From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 17:29:22 PST
Ok, I have added SuF02-056 from Gemini, added -017 from VLT, fixed my
broken links,
and made sure that every SN (except 028, which is worthless) has a
postscript comparison
from either me or Lifan.
Can someone *please* send me the data for -071. I don't know what to
think about it without
seeing the data. I also still need the data from the last night of
Keck. None of these things were in
the data Lifan sent.
Now my thoughts on Saul's suggestions. I pretty much agree with Peter.
071: I don't like this one because Lifan's fits match at z=0.9, not at
z=0.928 where the galaxy lines
are. His fits close to 0.93 are very bad. See #21-24 on:
http://panisse.lbl.gov/collab/data/spec/homesp/2002/SuF/Calesi2040l_50Asmooth.ps
060: a very bad candidate from the spectrum. The wiggles match at
z=0.8 as well as at z=1, and
neither is particularly convincing. We don't know whether it is a Ia or
even the redshift
for certain. If it really is an Elliptical galaxy though, that could
put this one over the top..
065: Also not convincing, but I think it is slightly better than 071 or
060.
017: If the Si that Peter is talking about is not a smoothing artifact,
then this one is a good candidate.
007: Uncertain redshift, uncertain ID. Hard to justify it.
012: Again, uncertain redshift, uncertain ID.
061: haven't seen the data, but it seems like there must be no SN light
there.
-Andy
Peter Nugent wrote:
>>As you will see on the attached summary chart, our current best bets for
>>HST include:
>>071, 060, 065 -- likely options
>>007, 081, 012 -- still in the game
>>061 -- still being observed, if possible
>>
>>
>
>Here are my comments on the above, clearly some of the folks were up on
>the mountain too long making the reviews.
>
>My ordering of the top three high-z candidates are as follows:
>
>017 - This one has a good Keck Spectrum of a SN Ia all by itself. Redshift
>looks to be ~1.0 and one can even see the Si line. It is good to go for
>all HST observations and the grism wouldn't present any problems.
>
>071 - This one has an ok spectrum of a clear SN (but sub-type is a little
>shaky). The z is from the host at 0.928. It is good for all HST
>observations and the grism will work as the bright objects miss it with
>it's specified orientations.
>
>065 - Like above, ok spectrum and a z from host of 1.18. It is good for
>all HST observations but the grism still needs to be checked out for its
>PA as there may be bright nearby galaxies running all over it.
>
>Here is the next tier:
>
>060 - This one has shown no signs of SN in the spectrum but it does look
>like a nice Elliptical galaxy at a z = 1.062. All HST observations work
>for it and the grism would be ok since the nearby bright objects miss it
>given it's orientation. Since it is a Elliptical I would be willing to
>take a chance on it.
>
>
>The last tier, and in my opinion not worthy of following unless we get
>more data.
>
>081 - Redshift uncertain, SN spectrum very questionable (as even in their
>hope of matching it to z=1.5 still misses a big feature). It also misses
>the first Nic observation, though it looks like if we push the orientation
>to the far side of what's allowed it should work. We will ask Ray Lucas
>about this shortly. Grism observations can not work on this one as it is
>too faint.
>
>007 - No certain redshift and no SN spectrum. Conflicting reports of
>everything on this one. Works for HST observations but why do it???
>
>012 - Once again no certain redshift and no SN signal. It works for the
>HST observations but would be too faint for the grism.
>
>061 - Galaxy only, questionable redshift from one line, no SN. Works for
>HST observations and the grism.
>
>Of course there are a few lower z SNe at z~0.6 that are clear but would
>not fit the purpose of our high-z campaign.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Peter (reality) Nugent
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 17:29:21 PST