Closed MariaTsantaki closed 8 years ago
We have to ask the authors. I would personally like to add Andreasen et al. 2016 too :)
We have agreed that the raw line lists should be in this format, right?
WL num E.P. loggf ele EWsun
------- ---- ---- ------ ---- -----
4523.40 26.0 3.65 -1.879 FeI 44.2
4537.67 26.0 3.27 -2.881 FeI 17.4
4551.65 26.0 3.94 -1.937 FeI 29.1
This is the format I have used (and MOOGme understands).
WL num E.P. loggf ele EWsun
------- ---- ---- ------ ---- -----
4523.40 26.0 3.65 -1.880 FeI 44.2
4531.62 26.0 3.21 -1.809 FeI 66.4
4537.67 26.0 3.27 -2.881 FeI 17.4
4551.65 26.0 3.94 -1.938 FeI 29.1
4554.46 26.0 2.87 -2.762 FeI 37.4
The spacing between columns are irrelevant, but the two line header are important, and of course the order of columns.
Remember to indent code/data/etc. with 4 spaces here on github, and with an empty line around, so it's easier to read. I just did it for you.
I was thinking also to use the suffix .lst to indicate the raw line lists. e.g. cool_stars_optical.lst
We have to think which linelists to provide. For stellar parameters we have the Sousa 2007 and Tsantaki 2013 but they need to be calibrated for the specific model atmospheres. For that we need to decide which parameters are optimal in the ewfind.par. E.g. I think we should switch from damping 2 (Blackwell) to 1 (Barklem - more recent values).
We should do the same for the list of Adibekyan 2012.