deletions | additions       diff --git a/IGW_are_generated_by.tex b/IGW_are_generated_by.tex  index 65d425b..e0bd7d4 100644  --- a/IGW_are_generated_by.tex  +++ b/IGW_are_generated_by.tex 
...
IGW are generated by convective regions and propagate into neighboring stably stratified regions, carrying energy and AM. To estimate energy and AM fluxes carried by IGW, we use techniques similar to those of F14, QS12, and SQ14. We begin by constructing a sequence of stellar models using the MESA stellar evolution code (Paxton et al. 2011,2013). In what follows, we focus on a $M=12 M_\odot$, $Z=0.02$ model that has been evolved to CC. Details on the model can be found in Appendix \ref{model}. For our purposes, the most important model outputs are the luminosity, local heat flux,  convective mach numbers, and life time of convectively burning zones. As in SQ14, we find these quantities correlate most strongly the helium core mass. Stellar models of larger mass or with more mixing (due to overshoot or rotation) tend to have a higher He core mass and may exhibit different wave dynamics than our fiducial model. Our main goal here is simply to provide a rough estimate of IGW AM fluxes for a typical low-mass ($M \lesssim 20 M_\odot$) NS progenitor star. For simplicity, we only focus on cases in which a convectively burning shell overlies the radiative core, irradiating it with IGW. A full understanding of the effects of IGW should also include the effects of IGW emitted during core convective phases, and the combined effects of IGW emitted by multiple convective shells. We focus on convective shell-generated IGWs because they are generated after core burning phases and thus have the final impact for a given burning phase. We use mixing length theory (MLT), as described in F14, to calculate IGW frequencies and fluxes. Our MLT calculations yield convective velocities and Mach numbers that tend to be a factor of a few smaller than those seen in simulations (e.g., \citealt{Meakin_2006,meakinb:07,Meakin_2007,Arnett_2008}). This could be due to the larger mass of their stellar model or the inadequacy of the MLT approximation. We proceed with our MLT results, but caution that realistic wave frequencies and fluxes may be a factor of a few larger than those presented here.