deletions | additions       diff --git a/In_fact_implicit_in_the__.tex b/In_fact_implicit_in_the__.tex  deleted file mode 100644  index 18cc969..0000000  --- a/In_fact_implicit_in_the__.tex  +++ /dev/null 
...
In fact, implicit in the formulation described here is the idea that the detection scheme used to recover devils is 100\% efficient and any devil encounter with the right geometry will be recovered from the data stream. However, any real detection scheme will have biases and thereby miss some dust devils or skew the recovered profile parameters. In the case of the detection scheme from \citet{Ellehoj_2010}, the choice of 20-s windows means dust devil signals significantly wider than 20-s will not register (in fact, none wider than 70-s are reported). Since it involves smoothing data over 1,000 s windows, the detection scheme from \citet{Jackson_2015} will likewise fail to recover devils as wide or wider than that.   The inefficiency of the detection scheme can be incorporated directly into our formulation here, though. Instead of recovering the actual underlying distribution of devil parameters, applying Equations \ref{eqn:n-Pact_from_n-Pobs} and \ref{eqn:n-Gammaact_from_n-Gammaobs} will recover those distributions, moderated by the biases of the detection scheme -- $n_{\rm biased} (P_{\rm act})$ and $n_{\rm biased} (\Gamma_{\rm act})$. Taking the next step and converting these distributions into distributions of the actual parameters requires a detailed knowledge of the detection scheme biases, and we discuss how to develop this knowledge in Section \ref{sec:discussion_and_conclusions}.      diff --git a/layout.md b/layout.md  index 3c97f3f..7168df1 100644  --- a/layout.md  +++ b/layout.md 
...
figures/Ellehoj_data_to_actual_dist/Ellehoj_data_obs_to_actual_dist.png  As_another_recent_example_citet__.tex  figures/Jackson_data/Jackson_data_obs_to_act_dist.png  In_fact_implicit_in_the__.tex  section_Discussion_and_Conclusions_label__.tex  section_Acknowledgements__.tex