Note difference between "SuF02-002" and "Su02F-002"... Re: Gemini tomorrow

From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:00:11 PST

  • Next message: Mamoru Doi: "Candidate List"

    Hi Mamoru, I'm logging in right now from a slow phone line so I can't look
    the finding charts to see the problem, _but_ this sounds like it may be due
    to a small mistake we made here with the names of the first few supernova
    candidates: In particular, "SuF02-..." is _not_ the same as "Su02F-...",
    and the very first chart on the web page is a supernova accidently named
    "Su02F-002" (which is _not_ the same supernova candidate as SuF02-002). We
    saw this problem last night and are trying to fix it by renaming Su02F-002 to
    a new SuF... name, but this has not yet been completed.

    If you look further down the web page, you will find the true SuF02-002
    finding chart, which _should_ have the correct coordinates, or else all there
    is some other problem that we will have to check!

    Sorry for not warning everybody about this confusion! --Saul

    Mamoru Doi wrote:

    > Hi Rob,
    >
    > We are talking about possible confusion of PS files
    > for the finding chart of SuF02-002.
    >
    > The position of SuF02-002 given in the list of SNTrack is
    > (02:17:12.3 -04:55:09.5) (2000)
    > We also found a candidate at this position. But we noticed
    > that this area doesn't match the finding chart for SuF02-002.
    >
    > The finding chart of SuF02-002 show the image cutout for a
    > different object. In the finding chart, the position for
    > SuF02-060 in the list of SNT (2:17:34.48, -04:53:47.35) (2000)
    > is given.
    >
    > -Mamoru
    >
    > >On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:37:03PM +0900, Mamoru Doi wrote:
    > >> One thing we noticed during our comparison is that
    > >> the finding chart for SuF02-002 is not for the coordinate
    > >> in the SN Track table. Could someone check this?
    > >
    > >How different are they?
    > >
    > >For our candidates, finding chart coordinates usually are to be better
    > >trusted, since the astrometry solution has been vetted and inspected.
    > >The offsets on the finding charts should be good to a fairly small
    > >fraction of an arcsecond (probably 0.2"?). However, I believe that this
    > >time around we were more careful about making usre we had "OK"
    > >photometry solutions in before doing the search, so the differences
    > >shouldn't be more than a couple of arcseconds.
    > >
    > >-Rob
    > >
    > >--
    > >--Prof. Robert Knop
    > > Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
    > > robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
    >
    > Mamoru Doi
    > Institute of Astronomy
    > School of Science
    > University of Tokyo
    > voice +81-422-34-5084
    > fax. +81-422-34-5041
    > doi@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 07:59:43 PST