From: Gaston Folatelli (gaston@physto.se)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 14:53:35 PDT
Dear Chris and collaborators,
I have posted a new version of the EW paper on the usual place:
http://www.physto.se/~snova/private/internal.html
(usual SCP access), under "Paper Drafts".
There is also a link to the paper draft history page, with all previous
versions and refereeing comments.
I'd like to summarize here the changes that I have made, based on Chris',
again, very helpful comments.
I changed the symbols used in Figures 2 through 9 to represent the
three subtypes of SNe Ia described in this paper. Now, normal SNe have
black circles, 1991T-like have open circles and 1991bg-like have open
squares. SN 1999ac was left aside this classification and is marked
with triangles. Everything is black and white, continuing with this
economical mood I seem to be in.
The new symbols serve in distinguishing very clearly the cases of normal
and either of the peculiar types, to the expense of loosing detailed
information about each SN in particular. I was not using such detailed
information anyway in the paper, so the change is quite sensible.
This change doesn't only involve the aesthetics of the plots. The clearer
distinction of the subtypes in the plots helped me accomplish what I think
is a more clear analysis in Section 4, with more emphasis on the
homogeneity issue. In particular, the Tables (4, 5 and 6) were changed to
reflect the differences among the Ia subclasses in a quantitative way.
I tried to address all of Chris' points. There were several details which
I corrected following his suggestions. And there were other more
crucial worries:
* Distances: I changed to H_o = 72. And I averaged distances given by Saha
with those of Freedman, where we have both. There is still some
inhomogeneity in the distance estimations. No single source can be used to
cover not even half of the SNe in Table 7. We will probably have to
live with that. The changes in the distances were propagated to M_B and
the correlations of Sec. 5.
* Other correlations tried: I mention them now. However, I didn't add
any new parameter in Table 7 not to mess it up. Nor did I add a new table
with this information for the same reason. I don't think that is needed,
but I am a very open-minded person...
* Section 5.2 disappears because of not beeing well founded and because of
lack of data.
* Conclusions: They look more like actual conclusions now. And I tried to
be concise and to emphasize the best correlation I found.
Less important changes: (but read below anyway!)
----------------------
* We have a brand new title. This time, even featuring a subtitle! It is
the one suggested by Chris, although I changed "indices" for
"indicators", which sounds similar and saves me from thinking of
radioastronomy whenever I say "spectral index". It's not that I disliked
radioastronomy as an undergrad, and also, I am not a native English
speaker, but if "indicator" works for you, I'd rather use it instead.
The abstract has also changed but that will keep on changing until the
end, I guess.
* I quitted using double spacing. There has not been much use of it lately
and we have to save the Swedish (and other) forests. Please tell me if you
need a double-spaced version in order to write down on the hard copy.
* Version 6.1 of the draft will use ApJ's latex macro since it seems we
are aiming to send it there. I hope I don't hurt any national feelings by
still using the A&A macro...
I hope you can enjoy this new version as much as I did (sigh). Please send
your comments or tell me if you have problems when retrieving the file.
Cheers,
-Gastón
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 14:53:46 PDT