deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 7bb0e78..eb4398e 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
In any case, Figure~\ref{fig:fit} shows that the model can explain the observed X-ray spectra. The best-fit values obtained for DG~Tau have a significantly higher velocity and lower mass loss rate than the fiducial model. The parameters for the fiducial model are chosen to match the flow velocities and mass loss rates that are observed in jets. Yet, the higher velocity and lower mass loss rate do not directly contradict those observations, because the pre-shock stellar wind extends only over a small area, so that it presumably contributes little to the luminosity in the optical emission lines compared to the inner disk wind. Consequently, the high velocity in the stellar wind is not directly observable. We also note that in the fit we varied only the normalization of the external pressure, but not the spatial profile. Different profiles lead to different shock-front shapes and shock velocities and thus require an adjustment of $v_\infty$ and $\dot M$ to fit the X-ray data. However, the pressure profile caused by the disk wind and disk magnetic field is not very well constrained. Thus, the accuracy of the fitted numbers is not so much limited by the statistical uncertainty given in table~\ref{tab:fiducial}, but by the systematics of the model. The best-fit values should not be taken at face value, but they demonstrate that a recollimation shock is one possible explanation for the observed X-ray emission.   The idea of a recollimation shock is not new.  \citet{1993ApJ...409..748G} discussed a similar idea as we do here, where they aim to explain the forbidden optical emission lines seen from CTTS with a shock due to the recollimation of the jet outflow. In contrast to our model, they attribute it to the shocked disk wind, not the stellar wind. However, a shocked disk wind cannot supply the high shock velocities to explain the resolved X-ray and \ion{C}{4} emission that we now see. Our model, a shocked stellar wind, is collimated because it is embedded into a strong disk wind. We expect that the low-temperature emission from the stellar wind is small compared to the low-temperature emission from the surrounding disk wind. Only for high temperatures (X-ray and FUV emission), the stellar wind will dominate because it is much  faster. Our work is complementary to the simulations of \citet{2010A&A...517A..68B,2010A&A...511A..42B,2011ApJ...737...54B}, which explore jet launching conditions that lead to emission at several hundred AUs from the central star -- about an order of magnitude further along the jet than the scenario we discuss here. \citet{2009A&A...502..217M,2012A&A...545A..53M} also perform numerical simulations of a jet confined by a disk wind. Their simulations again deal with larger distances from the central star and they concentrate on knots in the jet. Yet, their bubbles of shock heated gas have very similar shapes compared with our results in Figure~\ref{fig:result}. This indicates that this form is robust and that our results would probably hold in numerical simulations, too.