From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 05:48:42 PST
Hi Serena,
Good work! I have mostly minor comments.
- Lifan Wang's 2003 paper (could I have a copy of this)
- The errors in M_I(max) are of the order of +/- 0.15 magnitudes. They
are significantly larger that the errors attributed to uncertainties
quoted for I_1 (=I_max) in table 2. Am I correct in presuming that the
major source of uncertainty in M_I(max) are the correction for
extinction and the additional error from peculiar velocities?
- At the end of the first paragraph in section 2.4, you say that the RMS
for M_I in the M_I vs s_I plot is 0.21 magnitudes. It is not entirely
clear to the reader if this refers to the dispersion without a fit,
or whether this is the dispersion about a fit. This should be made
clearer.
- Figure 8 (which comes before figure 7) is too crowded. I suggest that
you drom the Keck J band curve and just state in the text that it is
similar to ISAAC Js. Note also that the drawing you have made is
applicable to a SN at z=0.543 (ie Beethoven) and we did not use the Keck
to observe Beethoven. Has the Bessell curve been corrected for the now
famous lambda factor?
- Table 5 - uncertainty in the ZP. The formal uncertainty is 0.01
magnitudes, so the error is dominated by Poisson noise and the
uncertainty in the ZP is negligible in comparison.
- The I_max magnitudes in table 8 and I_max magnitudes in figures 9, 10
and 11 appear to be slightly different.
- Paragraph 4. I think that this paragraph should be removed as modern
IR standard star systems are just as good as visual standard star
systems. It comes down to the care the observer takes in choosing a
suitable set of standards and to knowing how one standard star system
relates with another. Thanks to 2MASS, the relationship between systems
is better understood.
- cases b, d, a, and c. I do not like cases b and d. I do not believe
the systematic uncertainties should be ignored.
- K corrections. Your k-corrections should be checked by an
independent person.
- Perhaps it can be stated why observations that are outside the range
defined by Nobili et al are not included in the analysis. The curves in
figure 13 go to -10 days.
- figure 14. Dotted ellipses. I see solid and dashed ones only.
I hope this helps. I'll talk to you later in the week.
Cheers, Chris.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 05:57:38 PST