From: Serena Nobili (serena@physto.se)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 03:57:32 PST
Dear collaborators,
given the little delay for the phone conference, I had the time to fix
some typos and implement a couple of suggestions (which I had
unfortunately forgotten to implement earlier). I add a list of the main
changes I made, for you not to have to read the paper again.
Thank you all for your useful suggestions.
Cheers
Serena
PS. The new version (Feb 12) is linked in the paper web page:
http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/
---------------------------------------------------
List of main changes in the paper:
1) Introduction. At the end of it I add a couple of sentences saying that
we present new data in the paper (SN 2000fr).
2) p.7 . A "by" became "from" in the following sentence, and other small
changes to make it clearer:
"In order to disentangle the intrinsic dispersion from the statistical
scatter due to the measurement uncertainties, the average of the latter is
subtracted (geometrically), resulting in $\sigma=0.14$ mag. We consider
this an estimate of the intrinsic dispersion of the stretch corrected
$I$-band lightcurve maximum. A weaker correlation was found between the
peak magnitude and the stretch in $I$-band, $s_I$, with an r.m.s. of
$\sim$~0.21~mag, about the best fit line."
3) Caption of Table 4. Changed into:
"Dispersion measured in the Hubble diagram for
each of the sample, corrected for the width-luminosity relation;
$<z>$ is the average redshift of the sample; $n$ is the number of
data points; r.m.s. of residuals in the Hubble diagram about the
best fit model, and $\sigma^{300}_z$ is the average uncertainty
and r.m.s. around that value."
4) Figure 8. The J-Keck filter has been removed from the plot (following
Chris'suggestion), since almost identical to Js-ISAAC. A sentence has been
added later in the section of 1999ff.
5) Caption of Table 5. I added that the uncertainty on the ZP
is contributing only for about 0.01 mag, as requested by Chris. However,
this could become 0.02 or 0.05 mag, depending on what we decide about how
to treat the IR calibration (see e-mail by Chris Lidman on Feb 11 in
the archive)
6) p.10. The paragraph describing the data reduction is slightly modified
to add the other reduction technique used for reducing the data. I
apologize for the earlier misleading description, especially with Chris,
who has been working hard on it in the past 2 years. It now says:
"The data was reduced using both internally developed routines and the
XDIMSUM package in IRAF.The results were found in agreement within the
quoted uncertainties."
7) End of Section 4.1. Added discussion about the difference in
K-corrections obtained using Nobili et al. templates and Rob's templates.
The uncertainty identified, 0.05 mag, will be added in the analysis in the
next iteration.
8) Captions of Figures 9-10 11 had the old values of Imax. It is now fixed
according to table 8 (which was corrected)
9) Paragraph 4 of Section 5 has been slightly modified.
10) p.14 Added the page (p.106) to the reference to Cowan (1998).
11) The footnote in the caption of Table 11, has been slightly modified.
12) Labels of Fig. 14 have been changed to E(B-I) vs E(B-V), and
E(B_I)^corr vs E(B-V)^corr. Also the caption has been corrected for
various wrongly placed "solid", "dashed" and "dotted" lines.
13) Conclusions. A sentence has been added referring to the work on QSO by
Morsell and Goobar. It says:
"A similar technique, but using QSO colors was used by
\citet{2003JCAP...09..009M}, to rule out gray dust being the sole
explanation for the apparent faintness of SNe~Ia at $z \sim 0.5$."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
www.physto.se/~serena
Tel +46 8 55378661
Give free food at:
http://www.porloschicos.com/
http://www.thehungersite.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 12 2004 - 03:57:53 PST