@SchCal06aa; @HanCal09aa], with most efficient acoustic transmission occurring at small $\alpha$ in the generalized ray approximation. This also explains the drop-off of acoustic flux with increasing $\phi$. The slight shift in the maximum of acoustic flux away from $\phi=0$ is consistent with the 3 mHz case of @KhoCal11aa.

The magnetic flux also accords with previous (more idealized) modelling [@CalGoo08aa], peaking at higher $\theta$ than the acoustic flux (especially at 5 mHz), and at wave orientations of $60^\circ$ or more. The bias toward $\phi<90^\circ$ is in accord with the schematic scenario of Figure \[fig:Alfschem\] and the detailed cold plasma survey of @CalHan11aa. The corresponding downgoing Alfvén waves at $\phi>90^\circ$ are not registered by these figures. Strictly, there should be no Alfvénic flux at $\phi=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$ because in those 2D cases the fast and Alfvén waves decouple. However, the finite width of the ball filter in wavevector space, the incomplete separation of the fast and Alfvén waves at $z_f=1.2$ Mm, and other numerical inexactitudes result in weak magnetic fluxes at those orientations. Practical time step constraints preclude us from using a taller box and higher $z_f$, where fast-to-Alfvén conversion is more complete, or applying magnetic fields greater than 1 kG, without 