From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 10:17:14 PST
Matching coordinates it looks like Su02F_002 has
been refound and is called SuF02-060 in SNTrak.
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> 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 - 10:17:30 PST