[mmaimcal] table correction

[Bryan Butler]

all,

i had a bug in my program which calculated flux density vs. z & J.
harvey caught it right away...  this bug _does not_ affect the
numbers for max z vs. transition given number of antennas and antenna
diameter (i.e., doesn't affect the generic relationship between
array area & z_max) because those came out of a different program.

anyway, the proper text + tables should have read:

where fCO'cold and fCO'hot are interpolated from harvey's calculated
numbers.  then, choosing fcold, you can simply calculate the expected 
flux density as a function of transition and z.  for fcold = 0.9, which
might be a good number for the milky way, this comes out as:
 
      z=.2        1        2        3        4        5
1-0    1.126    0.050    0.014    0.006    0.004    0.003
2-1    4.380    0.213    0.060    0.029    0.017    0.012
3-2    7.242    0.380    0.115    0.058    0.036    0.025
4-3    8.294    0.452    0.148    0.079    0.051    0.036
5-4   10.771    0.569    0.180    0.096    0.062    0.045
6-5   14.675    0.759    0.236    0.124    0.079    0.055
7-6   16.999    0.902    0.286    0.151    0.097    0.068
8-7   17.611    0.937    0.301    0.161    0.105    0.075
 
for fcold = 0.0, and L'co = 5e9 (maybe a more typical ULIRG?), you get:
 
      z=.2        1        2        3        4        5
1-0   11.560    0.583    0.174    0.087    0.053    0.036
2-1   61.353    3.152    0.952    0.478    0.294    0.200
3-2  130.864    6.823    2.086    1.058    0.652    0.446
4-3  216.661   11.404    3.535    1.810    1.125    0.773
5-4  313.494   16.587    5.203    2.693    1.686    1.166
6-5  414.122   21.970    6.957    3.639    2.299    1.601
7-6  503.514   26.750    8.533    4.508    2.876    2.018
8-7  527.544   28.059    9.022    4.832    3.132    2.234


this last table has entries which seem a bit high, so maybe i don't
have the right combination of region types for the excitation 
model...

	-bryan