From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 10:46:34 PDT
> 2) There is practically no information available to evaluate several of
> the unassigned candidates, like S02-069 and S02-081 (including no tiles
> on the web). If anyone can help figure out what the ranking of these
> should be that would be good.
Most of these are the new ones from yesterday; anything else has been
deemed to be extremely unlikely. I will try and go through and rate the
unrated Subaru supernovae. Indeed, that's what I had hoped to be doing
for most of the last two days, but somehow the search of SDFe fell
through the floor and I basically lost the last 24 hours to that.
For the SDF (not e or w) supernovae, there may not be much we can do. I
haven't tried to look at the 1'x1' cutouts, but while those might be
usable for the "FITS zoom" finder chart, that is not a big enough field
of view to match USNO stars for purposes of making a standard finder
chart.
Note that at the moment, I trust absolutely none of the S02-xxx
magnitudes which have come out of our IDL software. I will see if I can
do something about that today, but don't hold your breath. We *really*
should have gotten a Landolt field or two during one of the Subaru
runs. Yes, I know that the filter doesn't match the Landolt filter at
all, but at the moment we're shooting blindly in the dark without even a
good way of approximating what's going on. I believe that the
approximation Alex Conley has made is falling down flat on its face when
it comes to these recent summed images.
> 3) Are we missing some important candidates?
>
> 4) If anyone can perform some magic and get us back some I ~ 24.6 mag
> candidates in the CFHT fields that would help a lot, since then we can
> go for one of the z ~ 1.2 candidates that we want for HST -- and still
> be able to get its IR points with VLT/ISAAC.
Both of these are pretty unlikely at the moment. If you get what you're
asking for, you're probably going to get a lot of junk and bad
subtractions that are not worth wasting telescope time on.
> Unassigned Candidates
> =====================
> These are all LBL magnitudes, so I'm not sure how much (0.5mag or more) to
> subtract off these values:
>
> S02-066 Ugluk 3 26.12LBL 5.59 16%
This one I suspect is junk.
> The Bottom Of the Barrel
> ==========================
> These first two are important to rule out or rule in because they are
> in CFHT field (visible from VLT/ISAAC) and could be deep (especially the first
> one):
> C02-025 14:01:44.4 +05:21:21.4 3 24.4 5.26 40%
> C02-023 14:00:39.1 +04:52:20.1 3 23.9 7.32 28% (yuckish)
Both of these I find extremely unconvincing canddiates. I hesitate to
rule either of these in.
-Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 12 2002 - 10:46:54 PDT