From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 07:49:33 PDT
See http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~sne/AllNews/ for the six (really five)
candidates CFHT found which CTIO didn't find on their cross-telescope
subtractions.
Summary: two were in the CTIO cross-telescope subtractions with a very
high sigma, but with too low %INC to be caught by our scans. One was
off of the edge of the CTIO search field.
The remaining two were previously known candidates; one *was* found by
CTIO, but not remarked since it was existing C02-016/VotezChirez. The
other seems to have not increased between Apr12 and May8 according to
the French data (if I read it right), so it's unsurprising that we
didn't find it.
I will send more information about the CTIO-found candidates later, as I
have time to digest them.
Details:
(1) Prolix, RA 14:00:29.7 Dec 04:46:50.5
This one only had a 12% increase in the CTIO cross-telescope
subtractions. This is lower than the %INC listed by Julian, because
they had much better seeing: the host is very bright, so the worse
seeing meant bigger aperture, thus more host light in the aperture,
thus lower %INC. 12%INC was below our cuts. (This was found at
32sigma on the x-telescope subtraction.)
==> This has been saved as C02-028 (Prolix)
(2) Bizare20/Comix RA 14:01:53.1 Dec 04:54:26.9
Same story, although here the %INC was 14.9 so *barely* missed passing
our %INC cut of 15%. Ap.Sig. is 15.3 in the x-telescope subtraction.
==> This has been saved as C02-029 (comix)
(3) Agecanonix RA 14:01:55.2 04:53:55.7
This one is 12" away from the quoted coordinate of
C02-010/Bibchonabix, previously found by Julian and Seb. Looking at
the two "I detection" plots on the Frogs' search web page, it is
clearly the same candidate.
I see nothing here in our cross-telescope subtractions; there is no
residual spot that I can find to identify with this candidate. I
believe I have identified the location of the host galaxy. Looking at
the "I detection" plots that Julian pointed to, this guy was fading
through May 3! If the "Mag" is to be believed, it's still fading on
May 8. I'm not sure I understand why this was found on the May 8
subtraction.
I'm not completely sure how to read the "I detection" plots; what are
each of these subtracted from? Note that the magnitude in Apr 12 and
May 8 is the same. Those are the dates we subtracted for our search,
so it's unsurpsing that we didn't find this.
(4) Troudux RA 14:02:18.4 04:47:05.9
We did not find this because it was (barely) off of the edge of the
CTIO search field. Refer to
http://panisse.lbl.gov/followup/charts/spring_2002/ctio_on_cfht.ps
The CFHT fields D1 and D4 are in red; the CTIO fields H1 and H4 are in
green. Chip 5 (where this guy is) is what I label chip f on the
diagram. Note that most of chip f sticks out beyond the left edge of
the CTIO search fields.
(5) Amerix RA 14:00:46.4 Dec 04:33:41.4
This is the same as C02-016/VotezChirez. We *did* find it on our
cross-telescope subtraction, but didn't report it as a new candidate
since it already existed! (For what it's worth, I originally saved it
before realizing it was an existing candidate.)
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 09 2002 - 07:49:55 PDT