-
#2480 by rfmwguy on 02 Feb, 2016 14:59
-
Pardon the interruption, would like to announced that my modest kickstarter funding campaign was successful! Special thanks to all backers who pledged to help me fund 2016 tests. While it isn't a big budget, I promise to share lots of data here. Thank you all again. There's about 22 hours left before it officially closes so last minute pledges can still be made. Makes all the long hours spent last year worth it!
-
#2481 by SteveD on 02 Feb, 2016 15:47
-
It was very hard to test inside of the tuning cavity of the drive and make sure I was out of the way. I taped my detector on a stick and slid it through the Faraday cage to test. I couldn't see the meter but it did beep and it seemed to only be for a very short distance. I powered down and put the top cap onto the tune chamber and went on to the basic power up testing. I made notes to follow through with a better test than a detector on a stick.
Shell
I've used the term "build an EMDrive then poke it with a stick to find out how it works" a couple of times. Didn't expect it to show up so literally. . .
-
#2482 by SteveD on 02 Feb, 2016 16:08
-
Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
-
#2483 by RotoSequence on 02 Feb, 2016 16:57
-
Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven). -
#2484 by rfmwguy on 02 Feb, 2016 18:49
-
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
-
#2485 by sghill on 02 Feb, 2016 19:21
-
Pardon the interruption, would like to announced that my modest kickstarter funding campaign was successful! Special thanks to all backers who pledged to help me fund 2016 tests. While it isn't a big budget, I promise to share lots of data here. Thank you all again. There's about 22 hours left before it officially closes so last minute pledges can still be made. Makes all the long hours spent last year worth it!
Hurrah! I saw your update note on the kickstarter site yesterday and was saddened that it wasn't going to make it. Bully for you!!!
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
I guess the frustum resonance is bringing the effect up to a level where we can measure it.
BTW, and totally unrelated. Wouldn't it be safer to use 1.8 GHz or 2.6GHz or some bandwidth OTHER than 2.4 GHz that attunes to water?? I know microwave oven magnetrons are cheap, but the resultant danger is not trivial! And, so what if the cavity shape needs to be returned- just recalculate for the new RF source. There was talk a few threads back that high frequency and low power should be explored instead.
-
#2486 by SeeShells on 02 Feb, 2016 19:33
-
Ditto rfmwguy. Run the laser interferometer through optical Quartz optics, one through the center of the EMDrive. I think you're right, this would be a great to do project for a university or students looking to do a thesis on. I'm sure TT would help with a TE013 frustum, if he doesn't I'll build one for them.
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
That would mean they wouldn't have to do one of the harder things by building a frustum, all the rest that's needed is simply OTS or exists in a lab already.
With a low power test they could use thinner fiber optic cables instead of the thicker one I'm using for tuning. If there is a spacetime distortion it will effect fiber optics too.
Shell
Added: I have some good contacts at the University of Michigan (Go Blue), I should email them. -
#2487 by X_RaY on 02 Feb, 2016 20:09
-
The first "rotation line" in the spectrum of water vapor molecules is at 22,235 GHz.Pardon the interruption, would like to announced that my modest kickstarter funding campaign was successful! Special thanks to all backers who pledged to help me fund 2016 tests. While it isn't a big budget, I promise to share lots of data here. Thank you all again. There's about 22 hours left before it officially closes so last minute pledges can still be made. Makes all the long hours spent last year worth it!
Hurrah! I saw your update note on the kickstarter site yesterday and was saddened that it wasn't going to make it. Bully for you!!!
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
I guess the frustum resonance is bringing the effect up to a level where we can measure it.
BTW, and totally unrelated. Wouldn't it be safer to use 1.8 GHz or 2.6GHz or some bandwidth OTHER than 2.4 GHz that attunes to water?? I know microwave oven magnetrons are cheap, but the resultant danger is not trivial! And, so what if the cavity shape needs to be returned- just recalculate for the new RF source. There was talk a few threads back that high frequency and low power should be explored instead.
Nevertheless water is a good attenuator of microwaves all over the microwave spectrum.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/publications/kaleschke_dissertation/dis_finalsu8.html
The usage of lower frequencies was related to bigger Q values. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1473787#msg1473787
Added:
Please note: dB/km!
The dominant part is the Free-space path loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
@ All
Please be aware of dangerous high energy microwave sources like magnetrons!
SAFETY FIRST!!!
-
#2488 by sghill on 02 Feb, 2016 20:22
-
The first "rotation line" in the spectrum of water vapor molecules is at 22,235 GHz.Pardon the interruption, would like to announced that my modest kickstarter funding campaign was successful! Special thanks to all backers who pledged to help me fund 2016 tests. While it isn't a big budget, I promise to share lots of data here. Thank you all again. There's about 22 hours left before it officially closes so last minute pledges can still be made. Makes all the long hours spent last year worth it!
Hurrah! I saw your update note on the kickstarter site yesterday and was saddened that it wasn't going to make it. Bully for you!!!
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
I guess the frustum resonance is bringing the effect up to a level where we can measure it.
BTW, and totally unrelated. Wouldn't it be safer to use 1.8 GHz or 2.6GHz or some bandwidth OTHER than 2.4 GHz that attunes to water?? I know microwave oven magnetrons are cheap, but the resultant danger is not trivial! And, so what if the cavity shape needs to be returned- just recalculate for the new RF source. There was talk a few threads back that high frequency and low power should be explored instead.
Nevertheless water is a good attenuator of microwaves all over the microwave spectrum.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/publications/kaleschke_dissertation/dis_finalsu8.html
The usage of lower frequencies was related to bigger Q values. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1473787#msg1473787
If I'm following this graph right, then at 5GHz, you'd have a higher Q but still have lower water attenuation. 5GHz RF source equipment is cheap and plentiful. -
#2489 by rfmwguy on 02 Feb, 2016 21:02
-
Thought O' the Day -
Forum or newsgroup success is no mystery...its the same for people in general...keep up the good work here!
-
#2490 by A_M_Swallow on 02 Feb, 2016 21:17
-
The first "rotation line" in the spectrum of water vapor molecules is at 22,235 GHz.Pardon the interruption, would like to announced that my modest kickstarter funding campaign was successful! Special thanks to all backers who pledged to help me fund 2016 tests. While it isn't a big budget, I promise to share lots of data here. Thank you all again. There's about 22 hours left before it officially closes so last minute pledges can still be made. Makes all the long hours spent last year worth it!
Hurrah! I saw your update note on the kickstarter site yesterday and was saddened that it wasn't going to make it. Bully for you!!!
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
I guess the frustum resonance is bringing the effect up to a level where we can measure it.
BTW, and totally unrelated. Wouldn't it be safer to use 1.8 GHz or 2.6GHz or some bandwidth OTHER than 2.4 GHz that attunes to water?? I know microwave oven magnetrons are cheap, but the resultant danger is not trivial! And, so what if the cavity shape needs to be returned- just recalculate for the new RF source. There was talk a few threads back that high frequency and low power should be explored instead.
Nevertheless water is a good attenuator of microwaves all over the microwave spectrum.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/publications/kaleschke_dissertation/dis_finalsu8.html
The usage of lower frequencies was related to bigger Q values. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1473787#msg1473787
If I'm following this graph right, then at 5GHz, you'd have a higher Q but still have lower water attenuation. 5GHz RF source equipment is cheap and plentiful.
We are making a means of transport and possibly discovering some new physics. The space people want this to work in a vacuum. Is water attenuation important?
When choosing a frequency the important factors appear to be
* size of the frustum
* thrust produced
* maximum energy we can put in
* safety
* interference with other equipment. We are using high power transmitters so the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may want to regulate.
Cost is a secondary consideration. We are money limited but if we can sell say 1000 EM Drives then someone will make the electronics/optics to measure.
Since we do not want to transmit instead of being water attenuated EM Drives could be on a frequency that is oxygen attenuated or nitrogen attenuated. -
#2491 by JaimeZX on 02 Feb, 2016 21:33
-
Thought O' the Day -
I think your graphic understates the additional challenges of having a pessimist as a Siamese Twin, too. That'd be a real bummer.
Forum or newsgroup success is no mystery...its the same for people in general...keep up the good work here!
-
#2492 by RERT on 02 Feb, 2016 21:53
-
Dr.Rodal - giving examples of resonating cavities with Mega Watt input an superconducting Q in the millions is convincing in a way that discussion of a PetaWatt laser was not. Yes, hoping for an explanation in non-linear EM would seem to be clutching at straws.
Thanks,
R. -
#2493 by Rodal on 02 Feb, 2016 22:36
-
CONSERVATION OF RELATIVISTIC MOMENTUM FOR REACTION-LESS PROPULSION THROUGH VARIABLE INERTIAL MASS
Minotti states that the weak energy condition (the condition that demands that the mass should be positive) is violated for the EM Drive in Minotti's theory.
Lobo and Visser's paper also states that the condition requiring positive mass is also violated in other models of propellant-less (reaction-less) forms of proposed space-propulsion.
McCulloch, also proposes that the EM Drive self-accelerates because radio frequency photons at the larger end have higher inertial mass, and therefore to conserve momentum in its reference frame, the cavity must move towards the narrow end.
This motivated me to analyze conservation of momentum for the EM Drive (or any such resonant cavity proposed for reaction-less propulsion) analyzed as a lumped-mass that is able to change its inertial mass. Thus, conservation of momentum of the EM Drive under these theories, would be satisfied, when duly taking into consideration the change in mass.
In this post in another thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1486645#msg1486645, I analyze conservation of momentum for the case of negative mass, and for the case of variable increasing and decreasing mass.
I define momentum, using the relativistic definition of momentum.
The analysis shows that such a mode of space propulsion (reaction-less propulsion by variable mass) is quite limited on the speeds and changes in speed that it would be able to achieve.
No warping of spacetime is considered in the analysis, only a reactionless variable mass is considered. -
#2494 by zen-in on 02 Feb, 2016 22:43
-
I don't think fiber optic cables are generally used for interferometry because light travels by internal reflection inside them. The light exiting the fiber optic cable will not be collimated. Also the aperture is very tiny. This would seriously affect the throughput and thus the S/N. A quartz rod may have the same problems. This is just a guess, I have not done that. I have done gas cell calibration tests. The gas cell used in the optical path has two optically flat quartz windows and precision ground interfaces with O-rings so the windows are parallel. Judging from the picture, that is what EW used in their experiment. For the spectrometer resolution test I used to do the gas cell was filled with CO and pumped down to 10 Torr. I don't know how low they can be pumped down.
Ditto rfmwguy. Run the laser interferometer through optical Quartz optics, one through the center of the EMDrive. I think you're right, this would be a great to do project for a university or students looking to do a thesis on. I'm sure TT would help with a TE013 frustum, if he doesn't I'll build one for them.
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
That would mean they wouldn't have to do one of the harder things by building a frustum, all the rest that's needed is simply OTS or exists in a lab already.
With a low power test they could use thinner fiber optic cables instead of the thicker one I'm using for tuning. If there is a spacetime distortion it will effect fiber optics too.
Shell
Added: I have some good contacts at the University of Michigan (Go Blue), I should email them. -
#2495 by Mulletron on 02 Feb, 2016 22:45
-
Thinking out loud here. It helps me organize my thoughts if I type them out. So I'm giving more consideration to this gravitational transformer model of EmDrive, where the photons ^ confined to resonant modes are the "primary", and produce a changing gravitomagnetic field. (First impossible thing, but at least we know that gravitomagnetism is a real thing now thanks to Gravity Probe B.)
The core is essentially missing in EmDrive, unless you count the copper, air and the HDPE dielectric which very likely aren't ideal. The gravitomagnetic permeability of these materials are unknown to me. The gravitoelectric permittivity is always 1 according to what I've learned from Tajmar (and his argument makes sense to me), so I see no reason to focus on permittivity.
The electromagnetic characteristics of these materials are well known to everyone here, but the gravitational analogues of these properties may be completely different (it is possible that gravitomagnetic permeability might follow magnetic permeabilty, due to some stuff I read here * and other places, about how every magnetic field might be twinned with a gravitomagnetic field that we could never detect).
I'm toying around with the idea of the "secondary" now, which has two simultaneous domains to consider....the materials of which the cavity is composed of, and spacetime itself. I'm really brainstorming here, and thinking out loud in case someone has any ideas. What I was thinking about was, applying the concept of gravitomagnetic induction ** to the air domain inside the cavity.
For spacetime, maybe the gravitational equivalent to Lenz's law (No clue how might I add, can spacetime produce an opposing gravitomagnetic field?). I know the QED vacuum is diamagnetic and the QCD vacuum is paramagnetic...but those aren't gravitomagnetic properties.
The other model I have in mind simply to cut out the "secondary" altogether (the above gravitomagnetic induction may still occur but not be useful anyway because I don't expect it to conserve momentum). All one would have is the "primary" and a "core"...and the production and emission of gravitational waves (discussed in earlier post) to carry away momentum. I'd feel more comfortable with this if there were any experimental evidence of gravitational waves, I trust uncle Albert but I've gotta see the proof.
The point of all this is to eventually rough out a general concept of operation which is would be worth the time and effort of throwing math at and developing into a full theory of operation. (or to debunk it).
* https://goo.gl/fv4ee3 Page 139. I'm really impressed with this book. It's about the BAE Systems-funded Project Greenglow and covers the history of this kind of research including things we've discussed here like NASA's BPP.
** http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0390
** https://scholar.google.it/scholar?oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=18353923804693556579
^ https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf
^ http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1003 -
#2496 by spupeng7 on 02 Feb, 2016 23:13
-
Article intended for local Astronomical Society <assa.org.au> attached.
Comments welcome
Taking this as a popular science news article, if I wrote it, I'd break it into a balanced perspective. I would cite the proponents and their arguments with references as you did, but I would also add the opponents and their arguments with references as you did not.
A good writer reconciles schizophrenia by permitting the reader to choose a path for more learning, and starts the reader down whichever path they choose. But... never take sides or be biased or you'll be flamed unto perdition.
From a writing point of view, a third option to add would be the psychopathology of EMdrive, both the proponents and opponents. Go to the Reddit site to see how that works.
Thanks Glennfish, will take note of that and will attempt to apply it... -
#2497 by spupeng7 on 02 Feb, 2016 23:22
-
Just a reminder that Copper and silver are very good conductors of heat as well as electricity. (Source unknown)
-
#2498 by CW on 02 Feb, 2016 23:27
-
(..)
To me, if there is something interesting and anomalous in the EM Drive, it cannot be due to a very high magnitude of the field strength in these EM Drive experiments. To me, if there is something interesting in the EM Drive causing an anomalous force, it must be associated with something else than electromagnetic field strength.
Yes, the field strengths in and of themselves cannot be what is causing the observed effects. It is as you said, effects such as this would have been observed and put to use many decades ago already, otherwise.
I would hence like to return to the possible stance of viewing the confined standing waves within the cavity as the equivalent to exotic kinds of dynamically created pseudo macro-scale particles, that cannot and do not exist within 'free' nature. What I find interesting is, that depending on the modes, one time a force in +x seems to occur, and under a different mode, a force in -x seems to occur. The shape of the cavity being a somewhat questionable factor.
What, if what is observed, actually hints towards cavities that can be technically put to use to model and emulate dynamical, artificial macro-scale pseudo particles, that, depending on the modes used to create and uphold them, have 'programmed' into them a preferred movement direction, that causes directionally biased stress on the inner cavity surfaces, which leads to the observed propulsive (?) effects? It would appear to me that such a thing would pretty much resemble 'space time engineering'. I mean, the universe is pretty much a sea of information, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to do physics with the help of mathematics. When an object or a relation can be described, it is, by nature, information. So, I think it is possible that the standing waves in the cavity are 'formatting' a limited volume of space with certain information states, to bring forth exotic macro-scale pseudo particles that, depending on the modes used, have imprinted properties like directed momentum or movement. I can see no way how pure field strength would create anything useful.
My 2cts -
#2499 by rfmwguy on 02 Feb, 2016 23:51
-
Great thoughts here. Its surprising ew hasn't pursued interferometry more. Here's what I would do...rather than limit the laser path axially and thru the middle ofa cylindrical cavity, I'd fire it external to a full size frustum under power, fixed mounted, not on a balance.
Fire outside the frustum at increasing distances parallel to top and bottom plates and across the center mass. I'm not 100% sure its an internal effect only. Guess it could be, but if the system were open, we might detect distortion in some sort of proximity to the outer surfaces, perhaps in equal and opposite amounts just off the small and large diameters. IOW, a scaled rather than pinpoint effect. This would be a type of 3D interferometry I suppose.
