, I've retired and am continuing as best I can on a 
much-reduced budget. We (CTEC) will succeed or fail on the bench.  
And it will be an honest success or failure.  We are also openly 
sharing all our progress, or lack thereof, and the theoretical 
approach we are using.  That's all that anyone can do and call it 
scientific method. 

I hope this answers all your questions.  Good luck and I do 
appreciate your efforts in placing this material on Compuserve to 
be available to many more engineers and scientists. 

Sincerely,

T.E. Bearden
August 16, 1994
--------------------------------------

(The audio tapes cost approx $10 each, and the video tapes cost 
approx. $25 each including postage. The Proceedings cost $50 plus
shipping & handling)

If anyone finds more up-to-date info about Bearden's work, I would 
certainly like to hear about it!

Alain Beaulieu
Compuserve: 70403,3645
Internet: nstn1142@fox.nstn.ns.ca