From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 20:27:46 PDT
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 08:25:15PM -0700, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> Hmm... As we suspected from the magnitudes, this looks like a rather
> low-redshift bunch! I'm disappointed that -011 didn't turn out to be
> higher redshift (at least z ~ 1.2), although I guess the photo-z is
> uncertain enough that it's just possible that it is.
Supernova colors and magnitudes are much more consistent with z=1.2 for
acs04b-011 than they are for anything at z=0.9. (Even a Ia at -8 days
rest frame at z=0.9, which would have the right z, would be bluer than
that.)
> And it looks like we only have two more tiles left to search. If this
> is all we have, then perhaps we should at least request the photo-z's
> for a couple of the unlikely ones, like -002, just for completeness.
> That way, if we by any chance resuscitate them, we won't have to ask
> Bahram for photo-z's in a big rush. Any other examples in this
> category? (No rush, since we probably want to wait for the last few
> tiles to be completed first, in any case.)
Rachel and I are in the middle of cleaning up a couple of those that had
I-band problems. If we can do this tomorrow morning (I predict that
Mobasher isn't going to do stuff over night anyway), we will have a
better sense of what is what.
Most everything down in the priority=1 list has a really low %INC, and
isn't something we're going to want to follow. We might do better by
asking for more detailed work on some of the prio 3's?
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 23 2004 - 20:28:30 PDT