deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 51e4e7d..aaca89b 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
\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. At the time, the high-temperature emission from CTTS jets was not known and that seems to be a natural choice to keep the shock velocity low. 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. On the other hand, it is possible that our model, a shocked stellar wind, will also produce some fraction of the optical line emission.  Remember that our stellar wind is collimated because it is embedded into a strong disk wind, so 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 and our model provides a mechanism to explain this emission with a stationary shock front, while disk wind models often require unrealistically high launching velocities to reach X-ray emitting temperatures in oblique shocks. The price we pay is the requirement for stellar mass loss rates orders of magnitude above those of main-sequence stars.  There \citet{http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..843B} discuss other scenarios, that could lead to the generation of quasi-stationary X-ray emission close to the driving source. These authors studied \object{L1551 IRS5}, which is a binary object, and suggest interactions between jet and infalling envelope or between the jets from both sources. In contrast, our model can explain the emission from single objects and it predicts the fastest jet shocks on the jet axis, where they are seen for DG~Tau \citep{http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A%26A...550L...1S}. Our work is complementary the simulations of \citet{http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A%26A...511A..42B,http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A%26A...517A..68B,http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...54B}, which explore jet launching conditions that lead to emission at several hundred AU from the central star -- about an order of magnitude further along the jet than the scenario we discuss here.  In our model, there  is too much parameter degeneracy to turn the argument around and derive $\dot M$ and $v_\infty$ from the fact that we observe X-ray and FUV emission a few tens of AUs from the star, but our models requires a certain range of external pressures $P(z)$. Too high pressures push the shock front back to the jet axis very close to the star and too low pressures cannot confine the shock region within a few tens of AU.