Re: Upgrades for SNe

From: Alex Kim (agkim@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:26:12 PST

  • Next message: Gerson Goldhaber: "Re: Upgrades for SNe"

    Gerson,

    Of these supernova, I had previously looked at 79 and 63 and thought
    they looked like crap. I am curious why you upgraded them.

    Alex

    Gerson Goldhaber wrote:
    > Hi all
    > I have taken another look at the priority 3 candidates.
    > Here are the results in order of increasing magnitude:
    >
    > name upgrade
    > 021 3 to 4 cand on large galaxy
    > 061 3 to 4 definite object but
    > AGN/variable star ?
    > 079 3 to 4 Cand on Medium Galaxy
    > 080 3 to 4 Cand on large Galaxy
    > 077 3 to 4 " " " "
    > 050 3 to 4 " " medium "
    > 063 3 to 4 " " small "
    > 004 3 to 4 cand on small galaxy
    > 068 3 to 4 AGN/variable star ?
    >
    > 025 downgrade 5 to 4 Alex is suspicious of the reference, I
    > would still keep as 4
    > 053 014 075 070 078 018 I would still leave as priority 3.
    >
    > The common thread of the upgrades is that a clear cut galaxy was
    > involved in each case,except for 2 possible
    > AGN's . I have implemented these changes on sntrak.
    > So there is more to look at! cheers
    > Gerson
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:26:29 PST