SuF02-007

VLT Data files:

Date: 9 & 10 November 2002

Exposure time:

Data reduced by: Chris & Gaston

Note (Nov. 10): Very faint trace It is not clear why it is so much fainter than yesterday. The acquisition went smoothly and the seeing is only slightly poorer. The counts in the reference star is about a factor of two lower than yesterday. I do not think this data will be very useful.

z (gal):

z (SN): 1.54(?) or 1.3(??)

SN (Chris final reduction 2): [fits]

SN (Nov. 9 only, preliminary): [asc] [fits]

Line cleaned SN (Nov. 9, preliminary): [asc] [fits]

SN reduced with IR sky subtraction techniques (Nov. 9, preliminary): [asc] [fits]

SN (Nov. 9 & 10, preliminary): [asc] [fits]

Line cleaned SN (Nov. 9 & 10, preliminary): [asc] [fits]

Andy's fit (Nov. 9 & 10, preliminary) z=1.54: [z=1.54 ps]

Andy's fit (Nov. 9 & 10, preliminary) z=0.89: [z=0.89 ps]

Lifan's fit z=0.89 and z=1.18 (preliminary): [ps]

Comments:

Chris (preliminary, reduced normally): Looks very interesting, perhaps a Ia at z=1.3? or z=1.54. The latter looks better.

Chris (preliminary, reduced with IR sky subtraction techniques): No obvious galaxy lines. I still like z=1.54

Gaston (preliminary): Some wiggles, compatible with z~1.2 or z~0.9.

Andy (preliminary): I don't like z=1.54 -- see fit above. When z is unconstrained, my program likes z=0.89. See fit to 92A(Ia) -1d.

Peter (preliminary): No certain redshift and no SN spectrum. Conflicting reports of everything on this one. Works for HST observations but why do it???

Andy (preliminary): Uncertain redshift, uncertain ID. Hard to justify it.

Chris (Chris final reduction 2): I still think there is a SN in this one. The problem I have with this one is that I like z=1.54, which is nuts, but see the attached plot where I overplot Beethoven (2000fr) as if it were redshifted to z=1.54 onto a smoothed version of SuF02-007. Beethoven is in red. It is a pity there is no [OII] in this one.

Chris' Web Page

Gaston' Web Page

Tiles and Finders Directory

Preliminary light curve