(VERY!) Preliminary Results for TMC-1C

C17O data from FCRAO, March 1997 data

Note: Here are some links to other TMC-1C info: N2H+ map, preliminary C34S FCRAO data

 

Most Preliminary note from AG to MH:

Check out: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~agoodman/FCRAO/c17o.summ.ps Note: All the data in this file meet the selection criteria that T_int/sigT_int>4.5 and DelV<2.

It was very hard to separate the hyperfine components in the C17O table you sent me. I gleaned that there's one off by itself at low velocity and then two that are almost together. From the second page of the ps file above, you'll see that it looks like those two "close" components ~merge into eachother for some of the fits, and may be creating artifically large line widths in some cases. The other bizarre thing you'll note from that second page is that the line width seems correlated with velocity. This is pretty apparent in the isolated component alone, which means it's not some artifact of the blending of hyperfines. It may mean something real (e.g. this is a "cometary" cloud, and maybe this correlation is telling us something important about the velocity structure?)

From the first page of the ps file, you'll see no-error-bar plots of DelV vs T_A for the three components, as best I could separate them. (You'll notice on the 2nd page that there may be real high-delv features, but they've been excluded.) Obviously, we need more S/N!!

Slightly Less Preliminary, but still just a Crude Analysis:

The data in the three plots below are based on only the "low-velocity" hyperfine component of the TMC-1C observations.

Linewidth does appear correlated with antenna temperature in something like a power-law fashion, as this log-log plot shows.

Here's something strange: FWHM is correlated with v_LSR. AG suspects this may be related to the "cometary" nature of TMC-1C, but she's still thinking about it.

The above two plots might make you wonder if FWHM and either T_A or v_LSR are correlated due to a correlation of v_LSR and T_A... the answer appears to be "not really," but certainly merits more investigation.