Re: EW paper draft (v 7.1)

From: clidman@eso.org
Date: Mon Jan 12 2004 - 15:31:41 PST

  • Next message: Tony Spadafora: "new EW paper draft (v 7.1)"

    Hi Gaston,
      Just a quick comment on Isobel's reply. I support the use of electronic
    tables for publishing the EWs you have derived. I suspect that there
    are number of researchers who would be interested in using these EWs in
    searching for correlations themselves.

      Isobel's other suggestions are also good and I'd like you to think about
    including them in the paper. The plots of Delta_EW vs M_B may now
    look a bit different to what you had produced earlier as you are now
    using more consistent set of distance estimates (i.e. Freedman et al.).

    Cheers, Chris.

    Quoting Isobel Hook <imh@astro.ox.ac.uk>:

    >
    > Hi Gaston,
    >
    > Thanks for addressing my comments.
    >
    > I agree that the data tables would be fine on the web only. Some journals
    > will do this automatically - I once submitted a paper to A&A with some
    > large data tables, and they told me they would only publish those in the
    > electronic version of the paper. So I think it might be worth submitting
    > the tables with the paper, so that they get archived somewhere properly.
    >
    > > - 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.
    >
    > I just went back and looked at those. Actually I think they look pretty
    > good and although they're not as strong at the one you've found for
    > EW(2+3) they could be more useful because you only need one spectrum to
    > place an object on the plot (at least for CaII IR and FeII 4800). I would
    > encourage you to put those plots back in and give the equations of the
    > fits.
    >
    > > - In my opinion, a plot of EW_(2+3) as a function of epoch wouldn't add
    > > really that much substance to the analysis.
    >
    > I agree that it wont add to the analysis but since you go into quite a bit
    > of detail on the EW(2+3) feature, I think its important to show the data
    > that the analysis is based on.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Isobel.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 12 2004 - 15:32:06 PST