From: Lifan Wang (lifan@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 06:49:02 PDT
> From robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu Thu May 30 14:46:48 2002
> X-Authentication-Warning: brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu: rknop set sender to robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu using -f
> To: Lifan Wang <lifan@panisse.lbl.gov>
> Cc: DAHowell@lbl.gov, deepnews@lbl.gov
> Subject: Re: WIYN List for May 31 (updated -- version 2.0)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
>
> > I think z = 0.2 can be very useful, especially if we can have some
> > color information. We got a spectrum so we sort of know the stretch
> > already. It would be nice to have both rest frame B & V at around
> > this epoch.
>
> ...I wouldn't count on the stretch from the spectrum. We've already got
> R (rest V) at several epochs, so a couple of more points will give us a
> good lightcurve stretch. We should get V and R instead of R and I (what
> I have on the list now), since V will be rest B.
Maybe we would not count on the stretch from the spectrum for now,
but how many good spectrum do we have for SNe above z > 0.1 ? A spectrum
tells a lot about the property of an SN, such as evolution, extinction,
K-correction, and stretch. We just don't have enough good spectra to make
meaningful study.
I agree with Rob that z = 0.2 is an important redshift
range. I also believe this is the range we can get spectra with all
the familiar spectral features which can be more useful than just type
classifications and redshift determinations for SNe at z > 0.7.
-Lifan
>
> -Rob
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:12:44 PDT