Re: CFHT march/april R & I data

From: Pierre Astier (pierre.astier@in2p3.fr)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 09:46:36 PDT

  • Next message: Andy Howell: "Re: CTIO search"

    On Wed, 1 May 2002, Ariel Goobar wrote:

    >
    > Hi Julien, Reynald and Pierre,
    > at the teleconference yesterday we concluded that a likely
    > scenario for next week is to do cross-telescope subtractions
    > CTIO-CFHT both in R and I. Rob therefore needs immediate
    > access to the CFHT references, primarily the april data.
    > Please, contact him urgentely, if you haven't done so already.
    >
    > At the same time, I'd like to insist on the benefit of having
    > both the R and I subtractions for the upcoming search.
    > Are you guys ready to add that info in the discovery tiles?

      We did that once for a shallow search (z=0.5) but unfortunately we did
    not get a single redshift. From what I can remember, R-I were widely
    spread, even with S/N better than 10 in both colors. I also remember
    having plotted the same kind of thing than your plot shows, and
    the correlation was not as great as the one you show. Your plot displays
     a sigma(R-I) of the order of 0.05 at z=0.5 where R-I is B-V restframe.
    Are you sure this makes sense? Or the error bars are not the spread, but
    something else?

    >
    > I added a figure 'R-I color for SNIa's vs z' in our Stockholm webpage
    > (http://www.physto.se/~snova/private/2002Arun/2002Arun.html)
    > that shows the R-I at the discovery epoch and the sharp correlation
    > with redshift, differing by about 1 mag between z=0.5 and z=1.

       The problem is that R is fainter by about 0.7 mags at z=0.9, The cfh12k
    limiting mags are similar in R and I, and R has 10mn when I has 30. I doubt that
    our faint candidates are even detected in R.

      Your plot shows a nice correlation, but if I add an optimistic
    0.3 mags (sigma) uncertainty on R-I (from the measurement), I doubt
    that we get a far better redshift guess than from the I brightness.

      Then there is a trivial issue: somebody has to take care of doing
    the actual work. Concerning the (very few) people under my control, I am
    totally sure that they have more important things to do to actually secure
    detections in I. This is of course doable, but it should have been
    anticipated.

    Cheers,

    Pierre.

    >
    > Cheers,
    > Ariel
    >
    >

    -- 
    

    ------------------- Pierre Astier , LPNHE, 4 place Jussieu F 75252 Paris Cedex 05 tel (33) 1 44 27 48 42 ---- fax (33) 1 44 27 46 38



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 02 2002 - 09:47:34 PDT