From: clidman@eso.org
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 10:21:08 PDT
Hi Saul,
I made an error in the S/N calcualtions. The correct numbers are:
- S02-032, 31800 seconds, IQ=0.52, S/N=11
- S02-002, 12000 seconds IQ=0.46, S/N=7
The rest of the text remains the same.
Cheers, Chris.
clidman@eso.org wrote:
> Hi Saul,
> I provide a summary of what has been done with ISAAC to date.
>
> - S02-032, 31800 seconds, IQ=0.52, S/N=13
> - S02-002, 12000 seconds IQ=0.46, S/N=8
>
> I have assumed that both supernovae have J=24. In both images the S/N of the candidate
> is actually higher, which means that there is either host contamination, which is certainly
> true for S02-002, or that the SN is brighter than J=24.
>
> The S/N is computed from the nightly ZP, the sky noise in the combined image and is for an aperture
> with a diameter of 1 arc second.
>
> S02-002 was observed with Gemini as well. If the data is of similar quality, and I would expect that
> the Gemini data is deeper, since they probably use the classical J filter, then we might have enough on
> S02-002. It might also be a bit late for S02-002.
>
> ISAAC is in service until the 19th, which is a technical night. It is again in service from the 23rd onwards,
> but only for the first half of these nights
>
> There is 7.5 hours of ISAAC shutter time left. This could be used for:
>
> - the z=0.912 supernova.
> - a z=0.55 supernova (I do not have any in mind). To be meaningful scientifically, we would need good ground based
> followup and one would like to do more than one supernova at this redshift.
> - go deeper on the Beethoven reference (this would need 2 hours)
>
> It is not 100% clear to me if this time can be carried over to period 70. The OPC awarded the time for period 69, but since
> we have large program status, we may be able to carry over some time. I will ask ESO.
>
> Cheers, Chris.
>
> Saul Perlmutter wrote:
>
> > Hello Chris, I forgot to ask you about the current ISAAC time. Did
> > we get enough ISAAC signal-to-noise on the second z~1.1 SN from last
> > month, the one you did most recently? Or should we try to get another
> > 5 hours or so on it? I guess tonight is one of the options for this
> > and then we have a few more nights, before it would be to late? Also,
> > do we need to be scheduling this week's ISAAC time for any other
> > targets, if we decide not to do this high-redshift target?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 15 2002 - 22:14:13 PDT