126 duplicated objects are out now.
the catalogue list has 27602 lines now with a flag for completness at the end (created by Pat).
The caption for Fig 4 is rewritten. it is more clear now.
I have compared the Shen et al. 2010 with Shen et al. 2008. The question is, should I add this into the Catalogue paper or not?
for example here is the FWHMs:
the FWHMs plot is very scattered. good news, some of the objects previously (in 2008) have not the mass estimates, they have has estimates for them in 2010. However, some high redshift objects, in CIV plot, had estimates in 2008 but have zero FWHM estimates in 2010, which is surprising.
but in general, the 2010 FWHMs are lower than 2008 estimates. that explains why in the mass-mass plot there is a trend towards the lower estimates for BH masses. The Lbol vs Lbol shows some scatter but it is moderately symmetrical, possibly due random noise.
so the question is, does it worth anything to show this mass-mass plot.
No comments:
Post a Comment