From: Rachel A. Gibbons (ragibbons@lbl.gov)
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 18:43:03 PDT
Hi Tony,
So much for 2-3 hours...
This candidate was originally not saved as a refound candidate, hence
the new number. I think Natalia is saying is saying she's noticed it's an
old supernova and so for this search, the follow-up priority should be
VERY low.
For the purposes of showing Lou and Adam that we also refound this
candidate (they will have too), I'll go ahead and move it up to "3".
Rachel
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Tony Spadafora wrote:
> Hi Natalia et al,
>
> We may learn something from refinding the Apr candidates, so rather
> than labelling acs04b-016 as prior = -1 ("probably junk") we
> should collect these somewhere - maybe put it with -acs04-185 which
> Rachel found?
>
> By the way, it would be interesting if someone could see if we refind
> two April cands that were brighter than the above two:
> acs04-176 (z Apr = 23.7) (photo-z = 1.51)
> acs04-194 (z Apr = 24.4) (photo-z = 0.74
>
> -Tony
>
>
-- ------------------------------ Dr. R. A. Gibbons Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 1 Cyclotron Rd MS 50R5032 Berkeley, CA 94720-8160 USA Tel 510.486.7416 ------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 22 2004 - 18:43:45 PDT