| |
ID |
Date |
Author |
Subject |
|
|
Draft
|
Thu Mar 26 02:18:17 2026 |
Ryan Debolt | Multigenerational Narrative draft 2 | This is a multigenerational tracing of our second-best individual's parents and children:
The second-best individual in this evolution was Bicone 22 from generation 40. This individual is, in fact, a fascinating case as we shall see. But to start the story of this individual we will go back to generation 38 in order to demonstrate some of the peculiarities.
In generation 38 there were two bicones of no renown, Bicone 11 and Bicone 17. Bicone 11 was a fairly average individual that was ranked 23rd with a fitness score of 4.72016. Its DNA was {*6.16084, ***79.663, 0.0015434, -0.107765} for side one , and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. One day, by chance it met Bicone 17, another average bicone ranked 24th with a score of 4.71877 and DNA {**2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} for side one, and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. These two individuals eventually became the parents of two antennas: Bicone 16 and Bicone 17 of generation 39.
Bicone 16 eventually grew to have been ranked 3rd in fitness score of 4.95323. It’s DNA ended up being a complete balance of its parents sharing side one with Bicone 38.11{2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} and side two with bicone 38.17 {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 16 was an individual with high aspirations and hoped to be reproduced. But alas, it was not meant to be. But bicone 16 came upon some amazing luck, it was selected with itself for crossover. This meant that bicone 16 was able to provide two identical surrogates to survive into the next generation. This is where this Bicone fulfilled its full potential.
The twin bicones were named Bicone 22 and Bicone 23 in generation 40. Being clones, they shared all their DNA with Bicone 39.16. However, due to some circumstances, they had slightly different fitness scores. Bicone 23 managed a very respectable 5.0117 fitness score and was ranked 2nd in the generation. But not to be outdone Bicone 22 managed to score a 5.17014 and ended up being the second-best performing individual of all time. Being so successful, the two bicones ended up producing 8 children between the two groups.
Bicone 23 was the first to crossover and had 2 children with its partner. These were Bicones 4 and 5. Bicone 4 was ranked 39th with a fitness score of 4.60251 and still shared the DNA of its second side with its grandparent Bicone 38.17 as well as most of its first side with Bicone 38.11 {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00213879, 0.192602} {0.308809, 39.9608, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 5 on the other hand, was ranked 14th with a fitness score of 4.80535 and it still shared a lot of DNA with its grandparents {6.16084,53.0851,-0.00224948,0.0534469} {0.966617,39.6742,-0.0084247,0.40629}.
Bicone 22 had 6 children of its own with various other Bicones. These were; Bicone 8, ranked 11th with a fitness Score of 4.81784 and DNA {2.32499, 75.9855, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 9, ranked 7th with a fitness score of 4.88966 and DNA {6.10508, 79.663, -0.000594616, 0.0351901} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 12, ranked 12th with a fitness score of 4.81705 and DNA {6.42695, 75.9855, 0.0015434, -0.107765} {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 13, ranked 2nd with a fitness score of 5.0344 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 34 ranked 3rd with a fitness score of 4.99864 and DNA {0.66148, 73.5522, -0.000594616, 0.00582814} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; and finally Bicone 35, ranked 22nd with fitness score 4.74955 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}
Bellow, I have attached the rainbow plot with the parameters occupied by individual 4 in gen 41 which was again ranked 39th in that generation. From this, we can see that while in its own generation it was a poor performer, overall it was upper middle of the pack. However, because of the density of other better performing antennas in this region, it is hard to distinguish which genes in this antenna are contributing the most to the drop in fitness score compared to its siblings and parents.
*Gene originating from Bicone 38.11
**Gene originating from Bicone 38.17
***Gene originating from Bicone 38.11 and 38.17 that is shared between the two. |
|
|
Draft
|
Wed Mar 25 21:22:00 2026 |
Ryan Debolt | How many individuals to use in the GA. |
| Quote: |
|
One of our foundational questions tied to the optimization of the GA has been "How many individuals should we simulate". Up to now, our minds were made up for us by the speed of arasim being great enough that the time cost of simulating individuals was great enough that the improvements made from having more were not enough to justify the slowdown. However, with the upgrade to the faster, more recent version of arasim, I decided to re-examine this. This was also spurred on by the fact that the last time I ran this test we were testing GA performance by final generation metrics rather than by how many generations it took to reach a benchmark. So in one of my optimization tests, I tracked this data.
To start, using the same run proportions, using a .5 chi-squared benchmark, the average time across all 89 run types used in this run was 25.4 generations for 50 individuals as compared to 8.3 generations running the same test for 100. Furthermore, the minimum number of generations for 50 individuals was 4.8 while using 100 individuals yielded 2.4. So on average running 100 individuals was about 3 times fast at reaching this benchmark than with 50. And when comparing the best result regardless of run type, 100 individuals was still 2 times quicker than the min for 50 individuals. Finally, the run that yielded an average of 2.4 generations for 100 individuals took an average of 29.2 generations with 50 individuals or roughly 12 times the generations.
For the test we will discuss, we ran 89 different run types that all used 60% rank, 20% roulette, and 20% tournament selection respectively. These test had the following ranges:
6-18% of individuals through reproduction (steps of 3%)
64-88% of individuals through crossover (steps of 12%)
0-10% mutation rate (steps of 5%)
1-5% sigma on mutation (steps of 1%)
These tests also used our fitness scores with simulated error of .1 to imitate arasim's behavior and as such we used the chi-squared value to evaluate these scores as there is no error on those values.
Comparing this same test with a tighter chi-squared benchmark of .25, we see similar results. On average 50 individuals took 37.1 generations to reach this point while 100 individuals took 16.0 generations. Similarly, the minimums amount of gens for 50 individuals was 15.4 while 100 individuals was 5. Finally, the corresponding run for the 5 generation min with 100 individuals took 41.8 generations with 50 individuals. These correspond to speed up's of 2.3, 3.08, and 8.36 respectively.
This data implies that on average, independent of run type, we should expect to have to use 2-3 times fewer generations while running 100 individuals than we would running 50 individuals but we could see up to 8-12 times fewer generations to reach benchmarks. Another data set using a different set of selection methods was also tested for this and again yielded similar results, though overall the runs from the first batch were better across both 50 and 100 individuals and so those results are likely to be more indicative of the parameters we use in a true run.
The data being examined in these results can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GlfnjQSO6VI8MuUGYTUcLkjwDZU98nyFFysgTTfVFOE/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
|
|
Draft
|
Wed Mar 25 02:48:02 2026 |
Alex Patton | GENETIS Daily Updates | Today's Summer 2020 daily update:
As a note, today OSC was down so productivity was more limited
| Name |
Update for Today |
Plans for Tomorrow |
| Alex M. |
Mostly just wrote more on the paper in the Genetic Algorithm section. I added some citation that we used in ICRC but there are still more places that should have citations.
|
I might check tonight when OSC is back up to try to push in more updates to the loop because I wanna get Evelyn and Ryan started on running the loop. Putting in those fixes is a big priority because we want to be able to correct the potential issue with XF simulation folders being overwritten and thus uan data not corresponding to the write individuals. The two big things for me in the loop are getting the simulation data to save correctly (and also putting that in the database) and testing that we can replicate results using the specific seed. I'll probably only focus on loop stuff tomorrow.
|
| Alex P. |
Got up before OSC was down to check progress of overnight run, it seems to have worked but I noticed a problem with the database that it wasn't writing to it probably due to a permissions issue but I would have to run another time to see. Shouldn't have affected data but just the use of the database. Run got up to 8 generations with non-zero fitness score which is positive and seems to have fixed the error we originally encountered. Talked to Eliot about pointers and possible errors but was unable to look at the specific error because it is on OSC.
|
Tomorrow plan is to continue to work on database functionality and continue run to get more generations, also want to add the ability to add more plots than just the fitness score to the dropbox automatically. Plots: upload all plots (Fitness, LRT, vEff), remove legend, upload penalized red/green plot too, take off legend, add units to Fitness |
| Leo |
|
|
| Eliot |
Read about pointers and vectors in C++. Talked to Alex P a bit, and have some ideas of things to change to get the GA running. Began reading about antennas. Mostly a down day due to OSC being down.
|
Will implement changes to GA and continue familiarizing myself with how XF reads these values.
|
| Evelyn |
|
|
| Ryan |
|
|
|
|
|
Draft
|
Wed Mar 25 00:11:25 2026 |
Alex M | Daily Update 7/24/20 |
| Name |
Update |
Plans for Monday |
| Alex M |
|
|
| Alex P |
|
|
| Eliot |
|
|
| Leo |
|
|
| Ryan |
|
|
| Evelyn |
|
|
| Ben |
|
|
| Ethan |
|
|
|
|
|
243
|
Mon Jun 2 14:10:59 2025 |
Jacob Weiler | Building Status 06/02/2025 | We are almost to where we can start the physical building of the antenna!
I've attached all the information I currently have regarding the building project. Some of it is messy work notes and some is well-structured.
I’ve attached the following files for the GENETIS building project:
- Building Dump.txt
- My working notes that I used while trying to simulate the antenna in XFdtd (very messy)
- Building Dump of Useful Materials.txt
- List of materials that I found regarding the building project like slides, elogs, etc.
- Simulating Building Model.txt
- A writeup I made describing my process for simulating the antenna in XFdtd
- Done with change materials.zip
- Solidworks model of antenna
I also made a slide deck that contains the directory locations + has graphs HERE. |
| Attachment 1: Building_Dump_of_Useful_Materials.txt
|
Building Dump:
For Initial Building Run:
Generation 13, individual 84 seems to be result being used (this assumption is based on the fact that when trying to straighten the sides for building they used this individual)
/fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2022_12_29
Elog Links for first building runs:
- Run Details: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/188
- Run Results + Gain Patterns: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/189
- Matching Circuit PCB: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/193
- Matching Circuit Parts: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/191
- Matching Circuit Schematic: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/230
- Matching Circuit Initial Design: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/183
- PoR Plots 1: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/194
- PoR Plots 2: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/196
- Straightened Sides 1: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/229
- Straightened Sides 2: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/236
- Engineering Call: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lo_6mFTmPbkToTrEeOpvznSdbxyPZexPag1qijTeYyM/edit?usp=sharing
At some point for some reason, another run seems to have been created for building with the crazy sides run here:
/fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2023_09_05_realized_curved_run
Top 5 vEffective Scores:
Value: 5.09897, Generation: 41, Individual: 44 (Seems to be this one, modified)
Value: 5.07746, Generation: 37, Individual: 16
Value: 5.05508, Generation: 37, Individual: 5
Value: 5.04558, Generation: 38, Individual: 12
Value: 5.04026, Generation: 48, Individual: 5
GENETIS Useful Links:
- GENETIS Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iDamk46R2_oOLHtvsOg4jNy05mCiB7Sn?dmr=1&ec=wgc-drive-hero-goto
- Onboarding Materials: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/41
- Julie's Dissertation: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/Write-Ups/220404_161525/Julie_Rolla_Dissertation.pdf
- Julie's Candidacy: https://as-phy-radiorm.asc.ohio-state.edu/elog/Write-Ups/44
- ICRC Proceedings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.00197
- Phys Rev D Paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102002
- ARA Loop GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/GENETIS-ARA
- PUEO Loop GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/GENETIS_PUEO
- Shared Code GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/Shared-Code
- AraSim GitHub: https://github.com/ara-software/AraSim/tree/master
- pueoSim GitHub: https://github.com/PUEOCollaboration/pueoSim
|
| Attachment 2: Simulating_Building_Model.txt
|
Simulating Building Model
Getting the model we want to build from Solidworks into XF ready for simulations took a bit of work. Here are the steps and things I did to get it to finally work with materials and everything enabled (minus conductors in the coax cable).
General Instructions to setup the antenna the same as I did. Saving after each of these steps.
Getting out of Solidworks:
To get out of Solidworks, I used .step file under the assumption that it would carry the material data over into XF (this assumption was based on what I had read online, though I was looking at the wrong places for that information as I found out later). With this assumption, we spent time getting the materials correct in Solidworks before exporting out into the .step file. I spent considerable time double checking the materials in Solidworks to make sure that everything was defined correctly with at least good enough approximations of the materials to get a simulation working.
Material definitions:
Shells: Plastic wrapped in Copper Foil, approximated by just having the whole shell as Copper
Screws Connecting horizontal halves: ABS (PEEK Plastic)
Supports Connecting vertical halves: ABS
Other screws: Non-magnetic stainless steel (Passivated 18-8 Stainless Steel)
Coax Cable:
Dielectric: Foam Polyethylene (FPE)
Inner Conductor: Solid Bare Copper Covered Aluminum
Outer Conductor: Aluminum Tape
Outer Braid: Tinned Copper
Jacket: Polyethylene
Everything else: Approximated as copper (not entirely sure if they are copper fully or if they are just wrapped with copper foil)
Importing into XFdtd:
After having the step file exported, I put the file onto OSC and opened a new XFdtd project. I then clicked the "Import -> Cad Models" to select my file and have it imported. I did not import in the material data as I found out it did not import in correctly to each part, so I ignored it and manually added the material definitions later.
I now have the model into XFdtd, but it’s rotated 90 degrees to be in the horizontal plane. This isn’t inherently bad, but I want my surrounding scripts to not have to be changed much so I rotate the model to have the wire pointing in the +z direction in XFdtd. Once I’ve done this, I right click on the Braid and Inner + Outer conductors in the coax cable and select something similar to "Do not include in meshing." This now makes sure that these are NOT in the simulation.
Then, I manually added material properties into XFdtd from definitions I looked up online for the electric + magnetic properties of:
Copper
Plastic (ABS)
Foam Polyethylene (dielectric)
Polyethylene
Aluminum
Stainless Steel
After creating these material definitions, I applied them to the appropriate parts.
Feed adjustments:
I want the feed to be in the same location as the coax cable for the best results, problem is that there are holes in the place where the coax cable would be split (which I disabled to prevent shorting!). So, I setup two copper pucks (not much thicker than the copper pieces that cover the tops by the feeds) to fill out the holes and make sure each half is connected to each corresponding side of the feed. After I place these in the correct location, I use the same 50-ohm feed setup script used in the GENETIS Vpol loop.
Now we have everything almost ready to simulate.
Simulation Setup:
There are various things needed to be done to setup the script, and while you can use the GUI, I’m not familiar enough with it so I just used the corresponding scripts in the GENETIS loop that would be needed before an XF simulation takes place. After I run this, we are now ready to simulate.
Running Simulation:
Again, not familiar with the GUI so I just used the GENETIS XFdtd job scripts and modified them for this purpose (which was just adjusting directories of outputs). Then I submitted the job and waited for it to complete (I believe it took around 8 min per simulation for this antenna).
Getting uan files:
I then opened the simulation and ran the same code used to output UANs as used in the GENETIS loop to output all 60 uan files at the frequencies we want.
Now you should have the files for the building model that was made in CAD!
Debugging Steps I took:
This took me a while over spring break, at least a lot longer than I thought it would.
I found out that the material data from .step file does not translate as I had expected into XFdtd so I had to manually input the material data as shown above
I found out that hiding a part in XF does NOT exclude it from simulation, you have to remove it from meshing or it still remains there
I did compare the geometries between the as-evolved antenna and this building model, there are differences but they are slight. Overall they are very similar
Removing the conductors for the coax cable is necessary as it will just short the two pieces (leading back to 2) which makes sense
Final:
After doing all this, I ended up getting what I deemed reasonable for the outputs for the building model after 28 runs in my 03_13_2025_manual.xf xf file on my user. Run28 is the run that I describe setting up above this text.
The material is not 1-1 with what will be built as I found it difficult to find exact electro-magnetic properties for all of these, so maybe the discrepancies in gain could be resolved through more rigorous definitions. It could actually technically make it worse, but maybe when this is physically built this will need to be done to get more accurate results to compare against.
Simulating both of these with higher statistics in AraSim resulted in the antennas actually performing worse than the base Vpol antenna, which stinks but it is both of the antennas not just one!
After (delayed) emails back and forth with Christian Miki from University of Hawaii, he found these same issues while he was looking at the model from CAD before I went through the XFdtd simulation steps.
Material Definitions in XF:
For critique, here are the material definitions I used in the XF simulation (using XF material definition windows). You should be able to look at them in the actual xf project I mentioned above in my user (full path in slide decks)
All setup with the following:
Type: Physical
Electric: Isotropic
Magnetic: Isotropic
Passivated 18-8 Stainless Steel:
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Good Conductor: Automatic
Conductivity: 1.1e+06 S/m
Relative Permittivity: 1
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1.03
PEEK Plastic
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Loss Tangent
Good Conductor: Automatic
Relative Permittivity: 3.3
Loss Tangent: 0.003
Evaluation Frequency: 1 MHz
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1
Foam Polyethylene
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Loss Tangent
Good Conductor: Automatic
Relative Permittivity: 1.6
Loss Tangent: 0.0004
Evaluation Frequency: 1 MHz
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1
Polyethylene
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Loss Tangent
Good Conductor: Automatic
Relative Permittivity: 2.25
Loss Tangent: 0.0004
Evaluation Frequency: 1 MHz
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1
ABS Plastic
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Loss Tangent
Good Conductor: Automatic
Relative Permittivity: 3.2
Loss Tangent: 0.005
Evaluation Frequency: 1 MHz
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1
Copper Foil
Electric Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Good Conductor: Automatic
Conductivity: 5.96e+07 S/m
Relative Permittivity: 1
Infinite Dielectric Strength: Yes
Magnetic Tab
Type: Nondispersive
Entry Method: Normal
Conductivity: 0
Relative Permeability: 1
|
| Attachment 3: Building_Dump.txt
|
Building Dump:
Debugging Issues with Antenna model simulation:
Graphs to get (compared to Curved_Sides Antenna Run):
- Gain Plots
- Look at frequencies where dips. Could be due to: dielectric loss, mismatched impedance or structural changes
- Impedance Over Frequency Plots
- Want impedance to be around 50 Ohm for resistive components and 0 for reactance at operational frequencies
- S11 Plots (Return Loss VS Frequency)
- Look for where the S11 dips to determine where the antenna is resonant
- Total Efficiency Vs Frequencies
- Drops at certain frequencies indicates problems!
- VSWR vs Frequency
- Lower VSWR means better matching
in 03_13_2025_manual.xf:
Run1 = wrong material defs (deleted)
Run2 = glitched it
Run3 = wrong material def again slightly changed tho
Run4 = wrong material, with conductor gone
Run5 = wrong material, with full wire gone
Run6 = right material, full wire gone
Run7 = right material, conductor gone
Run8 = right material, everything there feed shifted to side
Run9 = right material, feed in middle of conductor
Run10 = right material, wire gone feed offset reduced (putting closer to center). this failed because the top of the feed was disconnected
Run11 = right material, feed with correct max feed offset allowed, coax gone
Run12 = trying the same thing but with the coax gone with building the feed
Run13 = with coax cable back, feed shifted closer to middle (apparently forgot to save and it's just the same thing.. as run12)
Run14 = adding pads and putting feed in the middle of the antenna, leave dielectric and jacket turned on
Run16 = pads, feed in middle, removing dielectric and jacket (-300 thing again.. not sure why)
Run17 = same thing but ABS material changed and adjusted pucks a little
Run18 = same ABS material change but with only inner conductor removed (I am testing why I am getting -300..)
Run19 = removed supports, still with pucks + only inner conductor removed
Run20 = removing pucks, with conductor removed and new ABS material (no more -300 but very low again...)
run21 = removed pucks, conductors(PLURAL) with new ABS Material
run23 = back to just supports, offset feed new ABS Material
run24 = coax gone, og ABS material, with the offset feed closer to the middle
run25 = everything back to normal coax gone (something wrong)
run26 = trying to fix the issue I'm seeing (FIXED) you have to uncheck that materials are included in meshing :/
run27 = actually removing the outer and inner conductors (yields worse gains!)
run28 = moving to feed center w/ copper plates and with the jacket + dielectric
Seems like the wire in the middle should be plastic (or non-conducting)? based off document wangjie sent me
"If we 3D print the metal, Chi-Chih thought that we could keep them together through a plasic rod running
through the middle" (It's not!)
maybe not, named LMR600 in solidworks which have the following material properties:
https://www.awcwire.com/lmr-cable/lmr-75-ohm-cable/lmr-600-75
screws connecting halves needed to be plastic
all other screws needed to be non-magnetic stainless steel
everything else is copper (?)
Trying to change materials of the wire and supports (03_13_2025_building_sim_2.xf): still bad
Trying again with same materials and putting feed down center of coax cable(03_13_2025_building_sim_3.xf): everything is -300 dBi :(
removing the copper middle part (03_13_2025_building_sim_4.xf): still bad
manually adding materials into XFdtd (03_13_2025_manual.xf): still bad, but different bad actually numbers-wise worse
- Passivated 18-8 Stainless Steel
- PEEK Plastic
- Dielectric: Foam Polyethylene (FPE)
- Inner Conductor: Solid Bare Copper Covered Aluminum
- Outer Conductor: Aluminum Tape
- Outer Braid: Tinned Copper
- Jacket: Polyethylene
- ABS Plastic
- Copper foil
I believe the feed replaces the coax cable in the middle so I am removing the inner conductor and assuming that it will be the same as the feed.
Dimensions of Curved Antenna (model based off this): (in cm for relevant parts)
- r1 = 3.20675
- height1 = 39.3683
- a1 = -0.0123505
- b1 = 0.418171
- r2 = 3.6116
- height2 = 18.605
- a2 = -0.0233028
- b2 = 0.369081
- Total height = 60.9733
Dimensions of Model in XF: (ignoring a's and b's as that's harder to measure..) (again in cm) (rough measurements in XF)
- r1 = 3.7
- h1 = 33.7441
- r2 = 3.4
- h2 = 18.71
- total height = 55.45 (no cable) 60.6459 (including cable)
Reference run XF settings:
- Removed the wire in the middle that was connecting the two sides: no difference (need to redo with it actually deleted + having the top plates copper) (03_11_2025_building_sim_1.xf)
- Removed middle wire AGAIN (03_13_2025_building_sim_0.xf): no difference, same issue
- Removed Supports and simulated(03_12_2025_building_sim_0.xf): This seems to have fixed the issue I'm seeing, so either the supports or the wire are shorting the antenna (or both!)
- Removed Supports ONLY(03_13_2025_building_sim_1.xf): still happening, though less extreme
For Initial Building Run:
Generation 13, individual 84 seems to be result being used (this assumption is based on the fact that when trying to straighten the sides for building they used this individual)
/fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2022_12_29
Elog Links for first building runs:
- Run Details: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/188
- Run Results + Gain Patterns: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/189
- Matching Circuit PCB: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/193
- Matching Circuit Parts: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/191
- Matching Circuit Schematic: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/230
- Matching Circuit Initial Design: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/183
- PoR Plots 1: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/194
- PoR Plots 2: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/196
- Straightened Sides 1: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/229
- Straightened Sides 2: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/236
At some point, another run seems to have been created for building with the crazy sides run here with REALIZED GAIN:
/fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2023_09_05_realized_curved_run
- Run is using the same freq of interest as what we currently use!!
Top 5 vEffective Scores of Realized Gain run:
Value: 5.09897, Generation: 41, Individual: 44 (Seems to be this one, modified)
Value: 5.07746, Generation: 37, Individual: 16
Value: 5.05508, Generation: 37, Individual: 5
Value: 5.04558, Generation: 38, Individual: 12
Value: 5.04026, Generation: 48, Individual: 5
GENETIS Useful Links:
- GENETIS Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iDamk46R2_oOLHtvsOg4jNy05mCiB7Sn?dmr=1&ec=wgc-drive-hero-goto
- Onboarding Materials: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/41
- Julie's Dissertation: https://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/Write-Ups/220404_161525/Julie_Rolla_Dissertation.pdf
- Julie's Candidacy: https://as-phy-radiorm.asc.ohio-state.edu/elog/Write-Ups/44
- ICRC Proceedings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.00197
- Phys Rev D Paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102002
- ARA Loop GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/GENETIS-ARA
- PUEO Loop GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/GENETIS_PUEO
- Shared Code GitHub: https://github.com/osu-particle-astrophysics/Shared-Code
- AraSim GitHub: https://github.com/ara-software/AraSim/tree/master
- pueoSim GitHub: https://github.com/PUEOCollaboration/pueoSim
|
| Attachment 4: done_with_change_materials.zip
|
|