From: Peter Nugent (nugent@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 08:15:46 PDT
Whoops, my bad. I was talking about 988. Switching between numbers and
IAUC's causes confusion.
I think And'y fit to a Ia is fairly convincing. A whole bunch of the
features do match up. Compared to the Type II he has compared it with a
Ia at z = 0.5 is definitely a winner. Also I think SiII (twice) and SII
can be seen.
And BTW the only reason Andy tried to fit 98ax with a type II for me was
also caused by this IAUC-number screw-up as well. I wanted him to try it
for the one that looked like a IIP (988-98bb) not this one. That is why
this was even done. But hey, Andy is quite a sceptic and he believes it
is a Ia after me telling him the lightcurve looked like a II. Given all
that I think we can safely say it is a Ia.
BTW Andy could you run the cmparison for 98bb-988 and a Type II?
Lifan you should look at the original discovery image and see (roughly)
how much host you could expect as a constraint on your fits. BTW it was a
1000% increase so it is all Ia, which matches your best fit for it being
100% supernova at a z~0.5.
You can breath easy Rob....
Cheers,
Peter
-- Peter E. Nugent Staff Computational Scientist - Scientific Computing Group - NERSC Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory M.S. 50F-1650 - 1 Cyclotron Road - Berkeley, CA, 94720-8139 Phone:(510) 486-6942 - Fax:(510) 486-5812 E-mail: penugent@LBL.gov - Web: http://supernova.LBL.gov/~nugent
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 19 2003 - 08:16:07 PDT