From: Serena Nobili (serena@lpnhep.in2p3.fr)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 09:13:05 PST
Dear Chris and SCPexec,
I have done the changes you suggested. The paper is now available in the
snova web page:
http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/
However, I left the sentence explaining the reason why we adopt the time
of maximum by Tonry (in Section 4.3). In short, this depends on the
possibility for more optical data to exist, since this is what they claim
in Riess'paper. Thus, we trust better their time of maximum than our own.
I believe, this answers also your question (see below).
Cheers,
Serena
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Chris Lidman wrote:
> Since these data do not adequately cover the rising
> part of the lightcurve, we force the date of maximum to occur at
> $t_{\rm max}=$ MJD 51194.65 (Tonry, private communication).
>
This is now:
Since these data do not adequately cover the rising part of the
lightcurve, and because there may be additional optical ground based data
that was used in \citep{riess99q}, we force the time of maximum to $t_{\rm
max}=$MJD 51194.65 (John Tonry, private communication).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://supernovae.in2p3.fr/~serena/
www.physto.se/~serena
Tel +33 1 44277329
Give free food at:
http://www.porloschicos.com/
http://www.thehungersite.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 09:13:31 PST