From deng@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Mar 21 23:40:57 2002 Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.17.10]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16oIjQ-0001Wy-00 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:40:57 -0700 Received: from buddaha (dhcp221.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.221]) by iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2M6esB23430; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:40:54 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <001601c1d16e$47808fa0$dd110b85@astron.s.utokyo.ac.jp> From: "Jinsong Deng" To: Cc: Subject: Fw: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:53:31 +0900 Organization: Department of Astronomy, Tokyo University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: R Hi Paolo, I tried to include the eps file in the text part. But it always killed my Windows to send it, maybe due to some line-number limit by my email client. So could you to do that for me? You have the eps file. Thank you. Jinsong ----- Original Message ----- > Hi Deng: > I have to admit I'm unable to read an attachment. > Could you please send the figure just by old-fashioned mail in > postscript so it can be read without interpretation. > Sorry about this. > Best Regards > David From deng@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Mar 21 23:42:39 2002 Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.17.10]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16oIl5-0001X1-00 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:42:39 -0700 Received: from buddaha (dhcp221.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.221]) by iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2M6gbB23437; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:42:37 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <003f01c1d16e$84a81420$dd110b85@astron.s.utokyo.ac.jp> From: "Jinsong Deng" To: Cc: Subject: Fw: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:55:13 +0900 Organization: Department of Astronomy, Tokyo University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: R Hi Paolo, I tried to include the eps file in the text part. But it always killed my Windows to send it, maybe due to some line-number limit by my email client. So could you to do that for me? You have the eps file. Thank you. Jinsong ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Jeffery" To: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:13 PM > Hi Deng: > I have to admit I'm unable to read an attachment. > Could you please send the figure just by old-fashioned mail in > postscript so it can be read without interpretation. > Sorry about this. > Best Regards > David From koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Mon May 13 20:09:26 2002 Dear David, Thank you very much for your quick reply. Your comments are all helpful for me. As for the title, some co-authors also had suggested appending a subtitle ": Evidence for.." to me, but I judged that replacing the word with "implication" was suitable at that time. But I gain confidence in myself from your suggestion, and I will adopt the word 'evidence'. According to the schedule for the process of the Subaru proposal, it will be August when we know whether our proposal is accepted or rejected. There is a period of 3-3.5 months between the deadline of the call for proposal and the publication of the schedule of the telescope time. (Since the time allocation committee will be held in July, I will possibly hear a 'rumor' on our proposal a little earlier.) Sincerely yours, Koji -------------------------------------------------- Koji S. Kawabata E-mail: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Optical and Infrared Astronomy Division, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan TEL: +81-422-34-3533 FAX: +81-422-34-3545 -------------------------------------------------- From ejb@phobos.caltech.edu Mon Jul 08 15:56:09 2002 Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from phobos.caltech.edu ([131.215.102.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17RgUK-0003Mt-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:56:08 -0600 Received: from shukra.caltech.edu (shukra [131.215.102.78]) by phobos.caltech.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g68Lu7xU013214 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shukra.caltech.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g68Lu6rt006782 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Edo Berger X-X-Sender: ejb@shukra.caltech.edu To: "David J. Jeffery" Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Dear Dr. Jeffery, Thanks for taking the time to read our paper. In reply to your questions, I am not sure that I can offer you a definitive answer, but I will share with you my concerns with the jet/blob interpretation. I think that the main problem with the canon-ball idea is energetics. In particular, it appears that the cannon-balls carry about 2e51 erg, which is a substantial fraction of the total kinetic energy (estimated to be 4-10e51 by Mazzali et al.). In principle, if this mass can radiate some of its energy, it should be easily detectable in the radio (the observed radio emission requires only 2e45 erg or so). However, if the canon-balls are confined somehow and do not expand and radiate, then they will be very difficult to detect observationally (in any band, not just the radio). The question is then how to confine 2e51 erg. Canon-balls are observed in Vela, but there they carry a very small fraction of the energy. This raises the question of what other interpretations can accomodate the observed polarization, and whether our understanding of radiative transfer in SNe is sufficiently sophisticated that we can interpret every observational signature as a distinct physical feature? I do not know the answer to this question. I hope I have addressed your questions. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Edo -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edo Berger Cell (626)676-4724 Caltech Astronomy, Robinson Lab. Office (626)395-4001 MS 105-24 FAX (626)568-9352 1200 E. California Blvd E-mail ejb@astro.caltech.edu Pasadena, CA 91125 http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~ejb USA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, David J. Jeffery wrote: > David J. Jeffery > Department of Physics > New Mexico Tech > 801 Leroy Place > Socorro, New Mexico 87801-4796 > U.S.A. > > Office Tel: 505-835-5610 > Email: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu > Office: Rm 349, Bldg. Workman Center > Homepage: http://www.physics.nmt.edu/jeffery/jefferyfrontpage > Departmental Tel: 505-835-5328 > Departmental FAX: 505-835-5707 > Departmental Email: physics@kestrel.nmt.edu > Departmental Homepage: http://www.physics.nmt.edu/ > 2002 July 6 > Dear Dr. Berger: > I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions > regarding your recent paper (Berger et al., 2002, astro-ph/0206183) > since this paper impacts on a recent paper of which I'm > a coauthor (Kawabata et al. 2002, astro-ph/0205414). > > In your conclusions you imply that jets with speed > and mass such as we suggested (as non-unique fits, not > reliable fits I must say) are ruled out by radio observations > regardless of geometry. Is this really certain? A > 10 degree opening angles for 2 bipolar jets means that > the jets cover only 0.4 % of the solid angle of the sky. > They seem to me to be compact bullets punching through the > CSM. I would think they would be much less effective at > producing radio emission than if that mass were spread > out in a shell. I will confess I'm pretty much ignorant > of radio observations and modeling despite my proximity > to the VLA: so maybe I being naive. > > The other question was whether you could tolerate > somewhat slower jets: say with characteristic speed 0.15c? > I notice that a blob (say rather than an elongated jet) > moving at 0.15c=45000 km/s would be at a smaller radius > than your favored shock radius (your fig.2) till past > day 30 or so. If the blob were at less than the shock > radius, would it have any significant radio emission? > > I'd appreciate any help you can give me? > > Best Regards > David Jeffery >