From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2004 - 13:32:02 PDT
Hi Gebriele,
I've read through the July 13th version of the paper and I provide
you with some comments.
Some results from recent analysis
=================================
- Rob is currently updating the light curve fits for all the T02 SNe Ia
and some of the S01 SNe Ia. I suggest you contact him to get the latest
fits. This will enable you to get accurate dates for each spectrum and
to shrink the horizontal error bars in Fig. 5. Indeed, I believe that
you should use the light curve dates whenever possible.
- You might want to add SN 2002gj (T02-028) to the paper. From the
spectrum, we classified this as a Ia*. If one uses the lightcurve
to set the epoch at which the spectrum was taken, it is very likely
that it is a Ia.
Section 2.2
===========
- The VLT paper has been revised considerably and there is now an
extensive discussion on how we classify candidates. I also expect that
there will be a similar discussion in Isobel's paper. Hence, I
think that you should revise section 2.2 with these two papers in mind.
My personal preference is that you shorten this section considerably and
that you refer the reader to Isobel's paper and to the VLT paper if
they want to learn how we classify candidates.
- I do not think that figures 1a, 1b and 1c add anything to the paper.
The spectra are already displayed in the VLT paper. I suggest that these
figures are removed.
- The spectra of SN 2000fr and SN 2001go in Figs. 2 and 3 look odd. It
looks as if there is a smoothed and an unsmoothed version of the
sperctra on top of each other. I suggest that you plot just the binned
spectrum as in Fig. 1. Also, Figs. 2 and 3 may not be necessary as there
may be s similar figure in Isobel's paper.
- Table 1. The order of the SNe is eratic. I suggest that you order them
according to the SN name.
- The +5.6 day spectrum of SN 2001go is not the highest S/N spectrum. I
believe that the +9 day spectrum is.
- The +9.5 and +29.5 day spectra of SN 2001go are not presented in the
VLT paper. I think it would be worth having a separate section on this
SN in the paper. It would be good if we could produce a plot which shows
how this SNe can be matched at each epoch.
Section 2.3
===========
- What is the age bias? This is not clar to me. Perhaps this could be
explained in more detail.
- The Hubble flow starts at z=0.01 or z=0.015. Are there no other
91T/99aa like Ia SNe in the Hubble flow?
Section 2.3
===========
- Do you want me to remove the telluric features in SN 2002fd?
- Note that Eric might have found a 91T-like SNe at an even higher
redshift.
Section 3.1
============
- SNe 2002fd, 2001gw, 2002hc, 2002gk and possibly 2002km (not in your
sample) have SiII at 6150. Are five SNe enough to measure the SiII
velocity and to produce a plot that is similar to the one you have done
for CaII.
Section 3.3
===========
- If you were to compare the mean values of the MgII feature for the
low and high redshift samples, I think that you would find that the
difference between the low and high redshift samples is statistcally
significant. If this is the case, this should be highlighted in the
abstract.
- Lentz models. From this paragraph, I understand that we see a larger
variation than they do. We may find a larger variation because of
unidentified systematic or statistical errors.
Overall
=======
At this point in time, I think that the paper might be better published
as a letter, since it is presenting an analysis which has never been
done before.
Cheers, Chris.
-- European Southern Observatory Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura Casilla 19001, Santiago 19 CHILEPh. +56 2 463 3106 FAX +56 2 463 3101
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 10:00:32 PDT