deletions | additions       diff --git a/mass loss rates.tex b/mass loss rates.tex  index fe09c07..fede889 100644  --- a/mass loss rates.tex  +++ b/mass loss rates.tex 
...
The measured mass loss rates in the outflows from CTTS vary widely between objects. Even for a single object, very different mass loss rates can be found, depending on the spectral tracers chosen and on the assumptions used to calculate mass loss rates from line fluxes. The filling factor that describes the fraction of the observed volume occupied by hot gas is especially uncertain because the innermost jet component is generally not resolved.  Typical mass loss rates found in the literature for CTTS outflows are in the range $10^{-10}-10^{-6}M_{\odot}\textrm{ yr}^{-1}$ \citep{1999A&A...342..717B,2006A&A...456..189P}. For example, \citet{2006ApJ...646..319E} measure values down to $10^{-10}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ for some CTTS, but only upper limits for weak-line T Tauri stars (or WTTS). In the specific case of DG~Tau \citet{1997A&A...327..671L} calculate the mass loss rate as $6.5\cdot 10^{-6}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$; \citet{1995ApJ...452..736H}  obtain $3\cdot 10^{-7}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ and, further out in the jet, \citet{2000A&A...356L..41L} find $1.4\cdot 10^{-8}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$. Those measurements for the optical jet are probably dominated by the disk wind \citep[e.g.][]{2014arXiv1404.0728W} and unlikely to  track the stellar mass loss correctly. Paper~I shows that a mass loss below $10^{-10}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ is sufficient to explain the X-ray emission from the jet as shock heating.  We use $10^{-8}$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ as fiducial stellar mass loss in the remainder of the article. This is only a fraction to the total mass loss of the system and the disk wind, though slower, operates over a much larger area dominates the system's mass loss in our scenario.