### Table 6. Flux reduction due to geometric characteristic of ridges.

"... In PAGE 9: ... The simulations show that the geometric effect (as/ar) re- duces wind erosion horizontal fluxes by at least 94% (94 to 98.5%, depending on ridge configurations) which means that the horizontal fluxes over the ridged surfaces are reduced by a factor of 17 to 68 compared to those over the smooth surface ( Table6 ). This suggests that the geometric effect is probably the dominant process in limiting wind erosion over ridged surfaces mainly by the trapping of saltating grains in the inter-ridge areas and perhaps by the reduction of the sur- face exposed to wind erosion resulting from the shape of the ridges.... ..."

### Table 4. IS0 CAM Fluxes of CLO SS Pairs Sample

"... In PAGE 6: ... 15 and 9.7pm flux densities are given for the sources in Table4 . The f15pm/f9.... In PAGE 6: ... Their LW3 (15pm) map clearly resolves the overlap starburst (Source C) from the nucleus of NGC 3690. The f15pm/f9,7pm ratio map is generally smooth with values close to the ratio of the integrated fluxes (f15pm/f9,7pm = 2: Table4 ) across most of the disks. The nucleus of IC 694 (Source A in Gehrz et al.... In PAGE 8: ... Keel (1993) suggests that NGC 7253a is undergoing a direct (prograde) encounter. Given that NGC 7253a also dominates the MIR emission of the pair ( Table4 ), it is likely to be the more disturbed component that ... ..."

### Table 1 The expected flux of hadrons with energies greater than 20 MeV for different positions in the SCT, during high luminosity LHC operation.

"... In PAGE 5: ... As discussed in Section 3 the dominant contributions to the SEU rates are expected to be from high energy hadrons. The fluxes of hadrons with kinetic energies greater than 20 MeV in the barrel SCT are summarised in Table1 below[1]. The fluxes expected for the forward SCT are in the same range.... In PAGE 5: ... The flux of MIPs used was 4.3 107 cm-2 s-1, which is a factor of over 20 higher than the highest flux expected for the SCT (see Table1... ..."

### Table 3 Data for the different beams used at PSI.

"... In PAGE 8: ... The statistical error on the flux measurements with the scintillation counter was negligible in comparison to the systematic error. The beam momenta, flux and dominant particle composition for the different runs, are given in Table3 below. Table 3 Data for the different beams used at PSI.... ..."

### Table 1: The differences (4) between two analyses of the quantity [v 2][q]2 at 850 mb di- vided by the average of the two corresponding analyses ( ) of the individual components 4([v 2][q]2)

"... In PAGE 21: ...p the dominant term in the flux variance (first term on RHS of Eq. (5)). The differences in the variance of the moisture flux clearly reflect the differences in the variances of the boundary layer winds, though the wetter ECMWF moisture profile contributes substantially to the differences at 850 mb and above. Table1 quantifies the relative contributions to the flux discrepancies at 850 mb which is the lowest level at which all three centers provide data. This shows a distinct difference between the reanalysis and operational products for the Great Plains such that wind discrepancies dominate the reanalysis differences, while both wind and moisture discrepancies are important for the differences with the operational product.... ..."

### Table 3. Flux of UV emission lines detected in the IUE D1 spectrum.

"... In PAGE 9: ...ig. 6. Normalized ux (I=IH ) of selected emission lines along the PD4 slit. The abscissa is the same of Fig. 4 and 5. uxes of the detected lines, dereddened using E(B ?V ) = 0:032, have been measured by integrating the ux over a constant wavelength range of 10 A and subtracting the nearby continuum. In Table3 , we report the results in terms of absolute ux and ux relative to H = 100. The H ux has been computed summing the ux in the 4 spatial bins of the slit PD4 which fall inside the IUE large aperture (Fig.... In PAGE 14: ....40, 6.30. We can constrain the local density and the shock ve- locity using the results of the spectral analysis of the Fil- ament D X-ray emission ( Table3 in Paper I). In fact, the ram pressure which \drives quot; the highly supersonic shock of the Vela SNR could be derived from the relation P = 0v2 s , where 0 is the pre-shock density in g cm?3 and vs is the shock velocity of the X1 component which dominates the X-ray emission in the FilD region.... In PAGE 14: ... Since the pre- shock average plasma density is n0 = 0:22 cm?3 (cf. with the post-shock X1 value in Table3 of Paper I), we have P = 2:8 10?10 dyne cm?2. If we assume that the op- tical and UV emission originates from the deceleration of the shock which has encountered a dense region, as dis- cussed in the previous sections, then we expect that the ram pressure remains constant, as suggested by McKee amp; Cowie (1975).... ..."

### TABLE 3 SOURCE FLUXES

### Table 1 H Flux

"... In PAGE 4: ...the density required at the stellar surface to match the observed relative strength of H is approximately a factor of 3 lower for both Cas and 1 Del. The results are presented in column 5 in Table1 for Cas and 1 Del, both of which have self-consistently determined envelope temperatures. For comparison, typical observed values of H luminosities range from approximately 1034erg s?1 for early type Be stars to 1032erg s?1 for late type Be stars (Ashok et al, 1984).... In PAGE 4: ... See Millar amp; Marlborough (1998) or Marlborough (1969) for additional details; Pesc corresponds to the cases to which these papers refer. Column 6 of Table1 contains results based on equation (2). Large changes in the H uxes are apparent with reductions to levels far below observation.... In PAGE 5: ... A proper estimate of the H ux includes both collisional excitation of H and optical depth e ects, and can be obtained by using the standard escape probability approximation for the ux divergence, F (H ) = h A32 Z Disk N3 Pesc dV ; (3) where N3 is the number density of level n = 3 and A32 is the H spontaneous radiative transition probability, 4:41x107 s?1. The results of this calculation are displayed in column 7 of Table1 . Note the large increase over Equation (2), even with the Pesc factor, to values which roughly agree with the observations of Ashok et al (1984).... In PAGE 5: ...24 x 1034 erg s?1, respectively with the di erence in the values discussed by Stee et al. Comparing our results in Table1 with these observations, we see that there is no clear case for an additional source of ionizing radiation in order to produce the observed H emission for our particular choice of model parameters for either Cas or 1 Del. The discrepancies between the Apparao apos;s work and our calculations are due to mainly to our realistic 2D geometry, and the inclusion of collisional excitation and optical depths in H .... ..."

### Table 5 Boundary Fluxes

"... In PAGE 20: ...lements 4-6, Figure 7. The analytical solution end uxes for (59) are exactly zero for any Re gt; 1. Any Lagrange basis solution prediction of these uxes will be totally erroneous due to the dispersive error propagation to the Dirichlet nodes. Table5 presents the S = 2 SGM WS solution for end point uxes, which agree to round-o with the analytical values. Burgers equation, non-linear stationary wave, d = 1 The nonlinear momentum variable form of (59) is the stationary viscous Burgers equation udu dx ? d dx 0 @ 1 Re dudx 1 A = 0 (63) The weak statement algorithm (6)-(10b) for solution of (63) is thereby iterative.... ..."