From: Mamoru Doi (doi@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 04:39:44 PST
Dear Andy,
Thank you very much for your new version,
and cleaning up the SN types.
I wrote replies to some of your questions below.
>- We may have to lose 005, 028, 059, 083, and possibly (61 and 21
>pending looks at the Keck spectra)
>unless someone finds evidence that they are SNe. I propose dropping
>them, and I will do that
>in the next draft unless someone has a reason to keep any of them.
These candidates (without having new evidence) should be moved
to the second set first to be checked if they meet the criteria for
the second set. If a candidate has LC points more than 4 and if the
SN position is off-center of the host, we should keep them in the
second set. We are going to claim that the candidates in the second
set are probable SNe.
>- Can someone give me LC points for the second set of SNe without
>spectra? What should we
>say about these?
Though I don't have time to find out the best expressions,
we should say something like the following.
"We also report probable ** SNe. They are not AGNs since they are
either off-centered of the host or hostless.
Follow-up photometry of these possible SNe was carried out with
Suprime-Cam at least 4 epochs among 7 (Nov.3,6,10,28,30,Dec.7,8),
and light curves are all consistent with SNe."
(We expect the second set will be divided into a different IAUC
by the editor.)
>- I took off the date category, since they were all the same. If that
>information was correct,
>someone should add it to the text. I didn't really follow that part of
>the discussion today
>at the teleconference, so someone on the Subaru side will have to
>address this.
I think we had better keep this column for the convenience of the IAUC editor,
since that format is from IAUC, when more than several SNe are found in
one set. (I don't think we should explain too much details such as averaged
dates are happened to be the same by 0.1 of a day.)
>- The original draft said: "The magnitude increase of the SNe compared
>with the images in the
>reference are given in the table below (photometric accuracy 0.1-0.2mag)."
>I don't think we need to say this explicitly because people will
>understand that we are
>reporting discovery magnitudes.
Maybe we can remove this part. But please note that the magnitudes here are
just difference from the reference, where significant SN components
could be already there. For nearby SNe, we can directly measure total
magnitude.
Also we were usually asked the photometric accuracy. At least we had better
keep that information.
Best regards,
-Mamoru
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 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 04:40:54 PST