Yes, gravity is a tricky thing, isn't it. I mentioned gravity coming from magnetism in a post on another topic, and I guess your failures to get physicists involved in your questions and answers and ponderings stems from their own investigations into gravity only getting so far because the formulas to define certain things lead physics in an area that is really difficult to replicate.
Some things look great on paper, but so does origami...unraveling a construction back to a square piece of paper offers up all kinds of lines that make creases for folding but they have to be done in a certain fashion or the end result is not achieved.
If your replication of Ed's device can offer up even just a hint of what gravity can be housed not in but extend from, then wouldn't it be best to have lots of smaller devices that are slightly different one from another, and arranged in a simple pattern to see what kind of effect is given toward the central focus of them? If there is an effect at all, it might be observed nearest the correct construction of device and not at all nearest the incorrect version. Having several designs nearest to each other that are only slightly different in their design might possibly offer up which design is better than the rest, and that would be the one to really play with in the minutest adjustment to its specifics.
You know that no-one would be interested in what you have to offer until you can show something that works, no matter if you can professionally describe how it works...leave the description up to the professors...Ed tried to but it looks like the professors still aren't able to...Ed just made something that works based upon quite simple understandings, while professors love understandings that their ilk are only supposed to understand. But things look better on paper than they do in real life...well, except for Coral Castle haha.