From: Gaston Folatelli (gaston@physto.se)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 10:06:09 PST
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 : Sun Jan 11 2004 - 10:06:12 PST