0807.1143/README
1: To whom it may concern:
2: 
3: We would like to re-submit our paper entitled "Cyclotron Modeling 
4: Phase-Resolved Infrared Spectroscopy of Polars III: AM Herculis and ST Leo 
5: Minoris" for consideration for publication in the Astrophysical Journal. 
6: New Mexico State University will assume all costs associated with page charges.
7: As ennumerated below, we have made all of the changes recommended by the 
8: referee.
9: 
10: Sincerely,
11: 
12: Ryan Campbell
13: 
14: Astronomy Department
15: New Mexico State University
16: Box 30001/MSC 4500
17: 1320 Frenger Street
18: Las Cruces, NM 88003
19: Ph: 505-646-4914
20: Fax: 505-646-1602
21: 
22: There are 9 figures that go along with this paper. Figures 2 & 6 are in black &
23: White, the rest are in color.
24: 
25: *******************************************************************************
26: Changes Made to Manuscript
27: *******************************************************************************
28: 1. In Section 2, addition of references for the SPEX and SQIID instruments 
29: would be useful. =>
30: 
31: Added the references: Rayner et al.(2003) for SPEX, and Ellis et al. (1992) for
32: SQIID.
33: 
34: *******************************************************************************
35: 
36: 2. In Section 2, for consistency and completeness, the definition of 'R' 
37: in '...produces R~250 spectra...' should be given. =>
38: 
39: Included! Now reads, R(=lambda/(delta lambda)) ~ 250.
40: 
41: *******************************************************************************
42: 
43: 3. In Section 2, it would help to give a table listing the various 
44: observations of each object (i.e. an observation log), which includes 
45: dates/times/instruments of the various runs, number of spectra obtained, 
46: exposure times, duration of photometric observations, etc. collated in one 
47: place. =>
48: 
49: Added an observation log as new Table 1. Renamed old Table 1 => 2 and table 
50: 2 => 3.
51: 
52: *******************************************************************************
53: 4. In Section 3, I don't understand the word 'namesake' in '...and 
54: namesake \Lambda...' =>
55: 
56: I suppose that the wording is a little weird. REMOVED.
57: 
58: 
59: *******************************************************************************
60: 5. In Section 3.1, the text refers to BVRIJHK observations taken on 2006 
61: May 20, but in Section 2 these are said to be from 2005 May 20 and in the 
62: caption to Figure 3, they are from 2002 May 20. I presume these are in fact 
63: all from the same date! =>
64: 
65: Good Catch! The correct date was 2005 May 20. The text has been changed to
66: reflect this.
67: 
68: *******************************************************************************
69: 6. In Section 3.2, it is unclear why there are gaps in Fig 8b for the spectra 
70: of ST LMi in the 2005 extreme low state ... there are no gaps in the spectra 
71: from 2006 (in Fig 8a) yet these data were obtained with the same instrument 
72: weren't they? Please clarify. =>
73: 
74: Because the object was much fainter during the extreme low-state, the spectra
75: were very noisy and telluric correction was not possible in the regions which
76: have been clipped.
77: 
78: *******************************************************************************
79: 7. In the 5th paragraph of Section 3.2, the i and beta values previously 
80: derived for ST LMi are listed for the first time. I think these should be in 
81: the appropriate place in Section 1, where the similar parameters for AM Her 
82: are listed. =>
83: 
84: Added the following sentence to the end of the ST LMi section of Section 1.
85: " The accretion geometry of the primary emission region has also been
86: previously determined, with 55$^{\circ}$ $\leq i \leq$ 64$^{\circ}$ and 
87: 140$^{\circ}$ $\leq \beta \leq$ 150$^{\circ}$ (Schmidt et al., 1983; 
88: Potter, 2000)". I left in similar information in section 3.2 to act as a
89: reminder to the reader.
90: 
91: 
92: *******************************************************************************
93: 8. I think Section 4 would benefit from another subsection heading to 
94: encompass some or all of the 5 paragraphs that precede Subsection 4.1 =>
95: 
96: A new subsection called "Analysis of Results" has been added.
97: 
98: *******************************************************************************
99: 9. In the 4th paragraph of Section 4, the word 'both' should be deleted 
100: from '...WE find both the similarity of...' and the word 'infer' towards 
101: the end of the paragraph should I think be 'imply'. =>
102: 
103: Done.
104: 
105: *******************************************************************************
106: 10. The caption to Fig 4 says 'no cyclotron emission was observed from \phi = 
107: 0.31 to \phi=0.70' yet the text of the paper refers to the appropriate phase 
108: range as 0.27 to 0.74. Please make them consistent. =>
109: 
110: Phi = 0.27 to 0.74 is correct. Figure caption changed.
111: 
112: *******************************************************************************
113: 11. In the caption to Fig 5, lose the word 'on' from '...SQIID on of the 
114: April 9' =>
115: 
116: Done.
117: 
118: 
119: *******************************************************************************
120: 
121: 12. The caption to Fig 6 says that the zoomed part has labels 'P' and 'S' 
122: indicating the times of photometry and spectroscopy, but the 'P' label is 
123: only in the time region covered by the un-zoomed part. =>
124: 
125: The Fig. 6 caption now reads, "Long-term lightcurves of ST LMi. top: $V$-band 
126: photometry following ST LMi from late 1991 to early 2006. bottom: Zoom-in of 
127: the year surrounding our IRTF/SPEX spectroscopy. The ``P'' denotes the epoch 
128: of our photometry, while ``S'' marks our spectroscopic data during the 2005 
129: extreme low-state and the 2006 low-state, respectively." The new wording should
130: clear-up things.
131: 
132: *******************************************************************************
133: End of Comments
134: *******************************************************************************
135: