From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Dec 11 2003 - 21:08:23 PST
Hi Chris,
> I went through several reductions as I discovered better ways to reduce the data.
>
Yes, I did as well and can say my reductions are
also final.
> I do not know how up to date the data on the spectroscopic web page are, but you get
> the latest (and I am very much hoping final) reductions at
>
> http://www.sc.eso.org/~clidman/
OK, thanks very much. I'll have a look tomorrow.
For now, I've attached a plot that's been sitting on
my screen all day and I'm only now getting back to it!
I've compared Vallery's reduction of our data, which
reproduces my results from last summer very well. The
reductions for SuF02-012 look nearly spot on, but there are
some differences (in the noise however) between the
SuF02-060 reductions. I'm quite certain this is because the
extraction direction is well off (pixel) axis in this case,
and therefore differences are showing up in how the flux
from each pixel has been distributed over wavelength.
I'll look at the ground-based spectra in the morning
and provide that plot as well for completeness. And will
say at that point about Lifan's fits to the grism data.
More soon,
Rachel
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Chris Lidman wrote:
> Cheers, Chris.
>
> "Rachel G." wrote:
>
> > Thanks Vallery.
> >
> > Rachel
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Vallery Stanishev wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rachel,
> > >
> > >
> > > > Could you also tell me which ground-based spectra
> > > > you used? I'm pretty sure I don't have the best ones. Did
> > > > you get them from the spectral web pages?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I got them from the spectral web pages. For both SNe I took "Chris
> > > final reduction 2" of VLT. The GEMINI spectrum of SuF02-60 is "Line
> > > cleaned SN (Eric)".
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Vallery
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 11 2003 - 21:08:46 PST