From: Rollin Thomas (rthomas@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 09:02:29 PST
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Gabriele Garavini wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean here. I do not think we can say much about
> limits on asphericity on the basis of these Synow models, or rather I
> can't. I do not have any 3D modeling tool to work with. This might be in
> my plan for the future, maybe learning to use Brute if that is possible or
> Dan's code, but it is not something I can do right now.
No no no no no, you don't understand. One of the results from the 3D
deflagration models, and it seems pathological, is that fuel and ashes
are mixed at all velocities. And this will persist to homology. So
look at Gamezo again! This is not the same behavior in 1D. So if you
have lots of C below the minimum velocity in W7, then you are favoring
the 3D models. If you don't, then you can't. So say it. It requires
no further analysis, just thinking.
A further question (why am I telling the first author the interesting
questions) is why C only shows up sometimes? This led me to be thinking
about the diversity versus viewing angle that I mentioned in my previous
comments. Look into it, and decide.
> I think that any estimate of the required S/N depends of what we need the
> detection for.
For Carbon to be detected in the first place! I mean look: Sometimes
you have Carbon, sometimes you don't. Why? Is it partially due to
signal to noise or (gosh) is it the alignment of the supernova with
the line of sight? Make an estimate. You're an observer, you can
figure out how to do this, right? This would serve two purposes. It
would tell the community something about the spring 99 data, and it
would tell them when and at what S/N to look for things. And it also
would tell SN factory about S/N needed to detect C in the first place.
Why am I having to say this again?
> > And since you only analyze those first two spectra, (and I admit I am
> > getting into this game pretty late), why do you need to present the
> > others in this paper?
>
> I think is better to present the whole data set especially since there is
> not much to say after max more than they are normal looking. I do agree
> that it looks strange presenting them all and then forget about all the
> spectra but -15 and -9. I think the best is to put in a couple of more
> comparison plots of later epochs. This actually would then copy the
> organization of Branch's paper on 98aq.
No, not exactly because he also *fit* some later epochs for comparison
purposes. Max light and plus one week. He did it as a kind of baseline.
So if you want to copy the 98aq organization, then fit one later.
> I know, I'll state it clear and I'll make some example. e.g. tau for CII
> goes below 0.001 after 34000km/s
Yeah, and that's basically zero. Basically tau below 0.01 is zero. So
really things don't stretch as far as you think. I mean, there are tiny
changes, but they're not significant. It's simple math.
> Don't you think figs 6,7 and 8 show which is the effect of CII and CIII.
NO! This was specifically what I said to you. I don't like the weird
wavelength axis to flux axis ratio! REPLOT WITH AN INSET MAINTAINING
THE SAME ASPECT RATIO. I got burned on this once, people wanted to see
overall what the changes were. Sometimes they don't know. There are
people in this collaboration who do not know. Just do the plots again.
> This ions do not effect at all the rest of the spectrum. I should probably
> spell that out more clearly, but I do not see how the whole spectrum only
> without CII for example would make it clearer, I would end up putting a
> inner graph, as you do in 00cx that would be exactly as my figure 6,7,8
> now.
NO NO NO. Maintain the relative width and height, just blow up the region.
> > Also, you might have noticed that David has begun to experiment with
> > plotting wavelength axes in log space, and sometimes plotting weird
> > combinations of flux and wavelength on the flux axis. ...
>
> I tried this for 99aa and I did not see much improvement. I'll try again
> for this guy.
Wait, what do you mean not much improvement? Not in the fit. I'm not
advocating you plot the data and fit so the fit looks better, but rather
so the comparison is easier. Look, we're asking for the reader to do
a chi-by-eye, so just make it easier for them. If you mean that your
fits don't look so good, that only tells you that you need to try harder
to do the fits. In which case, you go back and do them again.
> The titles.... at the very end was changed even for 99aa, without the
> ``direct analysis'' in it. I'll see what the collab says.
Yes, and I was disappointed with that decision.
Rollin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 09:02:31 PST