The reviewer of the paper we are trying to publish (as well as other external colleagues we showed the paper to) asked about our minimum length we implemented in the loop. Currently, we cut off the length at a minimum of 37.5 cm for each cone (minimum of 75 cm for the full cone). There is an ELOG post from Amy that presented the reasoning for this ( http://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/81 ). We initially thought that we needed a minimum because the antennas were evolving to be small (around and lower than the minimum). We thought that XFdtd was being inaccurate at lengths lower than 37.5 cm, so we set that as a minimum. To see if we can replicate any strange behavior from XFdtd, I simulated antennas at and below our minimum length and generated plots of their antennas responses. The genes are listed below, corresponding to the patterns in the plot. The results do not look unusual (that is, not dissimilar to the other bicones we have generated, including the ARA bicone) and seem to show an improved sensitivity in the upward direction for shorter bicones. The equation we used to arrive at this minimum (f = c/(4L)) might be indicative of a maximum length rather than a minimum.

2.4892,37.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,37.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,34.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,34.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,31.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,31.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,27.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,27.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,23.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,23.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,19.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,19.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,15.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,15.5,0.00153863,-0.14004