Jonnie -
Can you clarify figure 4? The legends all say f_x, which I assume is
just not propagating f_x, f_abs, alpha into the plots. However, the f_x
plot is showing more heating for f_x = 0.2 than 2, which seems unlikely.
Since some of your normalization is done at z = 7, it might be nice to
plot Figures 4 and 6 down to z=7, and indicate where the PAPER
constraint and the Planck and Robertson 50% x_i redshifts are.
On 2/20/2015 10:17 PM, Jonathan Pober wrote:
Hi everyone,
As many of have seen, Zaki got his paper submitted to astro-ph today,
while I unfortunately had to delay mine after some last minute sanity
checking caught an error in my implementation of the X-ray heating
equation. After correcting it, the predicted IGM temperatures have
all gone up, making the PAPER constraints... less impressive. Still,
it's a big improvement over being wrong.
I attach an updated (and maybe final?) draft for your perusal. I will
be at a workshop in Ohio through Wednesday, but if you can get
comments to me by Thursday, maybe I can still get this submitted at
the end of next week.
One point that still may change is in Section 5.3, where I calculate
the heating expected from the Robertson et al. 2015 star formation
rate/reionization model. I have the parameters necessary to reproduce
the best fit model, but due to correlations in the quoted parameter
errors, I haven't been able to reproduce the marginalized 1 sigma
uncertainties on the model. By eye, I don't think I can rule out
anything even at the lowest allowed regimes of the model, but I've
emailed Brant for help calculating the errors, and if anything changes
I will update.
--
James Aguirre
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Pennsylvania
209 South 33rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 898-9596 (office)
(215) 898-9646 (lab)
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jaguirre/
