From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 19:47:13 PDT
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 07:38:28PM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> Before "Each of these ..." add
> "Comparison of our $U$-band template shows good agreement with the
> new $U$-band photometry from \citet{jha2002} at the relavent
> epochs."
Has somebody actually *done* that comparison? I haven't, and I'm a
little hesitant to say that if nobody's really checked it.
> Ok, I'll read the rest of the paper tonight as give comments. You can
> take care of these if you have any nervous-energy to burn after hearing
> that Tonry et al is out. I guess I'm getting into a lot of detail, but
> then I've seen many of the recent drafts. By the way, Peter noticed
> that the systematics table is missing and that some figures are not
> refered to correctly, like Figure 8 is refered to as Figure 5 in the
> systematics section.
Odd. The figure is probalby me just goofing with a reference, but I
don't understand why the table isn't in there.
IIn fact, it is-- Table 9, Page 30. Not sure what Peter is thinking.
> Also, I guess I would recommend putting the Percival 2dFGRS+HSTKP
> contraints on the OM,w fits. Also, given the aspect ratio, Figure 7
> might fit better if it were 3 wide by 2 high.
I don't think I'm going to be able to get to that other OM/w
constraint-- at this point, I'd really rather stick with what is done
than keep adding more stuff. I will try, but it's low on the list at
this point.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 19:47:14 PDT