From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 17:39:53 PST
Peter and I have classified the 41 SNe not counting 94H, which
Peter says has no chance of being a Ia. All we can do is do
the best job of classification we can -- what to include or not
in the paper is a separate issue. The classification issue is
much better than you make it out though . In fact, we almost
entirely agreed with what was in the IAU circulars, though
sometime we could do better than what was reported there with
better specta reductions or host galaxy types.
Note that I was fairly generous though.
I have put the SNe into 3 categories:
Definitive Ia (30): Meets one of the following criteria: See Si,
In E or S0 galaxy, good match to Ia spectrum, or in the
case of 1994F and 1994an, I am taking it on faith since they
were reported as a Ia in the circulars, but we don't have the
spectra.)
Probable Ia (5): No evidence for Si, but not terrible match to Ia spectrum
No idea (6): No spectrum, useless spectrum, or completely
indistinguishable from a Ib/c
Definitive Ia
1994F* 94361
1994an* 94264
1994am 94281
1995aw 9568
1995ar 9579
1995az 95103
1995ay 95104
1995ba 95110
1995ax 95126
1996ck 9617
1996cl 9621
1996cn 9626
1997i 970
1997h 971
1997g 972
1997f 974
1997j 975
1997l 976
1997n 9710
1997p 9738
1997s 9739
1997q 9742
1997r 9760
1997ac 9765
1997ai 9779
1997af 9781
1997ap 9784
1997am 9785
1997aj 9794
1996ci 969
Probable Ia
1995as 9569
1996cf 962
1996cg 963
1996cm 9624
1997o 9733
We don't know
1992bi 921
1994G 94351
1994al 94102
1995aq 9570
1995at 95116
1997k 9748
Saul Perlmutter wrote:
>Andy et al,
> Before you start doing this next bit of work, we probably have to think
>carefully about what supernovae we might decide to cut out at this stage of
>the SCP work. I don't think that this is the time to cut out every
>supernova that we cannot definitively prove is a Type Ia -- if we use
>strict enough cuts, we could then be talking about a sample of a dozen
>supernovae out of the 42+11 = 53 total. What I was suggesting in the
>meeting today is that we cut out ones that we are pretty sure are _not_ Type
>Ia. Obviously 94H is in this category (if I'm remembering the name
>correctly), but I was wondering if there are any others at this point that
>we think there is good reason to consider highly suspicious. (For this
>purpose, we should probably not count as suspicious a SN with an outlier
>magnitude -- that is what our outlier cut is for.)
>
> Does this sound right to everybody? --Saul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 17:40:13 PST