From: LWang@lbl.gov
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 06:04:16 PST
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Gabriele Garavini wrote:
> 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
Oh, I thought that the entire line is blueshifted by about 8000 km/sec,
and 4500 km/s is more than half of the line. Cannot you even resolve
that
CLEARLY?
> 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.
You do not expect the readers to do that for you.
>
> 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
You should have that in mind as well. I actually think you are NOT
measuring the same features. The Si II line you are measuring is likely
distorted by a little feature on the blueside of the Si II line, which
produced little emission bump that makes the suspected Si II line appear
at lower velocity. So, the minimum can be as affected as the maximum.
> velocity of SiII is not under discussion since the time evolution is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then make it clear that at late time Figure 11 means nothing.
> 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.
If so, then the entire issue with the velocity structure is confusing
and
needs further thinking.
>
> 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.
It would be clearer if you mark the position where you think the
minima
are.
>
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-- http://panisse.lbl.gov/~lifan Lifan Wang (510) 495 2733 (o)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 08 2004 - 10:40:46 PST