From: Gabriele Garavini (garavini@in2p3.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 05:47:09 PST
HI Lifan,
I do not quite agree. Remember that for example a difference in lambda
space of 100A for the minimum of SiII is about 4500 km/s in velocity
space. If you look carefully to Panel B of Fig. 9 you see that between
the
SiII minima of 99ac and 94d there is for sure more than one thick mark
(50A) and that would make up the difference in velocity you see in Fig
11.
Anyway Panel B is not meant to compare SiII but FeII. Indeed (as is
stated
in the text) at late time the blending of Fe and Si in the 6100A region
might be a concern. I do believe the minima are not as effected as much
as
the emission of the feature but when reading plot 11 one should have in
mind that some systematics could be playing tricks. Anyway the low
velocity of SiII is not under discussion since the time evolution is
really peculiar already up to +11 days when the blending is not a
problem.
The same hold for CaHK if you look closely at Panel B in Fig 9 you find
the higher velocity reported in Fig 10.
Thanks for looking at the paper. I hope this clarifies your doubts.
If it doesn't please just ask again.
I will definitely follow you suggestion and put the name of the line
each
panel is meant for on the panel itself.
Cheers
Gabriele
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 LWang@lbl.gov wrote:
> Hi, Gabriele,
>
> I looked at the new figures you prepared comparing 99ac with 94d
> etc. I can not establish from these figures the huge velocity
> difference
> that you show in figure 10 and 11. For example, you claim that at +25
> day,
> the Si II line of 99ac has a velocity more than 3500 km/sec lower than
> that of 94D and 99aa (as shown in your figure 11). What I see in Figure
> 7,8,9 are totally different and indicate that 99ac is not a low
> velocity
> event at all but rather similar to other well observed SNe.
> Are you sure you are comparing same features when you make
> Figures 10 and 11? If so, please also mark the features that you are
> plotting in Figure 10 and 11 on Figures 7,8, and 9. The lines are so
> heavily blended at late epochs one has to be very clear of what are
> being
> compared.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lifan
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Gabriele Garavini wrote:
>
>> Dear Tony, Dear Rollin, Dear All,
>>
>>
>> I do think we can open the paper on 99ac to the collaboration, and
>> setting
>> the dead line to January the 8th seems reasonable. Also, I do know
>> there
>> will certainly be some English polishing steps before getting the
>> paper to
>> the journal but this might already start with the first reading Saul
>> is
>> going to do on the paper next week.
>>
>> I agree with Rollin when he says the paper is in the form is going to
>> be
>> for publication in terms of scientific content and presentation, and
>> that
>> not much is left to be added.
>>
>> To clarify, I know for sure Weidong Li has a paper in preparation on
>> this
>> objects since I've been asking him questions about the extinction he
>> used
>> for obtaining the delta_m15 he reports in his paper on 02cx. BTW he
>> also
>> did not trust Labbe 2001 and used his own estimate which he did not
>> want
>> to share with me.
>>
>> Phillips had a proceeding on this paper were he was saying a paper
>> was in
>> preparation. this is the only thing I know about his work on SN99ac.
>>
>>
>> You can find the new version of the paper (the same I sent in my
>> previouse
>> mail ) at : http://www.physto.se/~snova/private/internal.html
>>
>> thank you all.
>> Cheers
>>
>> Gabriele
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 08 2004 - 10:40:36 PST