Re: our supernova, acs04-076

From: Vallery Stanishev (vall@physto.se)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 02:08:32 PDT

  • Next message: Saul Perlmutter: "[Fwd: HST program 9727 plan window change notification]"

    Hello Lifan,

    Which images do you mean? Those I used for the "shift & add" (and the
    corresponding shifts)? If so, no problem. However, we don't have FTP
    server here. Perhaps I may copy the files on your FTP? Just tell me
    where....

    Cheers,
    Vallery

    Lifan Wang wrote:
    > Hi, Vallery,
    >
    > Can you make the raw stamp images together with the x,y offset
    > applied for the drizzle available ?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Lifan
    >
    > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Vallery Stanishev wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>I started working on the grism data. On the bottom of the Twikki page
    >>some figures can be seen. The SN is visible but the signal is very low
    >>and in addition the spectrum is heavily contaminated by the close bright
    >>galaxy. Have to find a way to get rid of it before any extraction of the
    >>spectrum is attempted.
    >>
    >>Another problem is that the direct image is too shalow and the position
    >>of the SN could not be accurately determined. This will affect the
    >>accuracy of the wavelength solution. I put some rough wavelength marks
    >>on one of the 2D images.
    >>
    >>On the third image (not directly visible from the page) are shown the
    >>output of Multidrizzle and simpe shift & add. They seem to be almost
    >>identical. The shifts for the "shift & add" image were determined from
    >>the 0th orders of 4 bright compact sourses on CCD2. The images were
    >>shifted by IRAF's IMSHIFT with frac. pixel shifts and interpolation type
    >>'drizzle[0.5]'. For the multidrizzle image shifts were not supplied and
    >>the info comes from the headers (for the moment). PIXFRAC and SCALE 1
    >>were used.
    >>
    >>
    >>Vallery
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Rachel A. Gibbons wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hi,
    >>>
    >>> Tony noticed that in my previous e-mail the days past discovery should
    >>>read
    >>>
    >>>1) 9 days (~3.5 rest frame days)
    >>>
    >>>2) 13 days (~5 rest frame days).
    >>>
    >>> However, my conclusions are based on the correct scaling. Also, to be
    >>>precise, the data are consistent with discovery at rest B max. Sorry for
    >>>any confusion.
    >>>
    >>>Rachel
    >>>
    >>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Rachel A. Gibbons wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hi everyone,
    >>>>
    >>>> It would appear our data are completely consistent with a supernova at
    >>>>z=1.6 which was discovered at rest-frame optical maximum.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's an update from the first round of follow-up ACS and NICMOS
    >>>>photometry :
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) The discovery z' magnitude was z'=25.1 and 12 days later z'=25.5.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) 16 days after discovery, the new J and H magnitudes are 24.37 and
    >>>>24.03.
    >>>>
    >>>> All mags quoted here are Vega.
    >>>>
    >>>> The remainder of the follow-up observations for this candidate will be
    >>>>in J & H and will extend through 23 May (yes, that's during the next
    >>>>search run).
    >>>>
    >>>> It's unfortunate we're following it on the decline, but it's looking
    >>>>good! Hooray!
    >>>>
    >>>>Rachel
    >>>>
    >>>>PS Sorry, no news yet to report on the grism data, except that we have it
    >>>> and they pointed HST at the right part of the sky.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >

    -- 
    ********************************************************
    Dr. Vallery Stanishev
    Stockholm University
    AlbaNova University Center
    FYSIKUM
    106 91 Stockholm
    SWEDEN
    

    tel: +46 8 55378731 fax: +46 8 55378601 vall@physto.se vall_1@yahoo.com ********************************************************



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 02:09:02 PDT