From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Wed Dec 10 2003 - 19:13:57 PST
Dear All,
I think that it is time for the rest of the collaboration to see the
paper. However, it
should be understood that the paper not ready for publication. There
are several
areas where the paper can be improved but I will let someone with a
fresh voice to
point this out.
Probably the most controversial aspect of the paper is the fitting of
the high z SNe
with the low redshift templates. I have not fully convinced myself
about the validity of this
approach.
The abstract is good; it is short and to the point. However, the
reader is left hanging
in the second last sentence. Perhaps, this sentence needs to be
expanded (i.e. what
was the result from colour analysis) or deleted.
Of the three high-z lightcurves only one SNe (00fr) shows the second
peak clearly.
The other two can only be inferred after the light curves have been
fitted. This is
an important distinction and the last sentence in the abstract is
misleading in this
respect.
Cheers, Chris.
Serena Nobili wrote:
> Hi Rob, Chris (cc Ariel, Tony)
>
> I have been working on your and Ariel's comments and updated the
> version
> of the paper in the web page. You find it at:
>
> www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/
>
> In addition to your suggestions, I have been working on Section 6.
> The way I compute the chisq values to the dust and no-dust models
> has been modified. The conclusions reached in this way are not very
> strong, as we cannot exclude any of the models. However, the analysis
> makes more sense now.
>
> Section 5.1 has been merged with section 5, plus the Hubble diagram now
> includes the residuals for the width-luminosity relation corrected data
> (as suggested by Chris). Moreover we added a test to a flat lambda=0
> universe model in presence of gray dust (Rv=9.5).
>
> The conclusions (Section 8) have been modified accordingly. The
> abstract
> has also been re-written.
>
> Minor changes took place in general through the whole paper.
>
> Also, Chris asked what the dispersion would be in the 3 low-z sample
> before width-luminosity correction. Here is a table with both results
> non corrected (alpha=0) and corrected (alpha=1.13):
>
> alpha=0 alpha=1.13
> ------------------------------------------
> CT: 0.21 +- 0.05 0.15+-0.03 n = 9
> CfA: 0.24 +- 0.03 0.28+-0.04 n = 6
> CfA2: 0.25 +- 0.03 0.15+-0.03 n = 13
>
> The dispersion in the CfA sample is slightly larger after the
> corrections,
> but within the uncertainties, also given the fact that there are
> only 6 SNe in this sample, I am not really worried.
>
> Please let me know if you have more comments or if you think it is time
> for the paper to be sent to the whole collaboration.
> Thanks again for your help
> Cheers
>
> Serena
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> www.physto.se/~serena
> Tel +46 8 55378661
>
> Give free food at:
> http://www.porloschicos.com/
> http://www.thehungersite.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 17:08:23 PST