Re: revised agenda for extended SCP-exec meeting

From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 12:53:26 PST

  • Next message: Chris Lidman: "Re: revised agenda for extended SCP-exec meeting"

    Dear All,
      I think that Rob and Eric have raised as issue that needs to be
    discussed on Tuesday.

      I attach the most recent version of Gaston's paper (version Jan. 22
    2004). A description of the method that was used to determine the
    bounds over which features are measured is given in section 3.2.

      Gaston worked with spectra that had good S/N ratios and the
    description given in section 3.2 might be sufficient for such spectra.
    The spectra with the lowest S/N ratio in Gaston's paper has a S/N
    ratio of 5. Gaston did not find any systematic effects when the
    S/N ratio of the best spectra were reduced to such a level. This is
    reasonable.

    However, such a S/N ratio is probably higher than S/N ratios of
    most of the high-z SNe in Gabriele's paper. Hence, it seems reasonable
    to ask Gabriele or Gaston to check for systematic errors when the
    S/N ratio is reduced to the levels that are typical for high z SNe.

    For such low S/N spectra, it would seem that some sort of rebinning is
    necessary before features can be identified and measured. Gaston, were
    the high-z spectra rebinned before the EWs were measured?

    Cheers, Chris.

    PS The last message in the e-mail archive is dated January 26th, 2004.
    This e-mail contained the minutes of a meeting we had on Gaston's paper
    and it contained suggestions on how the collaboration thought the paper
    could be improved. Gaston, let us know if you are still out there. I
    might send a search party to La Serena to find you :)

    On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 17:10, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
    > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:59:45AM -0800, Tony Spadafora wrote:
    > > I've put more time for the evolution paper because this paper has been
    > > before the collaboration since July. The discussion here should be to
    > > confirm that all issues have been resolved (e.g. the systematics of the
    > > equivalent width determination) and, if so, that a submission-candidate
    > > version should be finalized and submitted soon.
    >
    > For the record: I'm not convinced at all that the systematics in the EqW
    > determination are resolved. So far, all that's happened is that the
    > issue has been raised. More basically, the method for determining
    > them from noisy spectra needs to be documented in the paper; all that
    > Eric and I have heard so far is that "Gaston did it" is the method,
    > which obviously isn't something one writes in a published paper.
    >
    > Gaston probably really needs to be at this meeting since he is the one
    > who knows how the measurements were made.
    >
    > There's also the issue that this builds on the nearby EqW stuff that
    > Gaston has done. If *that* paper isn't published first, then that stuff
    > will need to get incorporated into this paper for this paper to make
    > sense.
    >
    > Please include Eric on mailings for this, since obvously he is involved
    > with this. Also please re-send the schedule so he gets it.
    >
    > -Rob

    -- 
    European Southern Observatory
    Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura
    Casilla 19001, Santiago 19
    CHILE
    

    Ph. +56 2 463 3106 FAX +56 2 463 3001



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Dec 19 2004 - 12:54:25 PST