From: Tony Spadafora (ALSpadafora@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2004 - 17:57:48 PST
SCP collaborators:
Gaston has posted a new version of his equivalent widths (
"Spectroscopic homogeneity of Type Ia SNe measured through equivalent
widths") paper.
Link to the paper is below. Please send comments to Gaston and cc to
<eqwidths@panisse.lbl.gov>. Chris and Isobel's comments on v 7.1 (as
well as previous comments) are available at:
http://panisse.lbl.gov/collab/archive/eqwidths/
We will schedule a meeting to discuss comments on this paper sometime
next week (~ Jan 20-22).
-Tony
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Gaston Folatelli <gaston@physto.se>
> Date: January 11, 2004 10:06:09 AM PST
> To: Tony Spadafora <ALSpadafora@lbl.gov>, EW paper
> <eqwidths@panisse.lbl.gov>
> Cc: scpexec@lbl.gov
> Subject: EW paper draft (v 7.1)
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Could you make this an announcement to the whole SCP? Thank you very
> much,
>
> -Gastón
>
>
> Dear collaborators,
>
> I have posted a new version of the paper draft on EW's. This version is
> 7.1 and can be retrieved (with the usual SCP access) from:
> http://www.physto.se/~snova/private/internal.html
>
> This version accounts for Saul's and Isobel's comments to v 7.0.
>
> I have a few comments on Saul's thorough review:
>
> - In section 3.3: The estimated error from the definition of the
> pseudo-continuum can be added to the statistical error without
> double-counting the errors, since the former is just a measure of the
> scatter of the EW's as one varies the points defining the continuum.
>
> - Sections 4 and 4.4: The concept that the Si II features serve to
> separate the SN Ia subtypes is correct. The text was wrong by saying
> the
> the scatter of EW is greater in these features than in the others.
> This is
> only true in relative terms. The text has been corrected.
>
> - Fig. 7: An average curve for Branch normal SNe was added in this
> plot.
> As a consequence, a new table (Table 8) was added to quantify the
> differences between normal and 1991T-like SNe.
>
> - Sections 5 and 5.1.3: The other correlations found are mentioned now,
> though no further analysis is shown. This choice of \alpha(2+3)
> is justified in the text.
> The comment on other correlations tried has simply been taken away from
> the beginning of section 5 and is left in section 5.1.3 exclusively.
>
> - Section 5: Host galaxy extinction estimates. A reference saying that
> SN
> 1999aa is believed to be unreddened in the host has been added. This
> reduces the number of SNe with unknown host galaxy extinction to two
> (SN
> 1999ac and SN 1999bp). The magnitude error of the former of these two
> is
> big enough to account for anything. This is what we've got...
>
> - Section 5.1.3: When comparing the residuals of Phillip's relation
> (after
> Eqn. 7), I don't attempt to stick to the same range of Delta_m15 as the
> authors because our sample would be very much reduced and because we'd
> like to find a parameter that works for all Ia's.
>
> - Sections 4 and 6: The comments of the kind "individual SNe follow
> parallel paths to the average curves" were changed to "SN Ia subtypes
> follow parallel..." because this is what the analysis and the plots
> show.
> This is why we changed the plots to divide the measurements in the
> three
> SN Ia subtypes instead of showing the SNe individually.
>
> About Isobel's comments I'd like to say:
>
> - Including the actual EW measurements in the paper would be too much,
> I
> think. A table with that information would be several pages long. I
> think
> the best would be to publish these data in the web.
>
> - I added the information necessary to reproduce the average curves
> shown
> in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 7.
>
> - Yes, I have tried to plot the Delta_EW vs M_B for individual SNe. The
> very first versions of the paper, before Section 5 appeared, included
> this
> analysis. But again, the correlation was not as strong as the ones
> finally
> presented.
>
> - In my opinion, a plot of EW_(2+3) as a function of epoch wouldn't add
> really that much substance to the analysis.
>
> - Section 4.6 (S II "W"): Thanks for the comment. Now the text makes
> more
> sense in this somewhat forgotten (by me) section.
>
> - Section 5.1.2: Now the text explains why we don't use Phillip's
> relation
> to go from delta_m15 vs t_br to M_B vs t_br.
>
> I also would like to say that I haven't forgotten to switch to the AAS
> LaTex macro. I just decided to do it once and at the end, right before
> submission.
>
> Thanks for the reviews. I hope we all enjoy this new version.
>
> -Gastón
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 12 2004 - 17:58:22 PST