From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 06:34:16 PDT
> > #3 C02-033 Philantropix 14:01:43.8 +05:14:52.1 24.80
> > #4 C02-015 Alambix 14:01:29.8 +05:14:20.8 24.40 ** THIS ONE IS NO LONGER ON CFHT SN web page?? **
> Rob was concerned about how much time we could afford for these faint
> ones, but could we get a useful data point with errors comparable to the
> rolling search points - which are also short exposures? (But then, WIYN
> is only 3.5m and the moon is getting bright.) If the lightcurves are
> good, we will get good final refs at VLT - see Chris's e-mail.
Yes, it is true that lower lightcurve points don't themselves have to
have high S/N to be useful, but can be useful with N comparable to
points halfway up the lightcurve with a good S/N ratio.
However, if we don't have spectra of these guys now, they are dim enough
that it is going to be impossible ever to get a spectrum of them which
gives us any SN light. Yes, we can get a host redshift, and if the
lightcurves are particularly good maybe that's worth it, but we do have
to bear in mind that we probably cannot get a SN spectrum of these any
more.
What's more, looking at the Philantropix lightcurve on the web, it came
up to magnitude 25 and stayed there 20 days; perhaps it peaked in
between, but even if so, this is a very dim candidate, *not* a moderate
redshfit one which would benefit from 1h of WIYN time. Note also the
very low %INC; I'm skeptical that this is a SN at all.
-Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:12:44 PDT