deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsubsection_Bispectrum_Bicoherence_SSRO_no__.tex b/subsubsection_Bispectrum_Bicoherence_SSRO_no__.tex  index bc34e04..0034577 100644  --- a/subsubsection_Bispectrum_Bicoherence_SSRO_no__.tex  +++ b/subsubsection_Bispectrum_Bicoherence_SSRO_no__.tex 
...
Figure 8 depicts the bicoherence matrices for outputs W1T2t0.2 and T2t0. The bicoherence matrix of W1T2t0.2 exhibits a clear signal on the diagonal; this is the trivial case of $k_1=k_2$. However, it exhibits little correlation elsewhere. In contrast, bicoherence maxtrix of T2t0 shows enhanced correlation for large wavenumbers (small scales). In general it contains a significant fraction of pixels above 0.5, i.e., there is fairly widespread correlation. If magnetic waves enhance correlation across scales, the wind shells may break up the volume and, thus, reduce correlation. Although shell expansion may perturb the magnetic field and excite magnetosonic waves, it is difficult to see any direct evidence of this against the initial turbulence (OA14). The comparison of the two bicohence matricies in fact seems to suggest that the shells reduce correlation perhaps by disrupting the propagation of MHD waves.  \citep{burkhart10} \citet{burkhart10}  compute the bispectrum of HI maps of the SMC. They found that the maps of HI column density exhibit more correlation compared to a turbulent Gaussian random field. They also discovered a break around $\sim 160$ parsecs, where the correlation decreases, an signature which they attribute to expanding shells. \citep{burkhart10} \citet{burkhart10}  also demonstrate that correlation is much higher for super-Alfvenic turbulence ($\mathcal{M}_A =\sqrt{12\pi \rho} \sigma/B> 1$). The Alfven Mach numbers of our outputs range from $\sim 1-5.5$. Since the velocity dispersion, and hence the Alfvenic Mach number, increases for the strong feedback case, we would a priori expect {\it more} correlation. However, we see the opposite. This supports the conclusion that the shells suppress the free propagation of MHD waves and reduce scale coupling. %Burhart 2010: For a fixed MA, supersonic models show a higher degree of wave–wave correlations over subsonic models. For a fixed Ms, models with a higher magnetic field (sub-Alfvénic, e.g., = 0.7) show somewhat stronger correlations than the models with a weaker magnetic field (super-Alfvénic) although this difference is not striking.