C-WAYS Fall work - Revision history

Rebull at 23:54, 4 October 2012

2012-10-04T23:54:24Z

Rebull at 23:54, 4 October 2012

2012-10-04T23:54:01Z

Rebull: /* SED evaluation task */

2012-10-04T23:53:32Z

SED evaluation task

Rebull at 22:37, 4 October 2012

2012-10-04T22:37:08Z

Rebull at 17:10, 18 September 2012

2012-09-18T17:10:44Z

Rebull at 19:08, 14 September 2012

2012-09-14T19:08:14Z

Rebull at 22:57, 11 September 2012

2012-09-11T22:57:24Z

Rebull: /* SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12 */

2012-09-11T22:54:36Z

SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12

Rebull: /* SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12 */

2012-09-11T22:54:22Z

SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12

Rebull at 22:50, 11 September 2012

2012-09-11T22:50:21Z

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 Those of you who have already done the 11 training SEDs and feel like they want to dive in should feel free to do so, since now you have the updated information that came as a result of the image inspection.
-=Spitzer photometry task=
+=Spitzer photometry task -- DUE 10/25/12???=
 Remember that we have serendipitous Spitzer data all over this field. I could have sworn that I made this figure for you before, but it does not seem to be on the wiki, so here it is again. Background is WISE-1; polygons are the footprints of all the spitzer observations in this region.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 #then, once you have the SEDs (either as you go along, or once you have the whole set), set about interpreting them. see if you can look at them with a critical eye. which would you keep or drop? why?
-=SED evaluation task=
+=SED evaluation task - DUE 10/4/12=
 (for the actual files, which i don't want to post on the open internet, see Email from me from 14 Sep)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 My questions to you:
-#There are 301 sources. Should every team look at every one, e.g., do you want to be parcelled out a subset and do just some, or should everyone do all of them? Looking at each one should go a LOT faster than the finder chart or wise image inspection. Thoughts?
+#There are 301 sources. Should every team look at every one, e.g., do you want to be parcelled out a subset and do just some, or should everyone do all of them? Looking at each one should go a LOT faster than the finder chart or wise image inspection. Thoughts?  '''YES, EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK AT ALL OF THEM.'''
 # i think the google doc failed in a very specific way -- people DID overwrite cells they weren't supposed to overwrite. we don't want to lose information. so, my inclination is thus to suggest taht you fill out column P in the attached with, well, "your SED assessment" and then mail it back to me when you're done, regardless of the answer to question 1 above. I will then consolidate them back again into one big xls document.
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 Those of you who have already done the 11 training SEDs and feel like they want to dive in should feel free to do so, since now you have the updated information that came as a result of the image inspection.
 =Spitzer photometry task=

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 4 October 2012
Line 112:		Line 112:

	Some objects might come and go out of this list as we sort out the issues with the image inspection.		Some objects might come and go out of this list as we sort out the issues with the image inspection.
		+
		+	=Timelines=
		+
		+	Working backwards...
		+
		+	*Let's print by Dec 14. So, the text needs to be done by then.
		+	*We ought to be passing around the final thing for comments by Dec 7.
		+	*The writing ought to be started by Thanksgiving weekend, Nov 22.
		+	*All the final weeding needs to be done by Nov 15 so that we have a clean sample to write about.
		+	*So, all the final photometry from Spitzer needs to be done by Oct 25 or Nov 1 so that we can chase irregularities, recheck images, remake SEDs and weed.
		+	*So all the SED assessments need to be done ASAP

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 18 September 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:

	There seems to have been a lot of confusion about copying stuff back into the master spreadsheet. [[file:email20120910.txt]] - email from luisa		There seems to have been a lot of confusion about copying stuff back into the master spreadsheet. [[file:email20120910.txt]] - email from luisa
		+
		+	Email from Sep 14 included a 'final' file merging everyone's information and providing a 'final' verdict on every inspected item. Do NOT invest hours in trying to correct or backfill the assessments you're responsible for, because everyone made mistakes, I corrected them where I could, and where I couldn't, well, in any case, we've just moved forward from here. Outcome of this process was 301 sources, to be passed to SED assessment task, below.
		+

	=SED training task - given 9/6/12, due <strike>9/13/12</strike> 9/20/12=		=SED training task - given 9/6/12, due <strike>9/13/12</strike> 9/20/12=

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 There seems to have been a lot of confusion about copying stuff back into the master spreadsheet. [[file:email20120910.txt]] - email from luisa
-=SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12=
+=SED training task - given 9/6/12, due <strike>9/13/12</strike> 9/20/12=
 here is the list of SEDs to make more or less by hand.
@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 #make the SED. compare what you get to what i got, e.g., here: http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/rebull/working/pages/ if you click on the page with the numbers corresponding to any of the numbers above, then you can see my SED. did i do it right? did you get the same thing?
 #then, once you have the SEDs (either as you go along, or once you have the whole set), set about interpreting them. see if you can look at them with a critical eye. which would you keep or drop? why?
 =Spitzer photometry task=

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *not sure what to do re: optical data. do we have access to new data from HI (any of the telescopes)? or should we try PTF? or just go with what we have from last year as a place to start?
 * in any case, we need to get moving on the photometry on the spitzer images in the next 2-3 weeks.
 =SED task - given 9/6/12, due 9/13/12=

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 hopefully this will not be TOO painful. . . :)
-Clearer version of instructions: for these 11 sources, there are TWO things to do:
+'''Clearer(?) version of instructions:''' for these 11 sources, there are TWO things to do:
 #make the SED. compare what you get to what i got, e.g., here: http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/rebull/working/pages/ if you click on the page with the numbers corresponding to any of the numbers above, then you can see my SED. did i do it right? did you get the same thing?
 #then, once you have the SEDs (either as you go along, or once you have the whole set), set about interpreting them. see if you can look at them with a critical eye. which would you keep or drop? why?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 11 September 2012
Line 42:		Line 42:

	hopefully this will not be TOO painful. . . :)		hopefully this will not be TOO painful. . . :)
		+
		+	Clearer version of instructions: for these 11 sources, there are TWO things to do:
		+	#make the SED. compare what you get to what i got, e.g., here: http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/rebull/working/pages/ if you click on the page with the numbers corresponding to any of the numbers above, then you can see my SED. did i do it right? did you get the same thing?
		+	#then, once you have the SEDs (either as you go along, or once you have the whole set), set about interpreting them. see if you can look at them with a critical eye. which would you keep or drop? why?

	=Spitzer photometry task=		=Spitzer photometry task=

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 **glimpse39074304 = another GLIMPSE stripe, AORKEY=39074304
 *MIPS AORs
-**There are two AORs, 17512448 and 17511936. both of them have data obtained on the
+**There are two AORs, 17512448 and 17511936. both of them have data obtained on the target as specified ("prime") and data obtained serendipitously while the 70 um array was looking at the target as specified; these 24 um data are "nonprime". There are 4 possible mosaics you can use from these two AORs (two each, prime and non-prime). The notes file tells you which AORKEY and which mosaic (prime or non-prime).
 Some of these sources are measured in >1 mosaic. Formally, we should measure in all of them and then take a weighted average of these measurements. some of these are listed as being in the IRAC AOR xxx but in reality the object falls in only 1 or 2 of the channels, depending on where the object and serendipitous data happen to be.