Re: Two thoughts:

From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 10:27:38 PDT

  • Next message: adam riess: "Re: The usual Monday phone conference -- how about ~4 PM Baltimore time?"

    ...We were considering asking Mobasher for fast-and-dirty photo-z's for
     
    -010 "star"
    -009 "AGN"
    -018 "CR enhanced"

    with the idea being that these would give us a little more confidence in
    our identification of what these events are.

    What do you think -- any reason not to, or any more like that to add?

    Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:

    >On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:44:21AM -0700, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
    >
    >
    >>1) Have you guys had a chance to check to see if the coordinates that
    >>Mobasher gave for the 0.48 galaxy might be consistant with the very
    >>small galaxy just to the left of our candidate (a few times further away
    >>than the distance between the two nucleii of our candidate's host?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >No. Mobasher's latest response wasn't too clear. I figure that for
    >this one, we can see what Adam's got, because he and Mobasher talked in
    >person and could make sure they were talking about the same object. If
    >Mobasher is on the phone, then, we can push him to make sure we've got
    >the right object.
    >
    >
    >
    >>2) Before we talk on the conference call, we probably want to be check
    >>again the few marginal candidates with about the right magnitude for z =
    >>1.2 -- 1.7 (perhaps ask Mobasher for a quick-and-dirty redshift?), just
    >>because we have so few candidates this time compared to last time -- and
    >>we would like to be sure that any good candidates that we consider
    >>following are on our list as well as theirs.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >We're working on confirming things.
    >
    >We went through everything, and the junk really is junk.
    >
    >-Rob
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 10:28:24 PDT