deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex b/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex  index 186925a..0be6493 100644  --- a/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Infall_Four_sources_N62__.tex 
...
\rho = \frac{M}{4/3 \pi R^3}  \end{equation}  If we use the GBT beamsize, adjusted for the near kinematic distance, for R, then we calculate a mass infall rate of 3 $\times$ 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). 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.   
...