From: Alexander Conley (AJConley@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 18:57:27 PDT
Hi Vitaliy,
Thanks for reading it.
> Since you already characterized the effects of the individual
> cuts variations, do you want to combine them into an
> aggregate systematic error?
That is an eventual goal, I just figured I would wait until after
unblinding to deal with this issue.
> 3) p.3, paragraph 3. It would seem better to me to change
> "CMAG", as a notation for "color-magnitude relationship",
> by "CM" or "CMR". CMAG reads very similar to CMAGIC.
I'll think about it, but making them similar was somewhat
deliberate. After all, they are very related -- CMAGIC just
adds a little bit on the end (evaluate the line at a fixed
color) to CMAG.
> 4) p.3, paragraph 3. "There are some potential evolutionary
> effects for which..." This sentence appears vague. If you have
> citations for the theories mentions, it would be good to add them
> here.
That's a really tough one. Most of the theories are pretty vague.
I do try to explain some in detail in section 2.3, but perhaps I should
move the mentions up a bit.
>
> 6) p.5, last paragraph. "This is not truly a law, but rather
> characterizes..."
> I may be wrong, but the sentence looks misworded. "This is not truly
> a law, but rather a characteristic of ..." would seem better.
The wording as is is correct. The so-called extinction law is not a
characteristic of dust. If you plug a value of R_B into the extinction
'law'
then you get a dust size distribution.
> 7) p.6, 3rd paragraph. "Phillips et al found no significant evidence
> for
> a lower value of R_B... deriving R_B = 2.6 +- 0.4." This seems strange,
> since 2.6 is lower than Riess's 3.55 or "standard" 4.
Sorry, typo on my part. That was the R_V value. R_B is 3.6 +- 0.4.
Greg points out that for an individual R measurement Phillips '99 finds
no significant deviations, but as a whole they are all lower than the
expected galactic values.
> 8) p.7, equation 2. I suspect that the time of maximum was assumed
> to belong to the CMAGIC linear regime in deriving the equation.
> If so, one may want to state this explicitly.
No, that is not the case. The time of maximum is not in the linear
regime.
The assumption is that the amount of dust doesn't change with time --
a SNe enshrouded in a small dust cloud and which then disrupted that
cloud by 2 weeks after maximum would break this relation, but short
of that they don't need to cover the same epochs. I think that is too
fine
of a point to include in the paper.
>
> 9) p. 8, 2nd paragraph. "In this case (i.e. if the intrinsic colors
> change --vf)...
> the SNe are thought to be dimmer than they really are..." Do they have
> to become dimmer? I would thing that the direction of the brightness
> change should depend on the direction of the assumed intrinsic color
> change.
>
You are right. For the particular Dominguez result the sign is as I
have it,
but in general that does not need to be the case.
>
> 11) Appendix A. It may look better to change "Bumps" to "CMAG Bumps"
> (or whatever abbreviation is used for CMAG).
>
Sounds good.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 18:57:37 PDT