From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 10:32:38 PDT
Peter Nugent wrote:
>
> Peter who? Not this Peter, since the only 91T's I've seen are quite
> extinguished. I've looked at 5 of them and they were all effected by
> dust, 91T is one of the ones LEAST effected by dust of this class...
> Given that the spectrum is flux calibrated it sort of lies right on the
> unextingushed 91T spectrum I have at -7 days. It is 1.0 mag fainter at
> this epoch than 91T would be at this z. I wouldn't bother with more obs,
> other than the rolling photometry, unless we have time to kill.
>
Sorry, Peter, I didn't mean to misquote you! -- I was thinking of your
pointing out that 91T has less extinction and therefore we can't *assume* that
all 91T-like SNe have lots of extinction.
I guess the good news is that we don't have to make too many decisions about
this SN at this time, since we get the lightcurve in the rolling photometry
(assuming the weather ever clears up). The only question we might think
about is whether it's possible that we are seeing a 91T-like SN that is
intrinsically one magnitude fainter than expected. If we end up with some
spectroscopy time available (or some bad-seeing conditions that only allows us
to go for something this bright) would we be able to distinguish this
hypothesis from the SN Ib/c hypothesis by seeing the spectrum 10 days later
(observer's frame)? What about with more blue coverage?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 07 2002 - 10:29:27 PDT