From: Naoki Yasuda (yasuda@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2004 - 08:48:25 PDT
Dear Gerson,
> We are comparing two independent methods. The errors here
> (the last two columns) are probably underestimated. Let us
> tell you our latest results when we reach reliable ones
> (in early next week?).
Tomoki and I have analysed the data independently and compared the results.
Results are at http://homepage3.nifty.com/yasudank/index.html (mine) and
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tmorokuma/study/SN/lc/all/ (Tomoki's).
Some candidates show 10% difference between our results (my values are fainter)
but we cannot find out the cause of this difference yet.
The main improvements of my analysis since last March version are
(1) Aperture corrections between different dates are correctly measured.
(2) Errors of flux are measured as rms of the values of the same
aperture at blank sky.
These improvements resolve some of the problems you raised (not all).
> 2. As I mentioned before, I question the calibration on Julian day
> 52616. Data taken on this day is high in normalized flux, with respect
> to all other dates. This was noticeable in SNe : SuF02-000, -004, -012,
> -019, -057, -081. The correction factor needed to bring these point in
> agreement with the other data points is about 0.7 in flux.
> 3. Other SNe with some apparently inconsistent points are: SuF02-007,
> -017, -034, -065, -071, -082
Regards,
Naoki
--- Naoki Yasuda @ Institute for Cosmic Ray Research e-mail: yasuda@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 19 2004 - 08:50:32 PDT