All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Absorptive continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig2.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig3.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Absorptive continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig4.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig5.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. In this calculation equidistant wavelength grid with a spacing of $300\hbox {$\,$ km$\,$ s$^{-1}$ }$ was used.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig6.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Strong $(\chi _l/\chi _{\rm c}=100)$ scattering dominated $(\epsilon _l=10^{-4})$ line with an absorptive background continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0473fig7.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Strong $(\chi _l/\chi _{\rm c}=100)$ scattering dominated $(\epsilon _l=10^{-4})$ line with a scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _c=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ , dashed line: $\zeta = 0.5$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H for the two discretizations with $\zeta = 0$ and $\zeta = 1$ . In addition, the dotted line shows the relative differences between calculations with $\zeta = 0.5$ and $\zeta = 0$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.5cm,clip]{0473fig8.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Example to illustrate the possibility of numerical instabilities in the $\zeta = 0$ discretization. The structure is taken from an type Ia supernova calculation, only Ca II lines are included in the opacity and the lines are assumed to be in complete LTE.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig9.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: The same structure as was used in Fig. 8, but with nebular (symmetry) boundary conditions.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig1.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Absorptive continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig2.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig3.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Absorptive continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig4.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. The + signs give the location of the actual wavelength points used in the computation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig5.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Scattering dominated continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=10^{-2}$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations. In this calculation equidistant wavelength grid with a spacing of $300\hbox {$\,$ km$\,$ s$^{-1}$ }$ was used.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig6.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Strong $(\chi _l/\chi _{\rm c}=100)$ scattering dominated $(\epsilon _l=10^{-4})$ line with an absorptive background continuum ( $\epsilon _{\rm c}=1$ ). Top part: CMF H in arbitrary units (full line: $\zeta = 0$ , dotted line: $\zeta = 1$ ), bottom part: relative differences between CMF H (full line) and CMF J (dotted line) for the two discretizations.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.5cm,clip]{0473fig8.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Example to illustrate the possibility of numerical instabilities in the $\zeta = 0$ discretization. The structure is taken from an type Ia supernova calculation, only Ca II lines are included in the opacity and the lines are assumed to be in complete LTE.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{0473fig9.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: The same structure as was used in Fig. 8, but with nebular (symmetry) boundary conditions.
Open with DEXTER