From: Rachel A. Gibbons (ragibbons@lbl.gov)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 22:11:33 PDT
> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about those candidates with less
> than 20% increase. In Priority 1 there is only -002 worth rechecking.
> And I guess we could at least revisit the higher percent increase
> Priority 0's to be sure they are junk (perhaps by seeing if they also
> showed up in the I band image?)
>
> Ariel's scatter plot of expected discovery magnitudes does make -011
> quite consistent with anything below reshift 1.2, while his color
> scatter plot suggests that it is consistent with something between
> redshift 1.05 and 1.2. I wonder how much to believe the photo-z on
> this.
Yes, the photo-z distribution is broad with a lot of area in the >1.0
wing. I doubt Bahram would say the redshift was firm. However, the
mags+color mean z=1.2 is probably an upper limit on this one.
> Let's see where we stand tomorrow morning.
Goodnight.
Rachel
> Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >
> >
>
-- ------------------------------ 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 : Sun May 23 2004 - 22:12:16 PDT