deletions | additions       diff --git a/Using_the_midIR_inte.tex b/Using_the_midIR_inte.tex  index f20d316..96d396c 100644  --- a/Using_the_midIR_inte.tex  +++ b/Using_the_midIR_inte.tex 
...
\rho = \frac{M}{4/3 \pi R^3}  \end{equation*}  {\bf where R is the radius where infall has been detected, v$_{in}$ is the detected infall velocity and $\rho$ is the density of the infall gas}. If we use the GBT beamsize, adjusted for beamsize {\bf projected to}  the near kinematic distance, distance  for R, R {\bf (0.32 pc)},  then we calculate a mass infall rate of 7 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ M$_\odot$/yr. The dominant source of error in this calculation is likely due to the infall velocity. We estimate the uncertainty to be about a factor of 2. However, if we used a smaller value for R, as suggested by the small source size visible in the 8 $\mu$m GLIMPSE image, the mass infall rate would be proportionally smaller (by a factor of about 3). This result is consistent with massive or intermediate-mass star formation. For the infall analysis, we have assumed an optically thick line. An alternative interpretation of these three line-profiles is that they are caused by alignment of two clouds along the line-of-sight. Observing an optically-thin tracer, such as $^{34}$CS would distinguish between these interpretations since the infall-model would predict a single-peak whereas the two cloud model predicts a double-peak.