From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2004 - 11:01:03 PST
Hi Andy,
I checked when the reference and search data were taken for
S01-004. They were only 16 days apart and there is absolutely nothing
in the reference images. Hence the 1993J IIb ID is unlikely.
This one has gone back to "?" and it remains a mystery
Cheers, Chris.
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 18:23, Chris Lidman wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> Thanks for going through these doubtful cases. From the plots, I'd
> conclude the following
>
> S01-004 IIb? - I've cc'ed this e-mail to Rob as he may be able to tell
> us if this one was followed photometrically.
>
> S01-028 ? - classification unchanged
>
> C02-028 ? - classification unchanged
>
> SuF02-002 - classification unchanged
>
> Hence, with the possible exception of S01-004, the classifications
> remain unchanged.
>
> Cheers, Chris.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 17:53, Andy Howell wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > I have mande several improvements to my program recently, most notably
> > better outlier rejection and better handling of error spectra, so it
> > certainly is worth rerunning objects for which we have questions. In these
> > plots, blue is the rebinned spectrum after host galaxy subtraction
> > (usually 5 A binning for these plots), black is the low-z template, and
> > green is the original data.
> >
> > I have attached 5 postscript plots of the best fits to the 4 SNe you sent.
> > > S01-004 - currently classified as ?
> >
> > Rerun with no host. The fit here shows a comparison to SN 1993J at +17d
> > at z=0.41 (z is not known from the host). The fit isn't that bad. Do we
> > know the date our spectrum was taken with respect to maximum light? I'm
> > sure +17d is too late, but these IIb's have different features come in at
> > different times depending on the relative thicknesses of the H and He
> > envelopes. I wouldn't say that it is either a II or Ib for certain, but I
> > think it is unlikely that it is a Ia. How about (IIb?) for the
> > classification?
> >
> > > S01-028 - currently classified as ?
> > > Significant host contamination. The percentage increase is only 27%.
> > > Previously, we had this one as Ia?
> >
> > As you say, the host contamination is pretty bad. Here I show a
> > comparison to SN 1999ee (Ia) at -8d after subtraction of an SB6 host
> > galaxy. I find it very unconvincing. CaII should be obvious but is
> > not. Still "?" as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > > C02-028 - currently classified as ?
> > > Another one with significant host contamination. The percentage increase
> > > is only 13%.
> >
> > C02-028_spec.1.ps shows the comparison to SN 1999aa at -1d.
> > The blue side looks ok, and it is possible that the feature at 9000A is Si
> > 6150. The problem with this interpretation is that the SII "W" at rest
> > 5400A should be there, but it isn't! Neither is the "emission" (really
> > lack of absorption) just blueward of it at rest 5100A.
> >
> > C02-028_spec.18.ps shows a comparison to SN 1987K (II) at +7d after some
> > serious host galaxy subtraction and mangling of the color. I don't
> > believe it either, but it shows the difficulty in narrowing down the type.
> >
> > > SuF02-002 - currently classified as ?
> > > This one has some host contamination. Previously we had Ia?
> >
> > Ugh. This one is disgusting. About the only thing I can say is that it
> > is not inconsistent with a Ia. But on the other hand, there isn't
> > anything to make me believe it is a Ia either!
> >
> > -Andy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 11:01:44 PST