From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 13:41:39 PDT
Ariel,
Your plot is very helpful. I am glad you looked into this before the
search. I agree that we only need 4-5 SNe.
Have you done fits to the lightcurve with and without the May 31 WIYN
point? Does losing that night for a SN make the lightcurve useless? If
we get nothing on that night does that mean we should give up the
ground-based follow-up of CTIO SNe and do something else with the rest
of the time?
-Andy
Ariel Goobar wrote:
>Dear Deepnews,
>
>I have started to look into the photometry follow-up issue for
>potential z~0.5 SNe discovered at CTIO at fields other than the
>CFHT fields. In the Stockholm webpage, I have posted a ps-file
>with possible lightcurve scenarios (klick on
>"R&I lightcurves for CTIO discoveries around z=0.5").
>
>The strongest limitation is the poor sampling during the first
>3 weeks after max. We are very dependent on the WIYN time, especially
>the night of May 31. FORS2 and GMOS imaging are a good fall-back
>instruments in case teh TNG and WIYN time in june would be
>insufficient.
>
>Thus, considering the May 31 night as the bottleneck, the upper
>bound on the number of SNe we could follow is given by how many R & I
>data points we can get on that night (mag 23-23.5). According to the ETC
>at http://www.noao.edu/gateway/ccdtime/ it would take ~1 hour/SN.
>As the fields (+14 h, +5 deg) are within an airmass< 2 about 4.5 hours
>during that night. Thus it seems to me that 4-5 z~0.5 SNe could be a
>reasonable number to follow.
>
>Comments and suggestions are, as always, very welcome.
>
>Cheers,
> Ariel
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 02 2002 - 13:42:14 PDT