Yes, thanks, James -- the caption for Figure 4 has a number of errors. It should read: [left] f_X = 0.2 (pink), f_X = 2.0 (green); [middle] f_abs = 0.2 (pink), f_abs = 0.04 (green); [right] alpha = -3.6 (pink), alpha = -10.9 (green). I tried to make the pink curve be the same fiducial model in all three panels, and clearly messed up the legend in the process.
Your suggestion for Figure 7 is a good one. Eventually the power law star formation rate model becomes a bad approximation (the SFRD turns over), but it's still a fine model at z = 7. On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:57 PM, James Aguirre <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > >
