Because the results of Simien & Michard (1990), were derived
from photographs of relatively poor resolution, it was not found possible to
make significant comparisons with the present results: indeed the
observed 
, e4 and e6 parameters in our "old" paper
were obviously strongly affected by seeing for the two objects in common.
More significant comparisons are feasible for the Heidelberg results
(Scorza & Bender 1995). It is to be noted that their
assumptions are similar to ours, plus the one of constant , and
that their criteria for finding the solution are essentially equivalent to
our technique. We have three objects in common, i.e. NGC 3115, 3377 and
3585.
As an example, the comparison for NGC 3115 is shown in Fig. 2 (click here) for the MajA total and disk SuBr's (after an ad hoc correction to bring the data to a common magnitude scale). The disk profiles are in fair agreement, although their disk is chosen flatter. Note that we both use for the inner region the same CFHT frame obtained by Nieto in 1989.
The agreement is still better for NGC 3585, where our 
value is
constant and nearly equal to the one of Scorza and Bender.
On the other hand, the agreement is
much worse for NGC 3377, probably in view of the
relatively large difference in the values, the galaxy beeing more
inclined and the disk thinner in our model.
Figure 2: Comparison between the disk profile of NGC 3115 derived
by Scorza & Bender (1995) (open symbols) and our
results (full symbols). Total SuBr: squares; disk SuBr: stars
From our models it is possible to calculate the SuBr at the
tips of any MinA, induced by each component. The fractional SuBr, indeed
expressed in terms of the total and noted 
and 
,
can also be obtained: their sum should be close to 1, and one should have
near zero if our models are to support the assumption that the
MinA SuBr of the disk is negligible. Table 2 (click here) gives the calculated
for 6 galaxies treated with this assumption by Seifert &
Scorza (1996) plus NGC 3377. The values of the fractional disk SuBr
are given for the MinA of 9 bulge contours, specified by the values a of
their MajA in arcsec.
It appears from Table 2 (click here), that the Edge-on Very Thin Disk
assumption is valid for NGC 3377 and nearly so for NGC 3115. For the later
however, the structure termed "nuclear disk" by Scorza and Bender is not
very thin according to our solution, and therefore has some effect on the
MinA SuBr's. The assumption is in disagreement with our models for
disk dominated S0's, such as NGC 2549, 4350 (but in its outermost parts),
5308, 5422 and 3098 to a
lesser extent. As a consequence, part of the MinA light, actually coming
from the disk in our models, will be mistaken for bulge light in the
here discussed approximation: this will lead to overestimating the
bulge light and underestimating the disk.
The total and disk SuBr profiles found by Seifert & Scorza
(1996) for NGC 2549 and 4350 are compared with our results in
Fig. 3 (click here). The large and expected difference in the disk SuBr is
striking. Note however that some specific disk features of interest (rings
or "dubble disks") found in Seifert and Scorza treatment, are confirmed in
our solution as seen for instance in the case of NGC 2549.
Figure 3: Comparison between the disk profiles derived by Seifert
& Scorza (1996) (open symbols) and our results (full symbols) for
two S0 galaxies. Total SuBr: squares; disk SuBr: stars
| a | 3 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 |
| 2549 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.16 |
| 3098 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.05 | - | - | - |
| 3115 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.01 | - | - | - |
| 3377 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | - | - | - | - |
| 4350 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.01 |
| 5308 | 0.18 | 0.25 | 0.45 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.35 |
| 5422 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.27 |