deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex b/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex  index d1e827e..6811c8f 100644  --- a/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex 
...
If we use the GBT beamsize, adjusted for the near kinematic distance, for R, then we calculate a mass infall rate of 2.9 $\times$ 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. This result is consistent with massive or intermediate-mass star formation. 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).   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.   N65-2, the other source which shows a non-gaussian line shape, is stronger on the red-shifted side. This shape is not consistent with the infall model of Myers et al. (1996). This shape could be caused by two unrelated clouds along the line of the sight. There is further evidence of this interpretation in the map of N65 (see discussion below).    
...